Archives for the month of: July, 2010

Why We Shouldn’t ScapeGoat BP’s CEO

By Oliver Conner
July 28, 2010 //
0

America has been demanding the head of BP – and now they have got it.

Following political indignation in the White House, the British BP CEO Tony Haywood has been replaced by an American, the first non-British CEO the company has had.

This has come after an intensive media campaign focused on Haywood as the evil face of the catastrophe. The American Press has particularly focused on Haywood as the man responsible.

The removal of Haywood is an effective PR strategy by BP, and one that was needed following Haywood’s disastrous public image.

He has made some ridiculous statements and gaffes that could be interpreted as insensitive. Spending millions on advertising and complaining about how he has personally suffered becuase of the spill has made him “the most hated and most clueless man in America”.

I’m sure that he has been under a lot of pleasure and made some stupid mistakes. But his speciality is clearly in geology, not public relations.

But this American tendency to focus blame on one person rather than address the larger issues is dangerous.

Scapegoating Hayward has meant that the media has been able to keep the story going and also provide BP with an easy way out.

Of course – the real responsibility lies with everyone’s unstoppable need for oil, the business sectors unquenchable thirst for fast profits and all of the worlds  governments slow approach to environmental issues.

But the apparatus put in place by the government, media and business sector insists that we finish this story with a simple conclusion – the bad guy has had his comeuppance.

The media is still clinging on to his large payoff, and I’m sure he will be used as the focus of the oil spill for a while longer.

But an environmental disaster story like this needs to extend far beyond a simple ending. It needs to interrogate all the reasons why this happens, and not focus on a single villain.

Tags ,
Categories Uncategorized

Why Does Facebook Get Such Bad Publicity?

By Oliver Conner
July 17, 2010 //
0

The other day, whilst watching the BBC news, I was surprised that the Raoul Moat story was still rumbling on – almost 2 weeks after the man murdered one person and shot another.

It was slotted into the second place of the days main bulletin, narrowly being beaten by the oil spill. It seems that a few idiots had decided to declare Moat a legend and celebrate his stupid actions.

But what made this story even more sensational, and newsworthy, was the “Facebook angle”. Because this wave of public support was aided and abetted by the notorious Facebook (that website that lures foxes into your house and gives babies anthrax) the social networking site was pictured throughout the news bulletin – flashing up between pictures of misery and woe.

The website gets this all the time.

I just thought I’d whack “Facebook” into Google news and – hey presto – there it is. This time it’s the Guardian website (you see – they don’t know better) reporting that Raoul Moat’s brother is opposed to the Facebook fan page (great – I really needed to know that).

I also happened to flick through today’s Daily Mirror and found a whole page covering a horrific and brutal attack on some poor guy following an argument.

Of course – the description of the attack is not enough for the newspaper (this stuff, unfortunately, happens all the time). The argument had occured on Facebook – Bang! The Facebook angle! The evil social network even features in the headline.

The Sun is especially thorough in it’s campaign to smear Facebook with as much scandal as possible. In a quick search of the newspapers website -Facebook is connected to terrorism, child kidnap, murder, rape, harassment, child cruelty, infidelity and much much more.

In fairness I did find one story with a positive angle, about someone finding their father. But it really was just the one!

Of course, because the owner of the Sun is Rupert Murdoch – who owns rival social networking site MySpace – it would appear that the paper has a business agenda to push. And it doesn’t even try to disguise it!

A search for “Myspace” yields nothing but positive stories. Everything from the great music it hosts to it’s enormous growth and powerful campiagns for justice. My favourite is the story that runs ‘MYSPACE has banned 90,000 sex offenders from its site – but the pervs may be turning to rival Facebook.’

I’m not really surprised that Murdoch owned papers continually attack Facebook. But the fact that news organizations like the Guardian and the BBC seem to have followed the trend worries me. It is really no longer news that EVERYONE uses Facebook for hundreds of different things – even naughty things. Maybe we should give Facebook a break?

Tags , , ,
Categories Uncategorized

Online Co-Creative Research

By Oliver Conner
July 11, 2010 //
0

graphAccording to a study by Darren Lewis & Koen van der Wal, ”Co-Creative” is expected to be one of the key buzz words of this year. A term refreshed as a result of web 2.0 technologies, it means that internet communication channels have created an environment where providers and clients are working closer.

Customers are more informed, knowledgable and are able to instantly access the reactions of others; all of which contribute to the creation of a sharp, insightful and increasingly valuable customer.

Using techniques involving crowdsourcing and community, customers are actively involved in the shaping of products and services. This improves customer loyalty, improves the creative process and helps satisfy the demands of a more innovation-thirsty customer.

The effect of co-creativity on research is potentially vast. The web is quickly becoming the standard platform for research due to its speed, ubiquity and interactive sophistication. Communities are rising on the internet as people find it easier to find others that share their interests. These communities can be observed, analyised and communicated with easily, and their views and opinions researched.

And it is emerging that these communities are not driven by financial reward. People are eager to voice their opinions and willing to contribute – if they are given the chance. The web has already had huge success in harnessing the power of the crowd using crowd-sourcing.

The combination of co-creativity with new and exciting research possibilites is leading to the advent of “online co-creative research”. This is the amalgamation of qualitative and quantitative methods into a research method that can back up insightful research with representative demographic numbers. And the great thing about this relationship is that this research is fast and caters for the evolving environment we now find ourselves in.

Correctly encouraged, and properly listened to, we can really engage with others and see a massive increase of the value of online communities.

Tags
Categories Uncategorized

The Novel and the Internet

By Oliver Conner
July 6, 2010 //
2

Is the novel dead? According to the American critic Lee Siegel the answer is a clear yes. People are just not interested in fiction anymore.

According to Siegel, the novel does not fit into the fabric of todays world – it is “culturally irrelevant”.

However, non-fiction is booming! It is the new top source for creative, perceptive and provocative reading.

Apparently the novel has fallen victim to the commercial world – it is  a commodity that must be created only to serve the publishing industry. Consumers have tired of the elite position literary fiction once held and refuse to hold it with such high regard.

This is not the first time the novel has recieved a death sentence. It seems to be a bit of a recurring theme.

In the later part of the 20th century the British novel was diagnosed as dying for several reasons.

All the novelty of the novel had been explored by the great modernist masters, the scale and inhumanity of the second world war had rendered the world unrepresentable and more people were turning to the entertainment of radio and television.

But the novel responded – British novelists found a new post-modern way of representing reality. Fiction began to interrogate old ideas of history, toying with values which had long carried strong authority.

Voices began shouting from the old British colonies, and the idea of Britishness and identity were looked at through new lenses.

The result has been an abundance of great contemporary British novels.

So the question now is – how will the novel escape the hangman’s noose this time around?

One particular response of the British novel during the end of last century was to investigate the previously neglected genres of fiction. Detective stories and action adventure tales were reassessed and valued as new tools to explore the world.

Today, one genre of fiction that deserves particular attention is science-fiction. There is no form of fiction better suited to help us make sense of this world of accelerating change.

We live in a world of genetic experimentation, artificial reality and instant communication. What was previously in the imagination of science fiction is now all around us.

We are also surrounded by new forms of power. Covert cameras register our every move; privacy is intruded upon by internet corporations; vast databases categorise every aspect of our life.

The science fiction novel is the perfect cauldron to experiment with new forms of expression in our internet age. It can help us to look at the advances of our civilisation through a literary lens.

Only then can we truly make sense of our environment and ask the question – is the internet a revolutionary new freedom – or is it a new mind forged manacle.

Tags , ,
Categories Uncategorized

The Times Paywall: Commercial Revolution or Internet Fail

By Oliver Conner
July 5, 2010 //
1

For anyone involved in the production of news there is one news story that is commanding a lot of attention. The Times newspaper have erected their internet paywall – and news organisations are all on the edge of their seats waiting for the result.

As newspapers look for ways to monetize their online content, has the Times found a way to tap into the wallets of the British public? Or have they tried to stop a drought by blocking the water supply?

The statistics aren’t looking too encouraging for News International – traffic has inevitably gone down and more people are heading over to rival newspapers. For the first time ever the Independent news website has received more hits than the Times. Furthermore, the people that have decided to pay for access aren’t spending as much time on the website as usual.

However, there is another way of looking at the paywall.

A poll conducted by Harris, which investigated who would and who wouldn’t pay for Times content, has been mapped against newspaper website traffic figures provided by ABC. If looked at optimistically, the results show that charging for content could halve the newspapers annual loss.

This could point to a defining moment that will fire up a commercial revolution for the business of news.

But if looked at pessimistically then the numbers don’t add up.

That’s the view expressed by social media guru Clay Shirky in an interview with the Guardian. Shirky goes on to argue that News International and Rupert Murdoch are going to fail because they are only interested in providing news to their “customers” – instead of the public as a whole.

Murdoch’s view is opposed to the ethos of the internet – an ethos of  community, creativity and freedom.

There is no way to be sure which way it will go – but I think the paywall will fail.

Why pay when it is free elsewhere? If every news organization had began charging for access together then it might have worked – but going it alone has only given the Times a disadvantage over the other players in the game.

And, to the consumer, this paywall shows that News International only care about money – something that others have taken efforts to prove they are not.

The Guardian has clearly outlined that they have no intention of charging for content. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger supports free news and sets his newspapers agenda in opposition to that of the Times. He argues that it may make sense from a business perspective to charge for content, but not from an editorial perspective. Because of this ideological difference there will always be quality free content available as an alternative.

But what I see as the major mistake the Times has made is blocking its content from being discoverable by Google. Cutting its links to the larger conversation of where the internet revolution is heading will hinder the Times ability to grow. They will remain a quiet voice on the sidelines of big news invents.

Or maybe this is the begining of the end for the free internet – and a successful commercial model will force others to follow.

The way this is shaping up suggests that an ideological battle is about to commence. A free and open internet against a charged and closed one. I know what side I am on.

Tags , , ,
Categories Uncategorized
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.