PR FROM THE BEACH

It's NOT ok to feed the oglers

Long story short, the ladette website nzgirl has launched a 'campaign' purporting to 'raise awareness' for breast cancer, paying $1000 dollars per 50 photos of readers' breasts uploaded to their site.

Over the years we've had astroturfing, greenwashing, pinkwashing - and now we have boobwashing. The site claims it's all in a good cause. The site fails to say exactly which breast cancer charity they will be paying the money to. They also trumpet the fact, via Twitter and elsewhere, they have 'removed' advertising around the publication page. Yeah right. Big deal. It is still a cynical and distorted means to drive traffic to the site - the only 'awareness' raising being done here is for nzgirl, its website and the long-term ad rate it will be able to charge on the strength of distorted visitor numbers.

I've lost several nearest-and-dearest to breast cancer and currently count among my closest friends two survivors and one mid-fight.  I asked them - and those around them - what they thought of this slapstick and juvenile enterprise, thinking maybe it was just me, maybe I'd got a bit set in my ways. Their unanimous verdict was the same as mine - it is unethical, undignified and unacceptable.  

nzgirl has accused detractors and critics of being 'PC' - well yes, I am - Perfectly Cynical in my view of the means, motives and outcomes for this pathetically purile publicity promotion.

To me, it is sadly proof that the young and the bright among us can still manage to stoop to the nasty, tawdry 20th (even 19th) century Phineas T Barnum stunt school of cheap publicity.

nzgirl has succeeded in creating a circus today with the media as ringmaster and the unwitting - and probably well-meaning -  supporters the dancing bares.

In many ways, it's a sad indictment of our society. Long after the circus has left town, the oglers (probably the same ones who line the streets for the Boobs on Bikes debacle every year) will still be pushing up the visitor numbers at NZ Girl, which has effectively bought itself a peepshow for a few grand. New Zealand girls and women deserve better than this, as do all those who have and continue to battle this disease.

 

PS: I've come back to this post this evening, having read two other blog posts on the same subject. First from Lance Wiggs and second, via @CateOwen's tweet, some great observations from Boganette. Both well worth a read.

Beware the cloudy crisis

After a bit of a blogging break on here, it is quite amazing looking back over all that has happened in the last few weeks. Probably the event with the most impact on the majority of ordinary folk was the Icelandic volcano eruption - and it is one close to my heart at the moment as my young 'uns are off on their first solo to Europe.

My worry isn't for delays and cancellations. No. My concern lies with the decisions taken to fly through the ash cloud. I fully understand the commercial imperative and also the significant personal difficulty travel delays and disruptions cause (having been on the end of them many, many times in life).  However I think most would agree that a delay is better than a disaster. Wouldn't you? Yet this situation presents passengers - and society - with a real trust dilemma and that should be of concern to us all.

The aviation authorities suggest dangerous flying conditions still exist but are now frequently contradicted by the airlines who say no, it is all just fine. In this situation, who should we, as users, trust? Whose word carries more weight?  As a complete layperson in the science of it all, but a frequent traveller, my concern isn't the 'St Elmo's Fire' scenario, but the 'wear and tear' that will result from persistent ash cloud fly through.  I know how gravel roads, dust and grit affect my car, so, as a layperson, I guess that similar or greater damage will result on aircraft exposed to the volcanic ash over time.  Nobody seems to be commenting on this possibility, yet to me, it is a serious potential risk.

If this extreme wear and tear does take its toll, I wonder how the first airline to hit the ground will react? Without wishing to be a doom-monger, it is very scary stuff. A European plane falling out of the sky is more likely to land on a populated area which means we are not just looking at the loss of life on the plane, but on the ground as well. Surely gainsaying aviation authority advice is a gamble not just with an airline's reputation but with people's lives? Me, I'm with the aviation authorities - stay on the ground and eliminate the risk - no commercial profit is worth a single life lost or endangered. Let's hope the airlines keep thinking this one through with the public interest uppermost in their minds and stop downsizing the optimum particle size in order to upsize their profits.

NASA's New Year Shuttle Sale - a bargain at $28.2m

I have always known that if I ever won one of those huge lottery jackpots - you know the ones, they send everyone into a ticket buying frenzy - I would give most of the winnings away once the mortgage was paid and the kids looked after. After all, what would one do with all that cash?  But seeing the latest 'bargain' available from NASA, in the shape of the space shuttle, I would be sorely tempted to blow the whole lot. Trouble is, I would never get it on the drive.

The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence

This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.

Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'.  In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon.  But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak).  But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products? 

At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on.  A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.

I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley.  The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries  - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely).  There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.

Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.

I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked. 

Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.

Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.

Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.

When the Ghost in the Machine needs to back off

So this weekend Facebook decided that it would make some decisions on my behalf, selectively editing my friends' updates, information, quiz results, likes (but not dislikes as there is no button) et al. Today, Google launches social search so I can retrieve information from my public social graph that will take me one step nearer to the most recommended coffee shop this side of the CBD - but only if the Google machine considers it relevant based on decisions it has made about me - and you - as determined by our online profiles.

Marvellous isn't it. Clever almost beyond words. Deeply impressed that they can mine the data so efficiently. But one major thing has slipped the minds of the great and good - I don't want them editing my information or the news that comes to me, be it social news, mainstream news or an update from my Great Aunt Edy (if I had such a relative).  We had enough 'editing' of information during the reign of mass media. Information was power and selective distribution fed the hierarchical business models that have been collapsing around our ears the last year or two.

I am more than happy for them to find the information - but deliver it whole, unaltered, unchanged. Let me decide. The kind of selective editing currently being proffered is not about being a helpful 'free' service provider. It is about behavioural control, social selection for influence and steering users towards content that will power advertising revenue and stimulate a little mouse action. Methinks it is time to make sure that today's ghosts in the machine don't surreptitiously remove  the 'social' from social media and replace it with 'remote control'.

That marvellous Orwellian phrase 'Big Brother is Watching You' is now surpassed. Great Google and Fearsome Facebook will simply tell you what they think you should know.

Where is the Chorus of Disapproval?

Well I for one was staggered at the news that Chorus engineers are likely to be turned from employees to owner operators. In the much vaunted 'current climate' isn't it a bit thick to be turning long-standing employees out into the cold to survive on their own? Particularly as these are the very employees who are supposed to be key players in the creation the new infrastructure that will power our 'knowledge-led digital economy'.  The opportunities to train apprentices will be diminished; those who sign on to be owner-operators will be spending time learning to be small business people rather than getting on with the engineering work and as for the rest of us? We won't benefit from better prices or service or infrastructure. No. The company Chorus has 'subbed' the contract to will simply make bigger profits at our expense and at the expense of their workforce. Shame on them.

Don't worry about owning social media - just defend it

There is a blog post today from Text 100 about 'who owns social media', which came to my notice via @creoceo.  In this case, they suggest this 'duel' is between public relations and advertising. Personally, I think they might just have too much time on their hands. This week we remember those who died in Tiananmen Square. A week in which China was so keen to minimise global and domestic memories of this protest and the subsequent slaughter they snuffed out access to social media channels like Twitter and others. Given this situation, surely to goodness any social media discussion should be revolving around something more productive than 20th century-style turf wars?

For more years than I care to remember I have been trotting round various countries helping public relations practitioners and others understand and come to grips with the disruptive technologies that make up the social media environment. Every time I advise them that as practitioners, we are the navigators in this environment, working alongside those we are helping to build the relationships they need to operate. We need to understand the channels, know how to work them, understand when and why to engage with them - and it is vital to our work that we do this. But I don't own social media - nor would I want to. I am far more interested in it remaining a suite of unfiltered, direct, open access channels that allow me to listen, engage, act and build with those communities I work with and alongside.

What I have become passionately concerned about is the lengths that some are going to in order to block access to the channels, or disrupt them, or switch them on and off according to political whim. This is of great concern and, I believe, should be the burning discussion among practitioners - not 'who owns it, ads or PR' - what a very old fashioned discussion!

Twenty years ago, a student jumped the barriers in Tiananmen Square and tried to stop a line of tanks. He stood, bravely and passionately, for free speech and, momentarily, for freedom itself. The world seemingly chose to ignore China's actions that day - or at least, let them get away with it. It would seem that 20 years on, the actions taken to curb, restrict and crush free speech, this time on the internet rather than the streets, have also been ignored.

For all those social media advocates out there - these actions are ignored at our collective peril. If access can be turned off and on by political whim, who really gives two hoots about who *owns* something that by its very nature is unable to be possessed. Our concern will be that we can no longer access, connect or share with each other. That to me, is of considerable significance. Discuss.

Expenses error? Pah! Clapham Omnibus Man would be in Clink!

Politicians in the UK have been in the spotlight for the last week or two after revelations concerning the abuse of expense accounts. Seems like most of them have been 'at it' and the original protestations centred around the whole affair being 'a problem with the system' and 'the system needs overhauling'. Well I'm sorry, but no system includes claiming expenses on something that is already paid off and I can't believe that anyone with a real sense of public duty would for one moment imagine that this or some of the expenses claimed were legitimate.

Had any ordinary citizens - the Man on the Clapham Omnibus for example - made such claims they would have been banged up for fraud. And how on earth did these expenses get past the Inland Revenue? Ordinary employees face reels of red tape when it comes to 'perks', 'expenses', or 'company benefits' with the laws on company cars a classic example.  How the MPs have got away with it all this time is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the real perk of being a British MP is that you can blatantly circumvent the laws that govern everyone else?

Stephen Fry made some good points about the media coverage of the scandal when he was interviewed for Newsnight but even though I agreed with his observations on journalists' inclinations when it came to their expenses, MPs are servants of the public and as such should always remember the money they have to spend - or claim - comes from the hard work of others via their taxes. Something is rotten in the State of Britain - and requires some urgent sorting out.

The Ice-Melt Cometh

If you haven't caught the ice shelf melt in Antarctica, then check out this report from the BBC. Winter draws on here in the South, but things are definitely warming up where they shouldn't be. For a flyover of the shelf, look here and the 'collapse' report is recorded here. Magnificent indicators of things to come?

All eyes on the skies as the hunt for a 'New Earth' begins

In case you've missed it, the Kepler Mission is scheduled to launch today. And in case that is lost on you as well, Kepler is on the hunt for habitable planets. Much has been made of the possibility that a new 'Earth' will be discovered as this first ever mission capable of unearthing 'Earth' size planets takes off for the great beyond.

I will never cease to marvel that humans have the ability to remove themselves from this planet and head off looking for new ones. As Orion wheels overhead through our long summer here and Betelgeuse blinks its way into the evening, I find myself regularly watching for the space station to pass by - awestruck that someone is up there, possibly having a cup of space tea and a ship's biscuit after a hard day at the control panel.

People can do such great things. Our collective human tragedy is that we can't seem to harness the brilliance and ingenuity we possess to bring peace and prosperity to this Earth, which, for the moment at least, is the only one we've got.