Alex Hardy

A new website has been set up called The Blog Council. In the words of the site:

The Blog Council is the community for large companies’ blogs. It is a private group for this unique group of bloggers to share best practices and new ideas.

The response has been mixed. Greg Storey is right to question the wisdom of discussing an inherently public medium in private, but I think it’s a positive step.

If you blog about your cat that’s fine, but speaking on a professional level makes matters more complicated. You should maintain a dignified and constructive tone even if you only represent yourself. It’s not beneficial to rubbish others. It’s downright foolish to say disparaging things about your colleagues or company if you wish to remain employed now and in future.

I don’t speak for the Foundry, but I have a responsibility to them. As I show their work in my portfolio I am obliged to present it in an appropriate way. I should answer or refer questions, criticisms or employment inquiries that come to me. I should promote their work and activities in an honest way.

Working for a company whose sole preoccupation is the building of brands, I cannot ignore the marketing implications. The only thing more frightening to companies than being seen as behind the times would be to embarrass themselves. Sony have been busted time and again for trying to create artificial buzz around their products. Instead of improving your image, you earn widespread ridicule.

The internet alters the consumer’s relationship with the brand. The aspirational values (e.g. youth, cool, affluence, sexiness etc) that money and time have been spent to cultivate meet the reality of what people think of the company behind it.

Brand perception can no longer be just pushed at the audience through advertising channels when a bad review can sabotage a purchasing decision. This puts pressure on companies to be less aloof. You can’t silence public opinion, but you can change it by listening and improving your products, services and message.

If you blog directly on your company’s behalf, your responsibility is crucially important. You are an ambassador for your company. There are already good examples to be found: The IEBlog is candid, constructive and has engaged with high profile community members such as Molly Holzschlag.

I would hope that these private sessions will be few, and part of a first stage where the members of this new community compare notes before they open themselves out. Some things you can only learn how to do by doing them.

When I saw this quote by Steve Jobs at this week’s London event I had a flashback:

The [iPhone] camera is great. More megapixels don’t make a better camera, the iPhone is actually a great camera especially with great lighting.

Oh good I thought… It’s back to the PowerPC vs x86 days and the megahertz myth. Here’s the problem: I concede the above remark is true, if evasive. All the pixels in the world evidently don’t help most camera phones take a decent picture when the subject is in motion or poor light.

… But it’s not about what a few know, is it? It’s about what most people believe, and the MHz argument pretty much fell on deaf ears in 2001. Simply put, people expect that the numbers marketed to them mean something, and bigger = better.

What’s more, when I had a play with an iPhone recently I thought the camera was poor. Laggy, awkward to use (because of the software trigger on the touch screen). No flash (so “great lighting” might be hard to find – forget about taking it to a gig).

What it needs is a campaign of proving its quality by direct comparison, and upgrade the sensor to satisfy the uneducated consumer. iPhone is expensive compared to a Nokia N95 (£360 dearer over 18 months), and only looks tempting if you consider it a worthy replacement for your phone, iPod and digital camera.

At the moment, it’s two out of three at best.

Ian and I attended a seminar by Blue Skies at Dukes 92 in Manchester last week. Dubbed “the impact of social networking”, the event was summed up like so:

Socialised media such as blogs, wikis and photo-sharing sites have moved far beyond simply a meeting place for techies or a posting board for complaints. It is now a way of reaching key demographics… This brave new world will impact all businesses. Topics will include:

• What the new online universe looks like
• Spheres of influence and shifts in trust
• Changing communication channels
• Future opportunities

Interesting stuff on paper. It must be said however that the presentation wasn’t what we hoped. We expected case studies of how brands had successfully engaged with individuals and communities like MySpace and Facebook to improve their public image and inform product development. Those answers were not forthcoming.

We got a wandering history of how social networking sites have appeared and the potential impact on (the assumed audience) the PR professional. An impact which they went on to say, we may all simply choose to ignore.

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

The essential message was that it’s all business-as-usual for PR agencies. Their job is still to target their messages to a core of “opinion leaders”. The only difference is who those people may be. The position of trust held by political leaders, celebrities and journalists is being encroached on by the blogger, the Amazon reviewer etc.

I agreed that monitoring discussion on the web and reporting is a PR function. It’s comparable to the current practice of gathering press cuttings. I don’t agree with their definition of “community marketing”. This is a term that I have heard before, and what it means seems to depend on who you ask.

The seminar would have it mean marketing to communities, but I think it should mean being a member of communities, inhabiting and supporting the markets you wish to serve. In the hope of generating sales of course, but also to create an enduring relationship with your customers.

I can produce a case in point from my own site. When Photoshop Product Manager John Nack commented on a post of mine I was both surprised and impressed. I was pleased that an ambassador of a huge company had taken the trouble to personally address my questions. This did more to raise my opinion of Adobe than anything they’ve done for many years.

Truth is, it’s absurd to think that you can manufacture community. People make a community. You can build it, but they will not necessarily come. If you censor it, or assault people with sales messages your efforts will fail.

Seek your customers out where they are. Break down the walls between the product makers and users. Allow your people to talk frankly (under disclaimer if you must). Take criticism on the chin, rather than denying it exists. Answer questions. Listen to requests, even if you don’t act on them. Use this to drive your product development. Rinse. Repeat.

This isn’t PR, this is customer service

This is how you benefit from the Internet, which was always one big social network. This isn’t PR, this is customer service. In this day and age, I think most would agree that personal service is the weakest link. I’m in the habit of Googling a company before I enter into any kind of long term commitment. The difference can be startling.

It will be amusing to see whether Blue Skies respond to this post

I’ve been thinking about why the BBC’s iPlayer is so irksome.

It isn’t so much that a lot of the content will originate on Macs, but they apparently can’t be bothered to make it available unless you’re on Windows. Or even that despite the irony, they are jumping on the (rather tired) ‘i’ prefix bandwagon to imply modernity…

I think it comes down to branding.

One of the functions of branding is to establish “brand values.” Human values that is (such as caring, cool or sex-appeal), to confer upon a company or product. The desired effect is that we will identify with these values and aspire to attain them, buying the product in pursuit of that goal.

It’s in our nature to anthropomorphise. We ascribe human personalities to everything from companies to our pets, our cars, to even the frost on our windows. But there lies the rub – when a company presents itself to us with human values we treat it as such. If they go on to fail to meet our expectations, or otherwise behave in a way that is inconsistent with character, we feel it as a human betrayal.

I’m a child of the 80s, so I remember when the BBC was channels one and two (of four) on my parent’s telly, and a handful of radio stations. No BBC3, no BBCi, no podcasts. I imagine the BBC as a faithful old civil servant, tirelessly creating news programs, documentaries, great childrens’ shows etc.

When I read a story on the BBC’s website with sloppy journalism, when I see an advert for a program I fancy only to find it’s on a BBC channel I don’t have, it annoys me. When I read that an exciting new service won’t work on my modern computer and broadband internet connection, I’m pissed off.

I gladly pay my license fee. I’m working my way through the Planet Earth series on DVD at the moment. It’s a masterpiece, the likes of which commercial stations will probably never produce because there’s more money in “Extreme Celebrity Self-Degredation 2007”. The BBC is a great asset to this country but one that we are made to pay for, in a manner comparable to paying council tax.

I expect access to every part of it, but if that doesn’t happen it will only be the latest let-down.

Funny. Probably not work safe.

I used to regularly buy a few magazines and when I was in college I bought them from a particular newsagent - a small shop run by a bloke called Jerry. This shop didn’t have the widest selection in the world but it did have Edge, in addition to something else: a personal relationship with the owner.

I would go in and know that a copy of the magazine I wanted was already put aside for me. I’d stick around for a moment and have a chat. He’d ask after my mum, who also went there to buy a newspaper. On many occasions I would find myself in the W.H. Smiths on the other side of the town square and notice that the new issue was on the shelf. I’d leave the shop and walk across the square because my magazine-buying money was for Jerry.

I wonder to myself as my own project develops in my mind: can that kind of relationship with your users be cultivated in a website? Is the playing field *really* leveled for the little guy on the Internet? I’ve neither the resources nor the desire to achieve Global Mega Corp Inc status, but I suspect there are more rewarding ways than that.

I’ve got some ideas up my sleeve.

I’ve been thinking about how best to phase development. Often clients want a project kept tightly under wraps, so that they can do a big “Ta-Dah!” when they’re ready to go live. The Monty site instead went through a process of pre-solicitation before the site went live.

The motivation for secrecy is obvious: to launch with a bang and to minimise the possibility of being copied. Fact is though, if your idea is any good then someone else has probably already had a similar idea - even if they’ve never seen yours. Competition is inevitable and a product will succeed because it’s seen as superior to its rivals, not because it has none. In fact, if you’re operating in completely uncharted territory you’re likely to have a harder time of convincing people that they need your product at all.

The freelance projects for which I have access to web stats have one thing in common. Although they’re ticking over very well, it took about six months before the internet in general really noticed their existence.

The only thing you achieve by being coy about your product is that you set your SEO/SEM, promotional activities and general public awareness back by six months to a year.

Once the design for the site is nailed and I start development work in earnest, I’ll put up a teaser site. It will describe (in broad strokes) what the site is and who it’s for. I’ll also invite people to register their interest to take part in a short testing phase and to be notified when it launches.

After that, the hard work really starts

One of the best things that’s come out of starting a blog and a project of my own, is that I’ve started to take an wider interest in matters related to the development of a worthwhile service. One such area is marketing - something I’ve typically regarded with an element of distaste, despite working in an industry that’s all about brand perception.

What I, in my uneducated view, see as throwing lots of mud and seeing what sticks isn’t what I want to do. That way is talking at the user, rather than with them.

My NetNewsWire is becoming very busy of late! I’ve recently discovered writers Seth Godin and Tara Hunt.

Some of their writings that may be of interest:

Seth Godin

Seth’s Blog - personal blog

How to get referrals
“First, marketers often forget to look at this from the consumer’s point of view. Why on earth should I give you a referral? Yes, I know it’s important to you, but why is it important to me?”

Tara Hunt

HorsePigCow - personal blog

Why 50% isn’t good enough - a Vitamin article
“Today’s smart businesses can build stronger relationships with customers by unlocking the potential of communities…”

The rules of engagement - a Vitamin article
“Be involved in your community and transform everything from the quality of your product to the audience it receives…”

I’m not about to reduce this blog to a collection of links, but I’m going to add a category for writers whose feeds I regularly read.

This PR business is going to be more complicated than I imagined. I’m going to have to think long and hard about core values, points of differentiation and which specific part of the site’s intended audience is going to be most important.

I think those things are there, but I need to clarify them for myself before I can articulate them to anybody else.