LEWIS 360°

Foursquare vs. Facebook Places

Facebook’s first location based service Places officially launched last week. Some are dubbing this newest offering from the Palo Alto based social network behemoth “The Foursquare killer” which is understandable given the similarities between the two. Both services use web and mobile apps that allow users to broadcast their locations through geo-targeting.  

However similar the two may be there are major differences. For example, Facebook Places is Anarchy; there are no Mayors. Unlike other geo-targeting sites like Foursquare or Gowalla there are no incentives for users to “check in”.  There are no awards, no mayors, no frills. The only added value of “checking in” on Facebook Places is simply sharing your location with friends.

Another huge difference is the way Facebook Places targets a location. This morning we unsuccessfully attempted to add LEWIS PR as a location on Facebook Places using the mobile app. Thanks to a GPS fail, Facebook Places now has LEWIS PR located about three blocks south of our actual location. Unlike Foursquare, which has a location field that allows users to manually add an address to accurately pinpoint a location, Facebook Places relies solely on the mobile devices GPS to find your location for you.

We conducted an internal survey to find out what LEWIS employees thought about Facebook Places VS. Foursquare.  We posed the question, Will you ditch Foursquare for Facebook Places. Here are the results:

 

What do all of you think, will you use Facebook Places more often than other services?

Mixin' it up with media in SF

We hosted our first Media Mixer in San Francisco this week and the night was a flurry of margaritas, Mexican eats, and media mingling. Tres Agaves served as the backdrop for a lively gathering of LEWIS team members, local reporters and bloggers hailing from Wired.com, Ubergizmo, TIME, Technologizer, USA Today, PC World, VentureBeat, intomobile, Thomson Reuters, the Social Times, and damonbrown.net.

Much of the conversation centered around Facebook’s new ‘Places’ feature aka, ‘foursquare killer’, which was officially announced minutes before the event. Other topics of discussion included the fate of virtual worlds, online dating adventures, local startup lore, and, would it be a tech event without debating the ‘future of the media’?

While we may on occasion give each other a hard time, both PR and media benefit from knowing each other better and having a good rapport. And with LEWIS’ US headquarters’ proximity to so many of the best tech media, it only makes sense for us to get together and schmooze. All in all, the night was a success and we are already planning the next event. Next time we’ll just make sure and schedule it around Facebook’s development timeline.  

Thanks to Alastair Goldfisher for the great photos!

Is new regulation really making a difference?

The Basel Committee has launched a new initiative to raise the costs of complex debt securities and risky practices. Currently, every other story in the financial press appears to focus around new regulation.

While it’s reassuring to see regulators taking action, one cannot help but wonder if these latest actions will  make a difference to the activity that helped trigger off the global financial crisis. Take the case with Goldman Sachs, who recently agreed to waive tax deductions it could have claimed after paying a $550 million penalty in a settlement with the SEC, giving up as much as $187.5 million in savings.

In the settlement, Goldman’s agreed “it shall not claim, assert or apply for a tax deduction” for any penalty amounts. As a result, the global banking powerhouse will pay a $535 million civil penalty, which normally would be deductible, and give up $15 million in profits, which the company can still deduct.

Now they did "admit no wrongdoing" for purposes of putting off civil claims against them, however, it seems unseemly to allow them to atone for their sins with money and no moral admission of guilt. If it is their image that they seek to protect, why allow them to pay their way out - so people will trust them in the future? I think not.

After all, criminal defendants are required to admit guilt as a condition of their pleas and it may have therapeutic value as well. Maybe it is time for regulators to insist on a public admission of wrongdoing and the issuance of an apology in addition to the payment of money. Without this, they can tell themselves and others that nothing was proven, end result being that nothing happened. Could this really doom us and them to repeat performances that led to the financial crisis? We can only hope not.

Suffering from app overload? There's a Jag for that

Everyone's getting into the application game it appears. Who can blame them? Apps, as they are fondly called now, have turned the humble phone into so much more than a device for just calling people. They are the main reason why sales of the iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry and other smart phones have been nothing short of astronomical over last year. 

However, at what point do apps move on from helping you with everyday tasks to defining who you are? According to Jaguar, an app isn't about helping you with a specific task but more an extension of your lifestyle. From just looking at the company’s recently launched app called Driven Intelligence, Jaguar customers are avid cricket fans, interested in stocks and shares and read the Telegraph. Interestingly there's no functionality within the app that you can't get from other existing apps. The iPhone already comes preloaded with a stocks and shares app and there are hundreds of applications that provide news and sports updates.

But that isn't the point. Driven Intelligence is a prime example of how media organisations are working with brands to 'add value' for readers. The app developed in association with the Telegraph is another way of getting content into the hands of readers but more importantly readers with financial clout. With the debate about how newspapers address declining readerships and advertising revenues, this model represents the future of how advertisers could collaborate with newspapers. And with the chance to win tickets to a cricket match for just downloading the app, they might just have a hit on their hands.

Cameron is pro outsourcing – oh the irony!

It appears that our newly elected PM is “most open” to the idea of outsourcing. Hardly surprising, with the UK government expenditure currently at around £680 billion a year, of which only around £80 billion worth of activity is outsourced.

All well and good, but does this not slightly contradict his views on wanting the level of net non-EU immigration into the UK to come down to the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands? Cameron was giving his ‘special relationship’ pledge at the home of Infosys, one of India’s largest IT suppliers. Has he not realised that the entire global delivery model of companies such as Infosys is based on the fact that they have a mobile population which moves from India to countries like the UK? 

IT outsourcing (ITO) is the one industry in India that sends many of its employees to the UK to service clients. More than 180 Indian IT companies have invested in the U.K. Many of their workers largely depends on visas and if that visa in some form is constrained and starts getting difficult to obtain, then it becomes a major constraint for the whole ITO industry.

Anyway, given the Coalition’s immigration policy, I just thought it smacked of irony and a potential PR gaffe, given that the PM was speaking at the base of a company that sends its staff to the UK to service various clients.

Upsetting the apple cart of news

A strange thing happened last Friday. A seemingly innocuous retweet of mine elicited quite a strong reaction from several people in the media and PR business here in Australia.

The tweet in question points to this story out of the UK, which was the cause of the apparent consternation. Not the story itself, but the fact that LEWIS PR, as a public relations agency, had published it.

According to some, it seems we’re simply not allowed to do that. We’re a PR agency and we should stick to PR, apparently. The very fact we’d dared to publish our own story was described by one journalist as ‘truly awful’.

I’ve never been one to accept the status quo, which has admittedly over the years gotten me into some strife. My question here is this; Why on Earth CAN’T a PR agency publish their own news? And who says we can’t anyway? The Reportage Police? Hasn’t the web democratized information to the point where anyone, anywhere can report as they see fit? Not according to some.

It was suggested to me that LEWIS PR should not be reporting news because we don’t have the public interest at heart. This is true. However, we don’t claim to have the public interest at heart. We’re a PR agency and as such any news and information we publish will be in the direct interests of, or complimentary to the interests of our clients. We’re not purporting to be a source of independent news and information.

If I were especially cynical, I might also pose the question as to whether all media truly have the public interest at heart? A piece for another time though, perhaps.

The undertones of some of the commentary also suggested that news and information issued by a PR agency must instantly be regarded as suspect. Interestingly, not one comment was made about the validity of the story in question, or its journalistic merit.

To this point it is worth noting that the story has had tremendous pickup in the UK by both mainstream and technology media. Furthermore, LEWIS PR’s Clarence Mitchell, himself a former BBC reporter for 19 years, has been interviewed on the findings.

My view is that readers will draw their own conclusions about the legitimacy of a story and the credibility of its source. I understand entirely if a reader dismisses a story published by a PR agency, simply because they are a PR agency with an agenda. What irks me here however, is people objecting to the very act of a PR agency publishing their own story, as if this is some hallowed turf that has now been dirtied.

The question has also been asked as to why we would go about reporting news in this fashion. Well, the supporting quotes for the story are from… you guessed it! LEWIS PR clients. As I’ve indicated above, the story has had great traction in both mainstream and tech press, which the clients involved are of course most pleased about.

The role of public relations agencies has changed dramatically and will continue to do so. To those that expect us agencies to simply churn out mindless press releases and lay on swanky launches, I’m sorry, but those days are over.

Mind The Gap

Thanks to the London Undergound system there is a good reason why there are so many t-shirts on sale in London with the quote “Mind The Gap” on the chest. Indeed, these were among the first words I heard on my arrival in the British capital.

The robotic warning blares out at you at certain Tube stations urging you to tread carefully where there is a mini chasm between platform and train. It’s a warning that if heeded gets you to your destination in one piece, but if ignored, can land you in big trouble.

I normally work in the Belgian agency Leads United, which was acquired by LEWIS PR late last year. Thanks to the international structure of LEWIS PR, I have been given the opportunity of working alongside the London social media team of Eb Adeyeri (@eba) and Alex Clough (@alex_clough) during July and August.
 
It has been a great experience so far. I have participated in technology briefings, client meetings, and pitch preparations. One thing that strikes me is that British clients have exactly the same questions and needs with regards to social media as my Belgian clients. “How do we start?” “How do we demonstrate ROI?” “How can we keep in control?”
 
The good thing is that the answers are the same on both sides of the Channel. You start from your business objectives, and based on these you look for how social media can be of benefit to you. Your publics are currently using social media to talk about you, your products and your services. You are no longer in control. In fact, have you ever been?
 
However, clients asking for social media need to be fully informed of the possibilities but also of its possible limitations in achieving what they want. As practitioners, we need to honestly assess how – or even if it can help them.

Yes, clients want to board the social media train in increasing numbers to reach new goals and find new audiences. But we also have to advise them to tread carefully because a social media campaign which is not properly thought through can lead to a potentially damaging rift between expectation and reality. A real case of “Mind The Gap”.

The perils of the “personal” Tweet

Councillor John Dixon has become the latest victim of the personal Tweet this week.

Having posted a passing comment calling the church of scientology stupid, the Lib Dem councillor now faces an official enquiry for an apparent breach of the local authority code of conduct.

The since removed Tweet in question was: “I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

Dixon’s defense is a plausible one and he argues that the comments were intended purely in a personal rather than public capacity – but can private really be separated from public in such an open forum as Twitter?

Judging by the reaction to the Tweet it’s hard to tell. On one side there’s the heavy handed response from Cardiff council's standards and ethics committee. But overwhelming this is support of Dixon on Twitter, even leading to a hash tag #stupidscientology becoming a top trending topic yesterday.

Dixon’s response to the furore has been to set up a personal Twitter profile in addition to his more official, and somewhat restrained, account.                

So if residents of Cardiff want to hear the real views of their local councillor they should now follow @JohnLDixon, but if it’s the “safe” socially acceptable version they’re after they should look up @CllrJohnDixon.                                                

Funnily enough it’s Councillor Dixon who now appears to be lacking in followers, having been noticeably quieter than his more honest counterpart in recent weeks.

TAMESIDE CLOSES VIRTUAL DOORS

Tameside Council has scored something of an own goal with the revelation it spent £36,000 on the creation of a virtual town hall – only to scrap the initiative a year later.

 

The rationale, and quite valid in my opinion, was to create a town hall in Second Life to help engage hard-to-reach groups in the community. The Island also included a street of services, which tied back to its website on a variety of issues including fly-tipping and bin collection according to the Manchester Evening News.

It was Liam Billington [@liambillington], a regional blogger, who filed the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request that revealed how much Tameside had spent on establishing the Second Life Service.

The programme demonstrates a highly innovative approach to community engagement and shows the Tameside council has a good grasp of the fact that constituents, young and old, can and do interact with local services both online and offline.

However, details of the project have come to light at a time when councils are under immense pressure to cut spending. Perhaps in better economic conditions this project would have been applauded for its creativity and ingenuity.

Unfortunately that wasn’t the case and the fact the project was canned due to “a lack of measurable benefit” serves to highlight the importance of establishing at the outset of any project, especially social and digital initiatives, what success actually look’s like so that they can report back on value.

Online is far easier to measure than offline, and while no two organisation evaluate in the same way since they all have different channels, audiences, resources and levels of engagement.

The lesson here is to have in place metrics that can demonstrate value, and allow organisations to measure return-on-investment.

You can also read a statement issued by Tameside Council today in response to the FOI data here.

Why I support the Raoul Moat Fan Page...but won't be joining it

There is much soul-searching over the fact that Facebook fan pages dedicated to the memory of Raoul Moat are attracting thousands of followers.

As I write, nearly 37,000 apparently "like" the R.I,P Moat You Legend! page which contains such breath-taking shafts of online wisdom as to defy belief. 

One of the latest posts is from a Michelle Moran:

To a man i did not know rest in peace what happend on you was wrong and thay should all be ashamed of them selves thay push u over the egde and i was not fair rest in peaces Raoul Moat god bless u huni.

Forget the possibility that Michelle didn't do particularly well in English classes at school, the fact that someone like her could air such crass sentiments has outraged and bewildered millions of people who are horrified by what Moat did. Indeed, standing over somebody and blasting them three times in the head with a gun is not worthy of sympathy in any shape or form.

Apart from the clearly-misguided Michelles, some are clearly using the page to voice their anti-police or misogynist prejudices while others are clearly in wind-up mode. 

The authority that is Blue Slimrizla from West Swindon tells us:

Moat would rather die like a soldier than live like a coward!

But does this mean Facebook should shut down the page as some politicians and newspapers are now demanding?

Sure, the internet has given numbskulls like Michelle and Blue Rizla the opportunity to spout rubbish on a global scale which until it existed would have been confined to their hopefully small circles of friends. But it's an important principle that people like them have the right to demonstrate how ignorant they are.

There are many things I find offensive on the web - Katie Price's tweets, the vacuous utterings of Britney Spears or the BNP website - to name but a few. However, they, like the Moat groupies, are fully entitled to clog up cyberspace with moronic meanderings if they are not breaking any laws. We live in a democracy, the internet is an open forum and people are entitled to voice their opinions whether you or I believe they are muppets or not.

By all means let's expose the stupidity of their thoughts by challenging them but it's a dangerous game to start demanding that lawful freedom of expression is curbed. For every keyboard warrior hiding behind the anonymity of a ridiculous web moniker and posting claptrap, there is somebody with a valid opinion. If you start banning one, then how long is it before you ban the other? Does the Moat fan page therefore represent the beauty of the web? No. But the ugly, messy reality of communication and life in the 21st Century? Certainly.