(I know the site is still in a state but this is too important not to post quickly)
Now, here’s an interesting one, passed on to me by someone we shall call CIPRMole where basically the NLA (the Newspaper Licensing Association) want to charge organisations – starting with cuttings services then moving on to others by 2010 – for including links to newspaper stories:
The NLA has informed us that from 1 September 2009 it is introducing a new licence for web aggregator services (such as Meltwater News) that forward links to newspaper websites and for Press Cuttings Agencies undertaking this type of activity. From January 2010, the licence charges will also apply to PR practitioners and other organisations forwarding links to newspaper websites as part of their commercial activity. This will apply to almost all newspaper websites excluding News International titles and the FT.
I’ve dropped an email into the NLA, telling them about this blogpost and asking a few questions, but what I want to know is:
1) Are they targetting everyone with this? So every backlink to a paper is going to result in a charge?
2) Are they going to backdate the charging?
3) If they are only targetting companies and not individuals, why the discrimination?
4) How are they going to enforce this? Particularly on anonymous blogs or blogs hosted outside the UK?
5) Are they prepared to destroy the hits going to the newspaper websites while the BBC rakes in the hits?
6) Google Alerts and Google News are the biggest news aggregator that exist. Are they going after them or just small companies they think they have a chance of getting money from?
7) If they are collecting cash on behalf of the content generators – ie, the papers, will they put pressure on the papers to share that extra money with the original content generators – the news agencies and so on?
9) Do you accept that your actions may stop people linking to newspapers sites, therefore causing traffic to collapse, which could lead to more redundancies and potentially (when you factor in the decline of print editions) brands disappearing completely?
This idea smacks to me of the best of old-school thinking. I’m still processing it, so I’ll add more thoughts later, but I’d be interested in other people’s thoughts from both sides of the PR/Journalism debate as it affects everyone.
Tell you one thing, if it comes through I’d say to clients, to hell with going through NLA members, build your own networks, send your info out to interested parties and those that won’t cost you money. The more I look at this, the more it seems like the NLA wants to press fast forward on not only destroying print media but print media online too.
Mentioning this quickly for a mate. Despite the rumour that appeared on Facebook, Retrofest 2009 in Glasgow has not been cancelled and is going ahead as planned. I have this straight from the organisers.
I mean, how can we still have people not realising that what they post online will catch up with them in the real world?
(while on the note of social media, well done to the Daily Record for breaking the scoop online about Gordon Strachan resigning – even beating some Celtic diehards – on Twitter. I know some doubt the use of Twitter but things like this show the benefit – quick filing of copy to a mass audience and easily spread about. Well done there chaps)
Anyone wanting to head along should drop Kate a line – it’s a good thing she’s doing here. In her words: “Aimed at those who are relatively new to the industry – at account assistant or executive level – these informal monthly events are a chance to bulk up your contact book and discuss industry issues over wine and nibbles.”
Anyway, perhaps see you there. Failing that, I’m booked for a few more speaking engagements later in the year, details of which I’ll drop in nearer the time.
It was a harrowing tale of what children go through in the UK care system and was all the more painful for being told through a child’s point of view. (If you missed the show you can watch it here free until the middle of June.)
What was surprising though was that Nottinghamshire social services (and by extension, their bosses at Nottinghamshire County Council) don’t seem to have been ready for this coming. According to director (and Hollywood actress) Samantha Morton in an Independent interview:
And while Nottinghamshire County Council proved helpful, the county’s social services department were less amenable. “Nottinghamshire social services blocked every single meeting. I wasn’t allowed to talk to anybody. I said to them ‘talk to me… read the script… I want to get this right’. They said no. Staff were warned off. Once again it’s a culture of cover-up.”
In the end, Morton says, she didn’t require their assistance. “I didn’t need to do much research because I’m very much active in the care system. I work for a charity called A National Voice (for children in care) and I’m an ambassador for Save the Children. I also have lots of friends who are residential social workers, who looked after me as a child. I was able to ask them lots of questions off the record.”
Now regardless of what the council’s social work department may think of helping the filming out, the fact is that people are going to watch this, see that it’s set in Nottinghamshire and assume that this show is depicting how it is in the care system in the area. To that end, you would think they would have arranged the following:
Positive press – nationally and locally – before the show aired.
Someone online monitoring/responding what people were saying about the show as it aired – there was plenty of chat about The Unloved on Twitter for example. (C4 should have done this as well)
Video and testimony available from the following – care workers, councillors, those in the system, carers and others who have been through the system.
All and any reports praising the system.
Had something ready to counter the claims of cover-up.
Make sure that there’s something in all the local media this week – interviews and features – showing the service off in a positive light.
If feeling brave at the outset they could have worked with the film with a condition being that Samantha Morton also did a 5-10 minute video speaking about how the services have improved since she was in care. That would have been a PR coup for them.
Now while there’s the obvious issue of damage limitation – after all, the film certainly doesn’t do them any favours – there’s another aspect to this in that the next-door city council is currently looking for foster parents – a bit of savvy and the council could have been promoting this or their own foster requirements and who knows how many people that may have helped?
Even if one child could have found a home or a little more funding brought in, then every piece of PR effort would have been worth it.
And yes, it may well be that the council has plans to do something from Monday morning to counter the show but that’s at least a day too late – good PR deals with things before and during as well as after. PR and public opinion doesn’t just work Monday-Friday 9am -5pm and too many still think that it does.
Fairly decent-sized spoiler for the new Star Trek film after the jump (not a review or anything, just a nagging plot point):
Ok, so Spock and Nero both come from the normal timeline to around 130 or so years in the past yeah? 130 years before the star that blows up Romulus goes critical.
Is it just me or would you go with the red matter to the star and collapse it 130 years early? Job done. Everyone saved, use some red matter or whip around the sun to go home.
(I know, I know, but that’s really bugging me. The film is generally very good – definitely better than the last few, though the plot has… issues if you think it through logically. The worse thing I can say is that I thought the music was poor – especially compared to the trailers. And where was Paul McGillion?)
And feel free to come back here Monday for some Trek/PR fun – leaving it until then to try and minimise folk moaning about spoilers.
I’ve managed to have a quick and dirty test with the Flip Mino HD and compare it to what I call the PR/journalist mobile workhorse, the Nokia N95, but which comes out better? Or should you stick with an iPhone? (Yes, I know, including the iPhone was cruel.) Heads-up, lots of YouTube video in this.
In terms of weight and ease of use, there’s nothing between the two of them. If anything, the Flip is a tad lighter. It’s also a little easier to use in that you press the ‘on’ button, wait a second or two and off you go. On the N95, startup (from off) takes a good 30 seconds. If the phone is already on, going into video camera phone can take up to 10 seconds.
Both are straightforward point and shoot efforts. You point at what you want and you digital zoom in if you need to be closer. On both the digital zoom is average at best and best avoided.
The thing to bear in mind with what you see below is that how they look after YouTube is not how they look on my machine. I’ll let you judge what the YouTube codecs has done to them yourself when I talk about colour and sound on the clips, it will be as how they appeared on my machine.
On that note, the first thing worth pointing out is this:
Size of Flip image versus N95 on 15inch laptop screen
(click on the above for a full-size image – 1.3MB though)
That was the first surprise -when you set them to actual size to show on your machine the Flip is quite happy to more or less take up the full screen – and looks decent too – while the N95 takes up a smaller space and still looks a little blocky (machine used was a MacBook Pro 15-inch)
Picture and Sound Quality:
This actually surprised me. I was expecting the Flip to romp this, but it wasn’t that cut and dried.
I won’t bore you with the video from this as both were awful (if you insist – that was the Flip). Darkness just doesn’t work for either of them, so strap on a torch if you want to re-enact the Blair Witch Project.
Interior, average light
Here’s the shots from my living room. The child in the video when sitting was around six feet from me and when doing starshapes at the end was about two feet away from me. If you want to sync the videos up, the N95 one should be started at 1:00 while the Flip one should be at 1:57 – but you get to see some sound/audio before that if you want to watch the lot.
N95 Living Room
Flip Living Room:
I thought the Flip would romp this but the N95 actually had the better colours. Sound was equal on both.
(Goldfish in this start at about a minute in.)
In the Goldfish, I didn’t think there was much in it – the Flip seemed to have a slight edge, but nothing I would say was significant. (The noise in each shot is the fishtank filter)
Overall for the house shots, I was surprised on this because while the Flip seems to have the better shot and perspective, the N95 actually had better colours. The Flip’s colours appeared a little more washed out, while the N95’s were more realistic.
For me, the Flip was the winner here. The colours looked just a tad more vivid and real. Sound was more or less equal on them both. However, after YouTube has done what it does, the N95 actually appears to have better colours online.
N95 Uddingston External
Flip Uddingston External
The Flip was the winner here again. There just seems to be a little bit of sharpness, contrast and better colour than the N95. The perspective also seems a little better – judge the oncoming car in both for example.
Conclusions and Notes:
For all I’m a fan of the N95, I fully expected the Flip to wipe the floor with it. It didn’t and that surprised me. Don’t get me wrong, it has a lot going for it – better perspective, better outdoor colours, HD at 720 – but I wasn’t blown away as I would have expected. They were both 50/50 when used on a Standard Definition TV – perhaps some slightly better colour on the Flip.
Where the Flip does score is in convenience – the USB plug pops out, plug it in and off you go – the software’s even built in. The N95’s file structure on the other hand is horrific – and slow if you decide to use Bluetooth.
Both machines use mp4 file format – h264 if memory serves – so they are easy enough to edit in external applications. The software that comes with the Flip is very basic in that regard – but it does the job if need be.
if I had any other phone, I think a Flip would be a no-brainer but if someone has a N95 I don’t know if there’s any great need to fork out extra cash. If you only had an iPhone, a Flip would be a great addition.
For a person caught needing quick web-ready video, either of these would do. If I suddenly needed a video quote off someone and only had the N95 with me, I wouldn’t panic as I know it would do the job. Similarly if I’m a reporter running about with space for only one bit of kit, the phone wins it as it does more than just be a camera. Both are capable and competent for the job of YouTube-sized web video. It just so happens that one can also do audio, calls and a million other things – and is cheaper.
I’ll post up more details later but if you want to go to this, leave your details in the comments thread. Space will be limited for this – I’ve kept the venue to a) who was offering free facilities, b) free wifi c) the number of people who had registered an interest.
Basic topics that should come up will include (but I’m open to more topics/better topics):
The fact that Digital Britain is especially a lie in Scotland given the remote areas and the troubles they have with online
Scottish media and digital
Businesses and digital
Does Scotland really care about digital?
Anyway, entry is free, the company is free. The rest is up to you.
(And before anyone moans about date, location and so on. May 8 was the best date for those who previously responded.)
Right, doing this one quickly and messily just to judge interest (and because I need to be somewhere else five minutes ago).
The Digital Britain Unconferences are being held after a general consideration that the official conference for Digital Britain (Digital Britain: The Interim Report – On 29 January 2009 the Government published a plan to secure Britain’s place at the forefront of the global digital economy – http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5944.aspx ) was incredibly poor (apart from Stephen Fry) and secured by old media companies to moan more than anything else. So the unconference was born:
Anyway, if a free event was held in Glasgow between now and May 12, would you be willing to go along? If there’s a decent response, let’s get this set up. (note, this is completely different from the Digital Media Meal)
Papers still don’t get the web and just like every other time, it’s the management’s fault, which begs the question of should the webguys be getting even higher positions in papers. Here’s the latest press screw-up and it involves SEO.
Over the last few weeks I’ve been hearing more and more tales from reporters – from the highest titles in the land to the lowest – getting really fed up with the digital newspaper concept (Iain Hepburn has a vivid case study about it).
Why? because all it’s meaning for them is that they go in, spend two hours rewriting copy from other sites (without including linkback credits of course) for the website. And then they go off and do the other journalistic jobs they are allowed to, like rewriting agency copy, perhaps even getting to pick up the phone to speak to a contact (who probably can’t talk back as they are in their office).
But why are they having to spend hours carrying out what is fairly known as churnalism? Because the top brass want to go with the phrases that will boost them in search engines.
Now there’s two problems with this:
• By rewriting copy from elsewhere, you’re just getting the same hit as them
• You’re also hosing it by not providing a linkback, which might actually just do you more good
The main problem though is that by doing this, you are going for the lowest common denominator nine times out of ten – you’ve got a journalist wasting time writing about Britney Spears instead of chasing up their own stories – stories which may matter more locally to readers than what Miley Cyrus bra size is.
As I said the other week on Newsnight Scotland – and this applies to PR as much as any media – fresh, exclusive content is the driver these days. Keep it fresh and others will link to you, talk about you, refer back to you. And that’s the SEO gold. And to get that fresh content you need content providers. In the media industry, they call the reporters. You know, the ones that management keep sacking and letting go.
Oh. There’s a potential problem.
Who is to blame then? Ultimately, the blame for this one has to go to management – but also the web teams and reporters for not standing up and pointing out that using reporters for churnalism is a waste of resource. I can see why it’s done, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s right.
If churnalism is that important to a publication, here’s what they should do: find the nearest media college and get a bunch of interns/work placements in. They’ll be happy to be getting in the door – they may even bring in some stories – but that frees up the reporters to go and find the real SEO booster – original content. Exclusives. Scoops. They may even do it multimedia.
The press has always been, in part, a numbers game, but this is taking it too far.
(And yes, I know churnalism has always been a part of the job too – rewriting agency copy, PA and AP, but at no point did you have to spend two hours doing it every day.)
The Daily Telegraph had a nice idea for its website – run a Twitterfall of terms related to the 2009 Budget in the UK, but within hours of it going up, people were – you guessed it – throwing up comments like “The Telegraph is the worst paper in the UK. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.” They took a pounding for it, but I think they were right to do it – even if they forgot the first rule of web2.0.
So it was a daft thing to do but easily seen coming – heck, I remember saying to someone before that if I worked at a paper still and my main competitor set up traffic/weather tweeting systems I’d have them down in less than a day as you could easily flood them with unreliable data if you know how to play the system.
(That might shock some people, but it’s worth remembering that while a lot of web2.0 is built on a fabric of goodwill, kindness, optimism and a little naivety, newspapers are ferocious places where you do what you can to screw over the competition. Hell, I once redirected a competitor’s phone to mine: all was fair in love and war for a scoop. And it was far worse in the 80s and 70s.)
So it was daft to do, but were they right to try it? Yes. They may have thought that people would have better things to do than take the mickey out the feed. (This may have been one of those times where having a PR person about might have had them point out the dangers to the editorial side.) It might even have been worth a SWOT analysis. Ultimately though, papers are trying to show what people are thinking out there and a Twitterfall is as good a way as any.
What they should have done was left it quiet until tomorrow then announced it was happening and what the hashtags would be. That and not started the Twitterfall until about an hour before the event. That way even if people were coming on with abuse, the real content would drown them out.
Another possibility might have been to use a form of Liveblogging instead of Twitter – but that would have involved more staffing and I suspect the appeal of Twitterfall was that it could be automated and Twitter is still the tech du jour amongst many.
Either way, like most experiments, was worth a try, a couple of lessons will have been learned and everyone will have forgotten about it in a couple of weeks – more than likely overshadowed by what’s actually in the budget.
Couple of interesting pieces been kicking about the last few days – both of which continue to show old media’s complete and utter failure to grasp digital media for newspapers. First up, there’s a piece on All Media Scotland about a report on how Finnish financial newspaper Taloussanomat went web-only and what happened to the revenues/staffing. The original report as linked to by Compute Scotland is worth a read and I’ll come back to that in another post.
But what was of interest – for the purposes of this post – was the comment by Dorothy Grace Elder:
The City University research on a Finnish local paper which lost at least 75% revenue from readers and advertisers when it stopped printing and went online should be a wake up call to the industry. Also, it shows the folly of Governments and political bodies aiming to switch public notices and job adverts to the web, destroying more local papers. We need much more research like this in Scotland to give the results to the web-obsessed. The Finnish results are no surprise – few want to be saddled with a computer at all times to gain a scrap of news. How few can always find a plug in beyond a minority onboard top of the range trains? To gain instant access to the media, on buses, suburban trains, or at home in the toilet, garden, bedroom or kitchen, something easy and instant needs to be invented – oops! It’s known already and called A NEWSPAPER. Wake up and smell the newsprint.
Now, I like Dorothy. She’s opinionated, great for a quote (or was regarded as such when I was a reporter) and her heart is normally in the right place. But on this one she’s well out of touch.
Firstly, she criticises the Government and others for switching job adverts to online instead of staying with press. That’s fair enough, but for years that hasn’t been where people looked for jobs anyway – job centres and larger papers were looked at, not the locals. Also, as a taxpayer, should she not be wanting the council to make best use of their cash – I’d rather have a streetlight than a bunch of job ads in the Hamilton Advertiser anyday.
Her other comment also shows how she’s missing the point. For a start, laptops can run for up to five hours now without a topup, but more to the (missed) point, more and more people are using their phones for news – Blackberries, N95s, iPhones, what have you – and the screensize on them is growing and we’re going to see news apps grow. Mobile is where it is at now – and it’s frustrating to see so many people still failing to grasp web, never mind mobile.
Dorothy also talks about “To gain instant access to the media” and says newspapers are a way of doing that. Yes, but it’s old news – in some cases more than 24 hours old. Digital news is far more up to date. And what’s more important is the fact that news is still being provided – that’s why they’re called NEWSpapers and not papernews – it’s the content not the delivery medium that’s important.
The whole world is going on about this and the role Guido Fawkes played in it, but what gets me is the sheer basic and bloody incompetence of it all. First rule of anything that might bite you on the backside is that you don’t leave a trail that lets it come back to you. Have our politicians became so crap that they can’t even plan a decent black op anymore?
(and yes, while I do think it is a good day for bloggers, there’s at least half a dozen ways Labour could have controlled this online and minimised damage)
(and a very salient point from Dizzy Thinkswith Derek Draper talking about the emails:
Imagine if all your emails suddenly became available to people wanting to damage you. That is, of course, the other question that needs to be asked: how were these emails obtained? Was criminal activity and hacking involved? Believe me, these are issues I will be looking at when I return from my holiday. “Blog wars” are one thing but hacking into people’s emails is surely a step too far?
As Dizzy puts it in response:
I wonder whether Derek is aware that the Government and party that he supports is actually has an official policy of reading our emails if it wants? Or taking contorl of our computers remotely if it suspects us of something?
Quick post. It’s bugged me since setting up that this site is a bit of everything for me, so I’ve decided I’m probably going to split my sites – one for my mass media/PR/twitter/social media thoughts and one for Craig McGill, the writer because they’re too fairly different markets and areas for me, so if I want to work in both and promote both, they should get their own spots. I’ll be splitting stuff like Twitter accounts and RSS as well to see if it makes my life more structured or not.
Anyone else done anything like this? Any pointers, hints or tips?
Anyway, let’s look at this another way – is this Vodafone UK’s way of fighting the iPhone? O2 has the iPhone, Orange are rumoured to be joining them (as well as getting the option for the 3G sim-enabled macbook when it comes out) and it seems to be a fairly tight agreement, so what do you do if you can’t have the iPhone? Go get the main channel of communication instead. I wonder if a phone network could insist on this as an exclusive – and make that the carrot they offer to customers?
I’d watch and see what phones Vodafone start to tout now becuase they’ll push phones that let you make the most of this – though I wonder if they will charge a small amount – £5 a month say – as an add-on for the unlimited Twitter option or if it will be free for everyone. If so, who the feck is scaling their network?
Be interesting to see how this plays out.
UPDATE: It’s a Vodafone exclusive right enough. According to Yashin19
devices tab in Twitter settings confirms SMS alerts are exclusive to Vodafone. Along with good coverage in Edinburgh it seems!
I think this could be a bit of a gamechanger – though the debate has already started (guess where).
Simple enough question eh? The reason I ask is that All Media Scotland is talking about PR Week‘s PR Week Powerbook (yup, you can read the whole thing online) – ‘the definitive guide to the most influential people in PR’ – and according to AMS, there’s only a handful or two of Scots in the 300 strong list.
(one thing that stuck out for me – how few of those main Scottish PR sites have anything even remotely resembling social media/web2.0 – even basic things like blogs or twitter details).
Now the tone of the AMS piece suggests that there should be more in there. So let’s have a look at the figures –
The CIPR has more than 780 members drawn from public relations consultancies, public sector organisations and PRs working for private sector companies in Scotland.
It is estimated that around 4000 people are employed in the public relations industry in Scotland and that the industry turns over around £450 million per year.
Scotland’s population is around 5 million, compared to 61million in the UK
So there’s 11 Scots out of 300 in the list, Scotland’s population is roughly 8% of the UK total. By that terribly simplistic set of sums and some assumption making, there should be around 24 or 25 Scots.
So what gives?
In all honesty, I don’t know – but can’t wait to sit down and have a full read to see what it says – but one simple explanation may be that people had to be nominated and the vast majority of PRs were just too busy to get round to nominating themselves, spending their time on clients instead (that’s not to imply that the people above don’t spend time on clients – far from it. They all have fantastic track records).
It will also be interesting to watch this over the coming year as digital media moves more to the fore and how that affects things.
But is Scotland rotten at PR and is Willy from the Simpsons the best person from Scotland at shouting from the rooftops (yup, that is what you calla tenuous link)? I don’t think so, but what do others think?