Although instigated by a comic, the now annual event has gained some resonance.

I, for one, am old enough to recall the real meaning of the word “friend” and know that having any more than six real friends is a right pain.

Before email, mobiles and social networks, friends were really high maintenance. Organising nights out, drinking with them on regularly basis, then in later life, having them round for dinner, pretending you liked their new spouse and remembering the names of their kids etc. was a commitment best not duplicated above double figures.

I’d actually postulate that the number of real friends a person can maintain is a function of their liver’s capacity to regenerate. The average Facebooker has 130 ‘friends’  - which is clearly beyond the capacity or the any human renal organ.

Facebook knows this too and has created functions to allow us to separate friends, acquaintances and people we don’t actually recall meeting.

You can ‘unsubscribe’ people from your newsfeeds and effectively never hear from them again, save the embarrassment of ‘unfriending’. I call this “tidying up my Facebook newsfeed” which should indeed be an annual event for everyone.

Unfortunately, I’ve fallen behind with Twitter.  The noise from those I’ve politely “Followed” back is completely blocking out the tweets from those I want to read.

As a rule, I need to unfollow anyone who tweets about food more than once. I have a similar intolerance to Tweets of babies and allegedly cute pet pictures.  But mainly people who don’t consider their wider audience and Tweet about things irrelevant to me – like how great their social life is (see six friend rule above).

I’d like to suggest a simple solution called “Unfollow Friday” (#UFF).

Traditionally Friday has been the day to recommend Tweeters, (#FollowFriday or #FF for short).  However using the #UFF tag we can collectively remove the boring, the unfunny and the self-deluded, from our timelines for the collective good of Twitter.

I have since been to confession at the Birmingham Apple store to be absolved of my guilt.

A “fondleslab”, for those not down with the kids, describes any portable touch screen device so beloved by its owner that it is incessantly fondled in public.

I swapped the faithful fag packet and lighter combination (which served a similar social purpose) for an iPhone a few years ago, but now, to keep down with the kids, I need an iPad 2.

But it occurred to me that my unquestioned loyalty to Apple needed questioning.

Why did I want to pay over the odds for a hard-to-get-hold-of tablet when there were a plethora of cheaper Android alternatives on the market?

Android is an open source mobile software platform donated by Google to the smartphone world, now adopted by most major phone manufacturers.

The more cynical looked for an ulterior motive than altruism and found one when it was discovered that Android allowed phones to be track via the WiFi connections they made and helped Google to deliver location-based advertising services.

It is reported that if you have an Android phone, Google knows where you are to within 89 feet of where you are sat.

Then it turns out that my iPhone was recording the same location data (for Apple’s own permission-based location services) and due to a bug, anyone clever enough could access a year’s worth of my movements.

Of course the platform with the better social media applications will be triumphant – you knew the S&M word would have to popup sooner or later, didn’t you?

Some surveys report that more than 50 per cent of social networking is now done on the move and the take-up of mobile-specific features such as FourSquare and Facebook “check-ins” suggest few have a problem divulging their location.

I understand this is an exciting development for brands wanting to engage in context of location, but personally don’t want anyone to know were I’m when I’m fondling a slab.

But the government was never going to win on this one.

If you’re in the digital creative business you’re naturally going to have anti-establishment tendencies; this is a digital revolution after all.

And if you profess to be one of the revolution’s “thought leaders”, it seems that the more radical your views on what the digital economy needed from the bill, the higher the regard from your peers.

But when Lord Carter came to Birmingham last June and spoke to a room full of such people about his Digital Britain report (the forerunner to the Bill), I thought he gave a good account of himself.

The report and the discussion covered the vast spectrum of issues lumped under the ‘digital’ banner. Everything from solving the growing bandwidth divide between poor and wealthy and the illegal download problem, to the role of our publicly funded broadcaster.

In my opinion, this hopelessly wide scope created an impossible task for Lord Carter. So I was not surprised that the resulting Bill contained extensive measures to help stop illegal downloading and little else!

The most draconian measure, or so it seems to the digital community, is the removal of a perpetrator’s broadband connection – but only after a few stiff letters have been sent.

Which seems rather ironic, as Carter’s report identified high-speed net access as a human right in the 21^St century!

ISPs are also critical of the Bill because, basically, they don’t want the bother of trying to implement it. They know that online anonymity is never going to be hard to find for people intent on breaking the law and at best they will catch a few gullible kids.

Creators of digital content need to find other ways to remunerate their endeavours. For instance the film industry has discovered that 3D can counter piracy by creating an experience that cannot be replicated at home (yet!).

Musicians can make money on merchandising and live concerts, and games providers through online subscriptions to hosted multi-user features.

They have to find innovative ways to be rewarded for their creativity in this new environment, rather than relying on copyright laws from a pre-digital era.

It is very easy to criticise the Bill, without offering any alternative, but my suggestion would be to have no Bill at all!  Online piracy is not a problem that can be solved by legislation.

Read Chris Tomlinson’s latest musing on the subject in Thursday’s Birmingham Post

For example, my cousin is a doctor and it’s impossible to have a conversation with her lasting more than five minutes without it turning into a medical analogy of some sort.

I’m like that with social media, though I admit to sometimes feeling slightly ashamed to be making a comparison between marketing and saving lives! I apologise in advance!

Take the current weather crisis blighting lives and ruining our economy.

Many are blaming it on the poor supplies of salt grit. This is why I love Britain – we spectacularly fail to deal with the recent snowfall and all we can do is rant about the lack of salt as being the cause of everything going down the pan.

Richard Madeley himself has used Twitter to launch a “foul-mouthed” attack on his local council for running out of salt grit, which he says has stopped him getting to important meetings.

“Grrr:still no sign of any gritters here.Looks like our council’s f***** up again” he ranted.

This is just one, celebrity example of the effect the snow has had this week.

Many others, including myself, understand his frustration.

However, it makes me feel annoyed for a different reason. Is it really the lack of salt grit that’s to blame?

Is it not the lack of a more widespread ‘entrepreneurial’ infrastructure in the UK that would mean we could get on with business (as usual) whatever the weather?

Social media technology and communication enable us to work in a much more proactive and reactive way. So even when the roads are closed we can still keep on working. I may have been snowed in but it hasn’t stopped me getting the job done.

I’m not saying that it solves every problem (roads are vital!) but it helps to keep people working and for businesses to be successful. Too few businesses and organisations are set up to take advantage of digital and social media quickly in times of crisis – whether it’s a snowstorm or a Twitter storm.

Collaborative working can happen virtually whether it’s realtime text conversations or video sharing/conferencing. The solutions exist and don’t need to be expensive or complex.

Digital is a key solution to problems like the snowfall we’ve had this week. It reminds us of the importance of initiatives like Digital Britain. It also highlights how really we can’t wait much longer.

If business and society as a whole were set up better, and integrated digital to a greater extent, people like Mr. Madeley wouldn’t have to miss important meetings any more – whilst also alleviating some of the stress on the suppliers of salt grit!

Online PR guru, Fernando Rizo, was speaking on how to sell ‘digital’ to clients. (he was destined to become some sort of guru with a name like that!).

His main point was that, thanks to the internet, mass communication was no longer the preserver of the media – everyone is now in the broadcasting business and that has fundamentally changed how PR works.

(That’s probably a poor summary so judge for yourself – video of his full presentation can be found here:  http://bit.ly/3ADvb4 )

He also underlined what many of us have already worked out – that PR has become conversational. Rather than issuing press releases it is about listening to, and then joining, online conversations.

To use Fernando’s words: PR consultants used to spend most of their day writing, now they need to spend most of the day reading.
Many of our local Birmingham PR firms are trying to get to grips with this ‘digital’ thing. Most have worked out how to put their client’s press releases on blog sites and tweet them to their journalist followers.

But that isn’t joining the conversation – especially when they invariably turn off the ability to leave comments.

A press release and a blog post are entirely different animals.

Fundamentally online content only becomes a blog when comments are not only allowed, but activity solicited.

For me, to qualify as a blog a post needs to contain hyperlinks (words underlined in blue) to background content too.

But most importantly, unlike a dry press release, which is usually the voice of an organisation, a blog needs to be a personal opinion. When people get to know a good blogger they trust their opinion far more than they ever will a corporate press release.

In fact, the biggest mistake business bloggers (and their PRs) make is to treat their blog as an online press centre and damage that personal trust.

Press centres and press releases are for feeding stories to the media, a blog is for communicating with your audience directly.

Since last August, Mr Murdoch has been threatening to charge for access to The Sun and Times Online by erecting a so-called ‘paywall’ around the online versions of his publications.

Read: Simon Heath‘s blog Murdoch on the defensive (6/08/2009) for background.

So why has he not done so yet?

The question is – given so many free alternatives, the BBC and Google News for instance, will people stump up the cash? Even Mr Murdoch is not sure of the answer.

The likely scenario is that if a paywall goes up, no one will visit the sites and advertisers, the major source of News Corps’s revenue, will go elsewhere.

The crux of the matter is this: old-fashioned newspaper moguls are used to having their cake and eating it.

Back in Jurassic era, they could monetise news and monetise audiences at the same time. They charged their subscribers for content then sold them, or at least their attention, to advertisers.

The industry blames tight consumers for not wanting to pay for “quality” journalism, but perhaps they have just wised up to this double wammy.

I personally think paying £30 a month for Sky Sports to watch England play cricket is a bit steep. But then to be subjected to an advert between every over is taking the mickey.

Murdoch understandably hates the BBC because they don’t have to make this choice between subscribers and advertisers. They don’t need advertisers because UK law makes anyone who owns a television their subscribers.

His gripe against Google is even more understandable, they being the rather large cuckoo that has taking over his media nest. But to prevent people from finding his content via search engines would decimate traffic to his websites and devalue their advertising real-estate.

No, the only way Murdoch can safely put up a paywall and bar Google, is if all his competitors do so at the same time and that is unlikely to happen.

Related links : Anna Blackaby – Problem with great paywall of News International

Update: 19-Nov-2009

Seems Rupert hasn’t taken my advice – further plans for the Murdoch paywall have been revealed according to Brand Republic article.

However, how many people do you know would be prepared to pay £1 a day to access the Times Website ?

friend has created a jargon free online PR guide for busy MD’s.

“Thanks to social media, good public relations (PR) has never been more important for your business.

People now listen to each other rather than your advertisements; good corporate social responsibility has moved to the top of the political agenda and thanks to the blogosphere, everyone is now a publisher!”

Read more here The Reluctant MD’s Guide to Online PR

Who are you going to call?

Well, if you can’t get hold of Ghostbusters, there is always Wragge & Co!

The leading Birmingham law firm has setup a Cyber Tracing team to bring those heinous bloggers, who are hiding behind the anonymity of electronic communication, to justice.

Using their special powers, sorry, I mean UK legislation, to force ISPs to handover the real names behind the anonymous blogging accounts.

Well, if that sounds too expensive, you can always take the PR approach to online reputation management.

Most sensible people will always take a ranting blogger with a pinch of salt and if they are posting anonymously their credibility will be especially low.

Of course some bloggers are incredibly influential and cannot be ignored.

We can assess the influence of a blogger in many ways. The number of readers he/she has. Our the number of comments and contributors to their blog and perhaps most importantly the number of people linking to it.

If the latter is high, their blog might start to appear at the top of Google when people are searching for you – then it’s time to act.

Now let’s assume defamation has occurred. If they are telling the truth, better apologise and promise to do better in the future. However, unlike traditional media, inaccuracies can be corrected.

Leave a comment on the blog, pointing out the mistakes or offering a rebuttal wont require a visit to court.  Many bloggers will edit or update their post in the light of new information.

If you regard a blog as the start of a discussion or the beginning of a conversation, rather than a published work, suing under defamation laws seems less appropriate.

However, if a blogger refuses to publish your side of the conversation, perhaps it is time to call the team at Wragges!

Be warned, though, true online anonymity isn’t that hard to achieve, unless Wragges know something the serious crime squad and the anti-terrorism people at MI5 don’t.

And let’s not forget that, despite its many misuses, online anonymity is usually regarded as a good thing – ask anyone who lives in Iran for instance.

Actually what am I saying, the woman deserves no sympathy. This is she who wrote an article in Friday’s Daily Mail, sensitively titled “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”.

Cutting to the chase, she concluded that Gately died of being gay – a terrible ‘unnatural’ lifestyle, his death being confirmation of this and that all gay marriages end in disaster, and quite possibly – death.

I won’t get into personal opinion any further you’ll be pleased to hear (however, read Charlie Brooker’s view for a particular angle!).

This story vividly highlights the effectiveness of social networking for galvanising public opinion towards particular issues, in this case homophobia and bad journalism!

More specifically, it demonstrates the power of Twitter not only as a platform for creating campaign content, but also as a channel and mechanism for distributing it.

Within hours on Friday “Jan Moir” and #janmoir were both rocketed to the top of the trending topics on Twitter, and stayed there almost all weekend.

How did this happen?

I can explain it as social media and online PR in action: the result of the interactions of a combination of content creators and retweeters – individuals (you and I) and relevant influencers (bloggers, organisation reps and mainstream online media predominantly).

These individuals and influencers were sharing their retorts while retweeting others’ content at a ferocious pace. More and more people joined what, in effect, had become a focused and successful campaign against Moir.

Influencers like Stephen Fry and Giles Coren added explosive fuel to the campaign.

At one point, Fry retweeted a humourous comment by a blogger which immediately sent thousands of visitors to his website resulting in the said blogger asking Fry not to do it again as it crashed his server!!

The effect of even one influencer can be immense in social media, driving vast amounts of website traffic (as long as your IT can handle it!).

Mainstream online media lent a hand too, in particular The Guardian who were supremely fast to react, putting editorial about it online right as it was happening – creating yet more content to be commented on and retweeted.

Another feature of this campaign is how it evolved and diversified. It often went beyond the initial Moir article, turning heat on The Daily Mail itself for publishing it in the first place (and its record of homophobia, racism, xenophobia and so on).

At some point around midday on Friday a separate campaign evolved on Twitter and now on Facebook, targeting Daily Mail advertisers like BT and Marks & Spencer.

It was pointed out to these brands that they had display ads on the same webpage as Moir’s piece and so were aligning themselves with right-wing bigotry and they should do something about it. And guess what – they did.

And this is the crux of the matter.

This example could easily be interpreted (as social media has so often been in the past) as a flash in the pan. But this argument against social media is wearing thin these days, and this case study proves why.

It was actually Jan Moir herself who summed it up correctly on Friday (wait for it!).

Not in her original article (phew!) but in her virtually unrepentant response to the furore, she blamed the whole thing on a “heavily orchestrated internet campaign”. Well done Jan, it was indeed such a campaign and the results speak for themselves.

Today it has been revealed that The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has received 21,000 complaints about the article – that’s more complaints in ONE weekend than the PCC has received in the last five years! They are now investigating the matter.

Display advertising from some of the biggest brands in the UK was removed from the webpage. Even when the Mail desperately tried to claw something back by changing the headline of the online article, the advertisers stuck to their guns. (Great brand effect by the way, well done guys!)

The key features of this example are speed, content, opinion, engagement, interaction and of course influence – highlighting again that influence really does now live and breathe online.