The Brindleyplace-based consultancy has been commissioned to conduct research and devise a social media strategy for the University Hospitals Birmingham. The aim is to engage with users of the newly opened Queen Elizabeth super hospital in Selly Oak, and to keep Birmingham citizens informed as services, such as A&E, are migrated to the new building.

Alcester-based Helping Hands Home Care, which provides live-in carers for the elderly and disabled around the UK, has also turned to Friend to help it promote its services. Those responsible for making the decisions on care for their relatives are increasingly looking to social networks for help and advice on looking after their loved ones.

Chris Tomlinson, director and co-founder of Friend, said: “Over the last year Friend has gained a great deal of experience in finding relevant online communities and helping organisations engage with their key influencers to turn them into advocates on social networks.

“The continued growth of our client list is proof that social media is now an established marketing channel and, increasingly, a first choice marketing tool.”

I can help but think that if Sky add three celebrity judges, a premium rate phone vote and put on a ‘results’ show, an hour later to remove the worst ‘candidate’ from the next debate- they could have a seriously good game show on their hands!

Admittedly the studio audiences are not allowed to heckle or clap, but the x-factor-meets-blind-date format is starting to disturbing me.

Judging by the subsequent plethora of posts on PR agency blogs after each debate, the election will be won and lost on the best performer in these debates.

But judging the acts, sorry I mean ‘priministerial candidate’ on how well they listened to their PR trainers is not a good way of choosing a government.

We all seem to be obsessed with discussing this charisma contest rather than the future of the country – perhaps that is because it is too hard.

Old media has long since turned elections into personal popularity polls, where the personality of the candidates and how good looking their wife is, seems to become more important factors than the policies of their parties.

Meanwhile the real political debate is happening in social media. Follow the tag #leadersdebate on Twitter before, during and after the final debate and you’ll see real enguagment and quite a few expletives too!

During last nights show alone, 117 thousand live comments were tweeted featuring the above hash tag  (source @Tweetminster).

And a real debate – i.e with more than the half dozen carefully fielded questions and only three people allowed to speak – is happening on Facebook too, but not on the parties official pages.

The Conservatives seem to be winning the Facebook war, with 53K fans to their official page, the LibDems close behind with 50K and Labour languishing with a megur 27K ( as of 22/4/2010).

It is worth visiting these pages just to see which of your friends’ mugs appear as fans divulging their political persuasion. Note: I have become a fan of all three parties while researching this blog – in case you see mine.

However, in true X-factor style the ‘We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the LibDems into office!” unofficial discussion group out trumps them all with 134K members so far, where a lively pro Nick Clegg debate is raging.

However, given that the original RATM campaign gained 500K+ followers you could say that more people cared about getting Simon Cowell off the Xmas #1 spot than getting Nick Clegg into number 10! Which is an interesting measure of the nations interest in the election outcome

(More election fun can be found at Facebook’s own ‘Democracy UK’ page where there is even an App to help you decide whom to vote for!)

With UK electoral turnouts on the decline, some argue that the TV debate will improved the population’s engagement with the political process and records turns will result on election day.

But if they are voting on superficial style, not policy, this will be a hollow victory for UK democracy.

The past year has literally flown by, full of the thrills and spills you’d expect from starting a small consultancy specialising in a relatively ‘niche’ area like social media and in the middle of a recession!

But life, and business, are about taking risks – and the risk paid off!

The fact is that social media marketing should not be sidelined as “niche”.

It has the potential for ROI like any other marketing discipline – and this has been our most consistent finding over the last 12 months.

For our clients, it’s been about understanding what social media can do by exploring its specific potential for their businesses.

Importantly, understanding where social media fits into a marketing strategy, its role alongside other marketing disciplines and how best to execute and measure it is crucial to its success.

And putting it simply, this is what Friend does.

Our experience over the past 20 years in both traditional and digital marketing means that we have been able to help many clients truly understand social media and its potential for their organisation, in both B2C and B2B arenas.

In the past twelve months, we have helped a range of clients and agencies navigate the social media landscape.

Our clients include:

• NHS
• Nynas Oil / European Road Initiative
• Property Match
• Argent / Brindleyplace
• Masshouse Developments
• Rider Levett Bucknall
• Huntingdonshire County Council
• Gas Street Works
• University College Birmingham

We have also helped lots of marketing and PR agencies with digital marketing and social media research, strategy and training.

So we’re chuffed and, in true social media style, thought we’d share!

Find out more about our social media and online PR services.

Last week I had an encounter with ageism. This is not unusual in social media circles but for the first time, at work at least, it was aimed at me.

While introducing myself as the presenter of a social media training course, one of the attendees mused that he was expecting someone “considerably younger” than me to be doing the training!

Now its true, I’m no spring chicken and time hasn’t been particularly kind to my face, but age does not preclude a person from understanding social media.

Or even participating in social networking, as I’m about to prove.

Lets assume old is aged 45 and over (obviously I’m considerably younger than that). Well, according to the latest social networking demographic report 40% of Facebook users are over 45!  Here are the figures for the other popular sites:

YouTube:  45% of users are over 35
Facebook: 40% of users are over 45
Twitter:     63% of users are over 35
LinkedIn:  48% of users are over 45
MySpace:  28% of users are over 45

Of course we are assuming no one’s been lying. After all one of the main advantage of online socialising is that no needs to know exactly how old you actually are, unless you tell them.

As you can see, it is just about true that MySpace is still for the kids and LinkedIn is for the infirm, but YouTube and Facebook has now been infiltrated by the silver surfers.

I remember, when email was the preserve of the youth (OK , I am over 45). Now it’s a mandatory communications channel for everyone between the ages of 10 and dead.

As technology matures it will, like its users, gain a middle age spread.

My sarcastic student was only joking and wasn’t that much younger than me. He, after all, had signed up for a social media training course rather than being of an age where its benefits were inherent.

Having spent much of my early working life trying to convince crusty business people that online should be taken seriously as a marketing channel I found his comments ironic.

My much fresher face and its implied inexperience was a barrier to credibility then but now the older version was a liability too!

But ageists and marketers need to take note; the inhabitance of social networks may not be as youthful as you might think.

With election campaigns getting under way I still believe this. If only the political parties did.

It’s not that they’re ignoring social media but at the moment it’s all a bit style over substance.

They appear to be falling into the trap currently occupied by a lot of businesses and organisations who have also “done” social media in recent times but not really got anywhere with it.

The problem is that like others who complain that social media isn’t working, they are focusing more on the channel rather than REALLY thinking about the content.

A common problem with a lot of social media marketing at the moment is that there is too much focus on the channel – the technology and the means of distribution like Facebook, Twitter, iPhone app and so on.

This is probably because the very genre is defined by the channel – the media.

Which is why a lot of organisations think they’ve “done” social media just because they have a Twitter account or an iPhone app.

But the channel is only a conduit. It’s what is sent and distributed via that channel that holds the key to success. Content, purpose, targeting and resource must be well planned to maximise engagement.

For example, last week the Tory party launched its very own Conservative Party iPhone app.

So cool.

Well actually not quite so much. It’s really a mini-brochure with a few little questionable tools built in, like its swing-o-meter showing election results as they come in. Which will be useful for about 12 hours tops on the night.

The detail on its policies is informative but it’s basically their manifesto in condensed, digital format. For more comment, read Mobsessed’s opinion about the Tory app, it’s good stuff.

And this week we saw the launch of the Labour Party’s social media campaign.

This is much more interesting, using opinions expressed through social media and on the doorstep to “inform” their social media activity. I have no idea what “inform” actually means here though. There’s no clue as to what they will do with all this content.

They’ve also given social media training to key campaign staff. The problem again is that it all feels very token-like. Time will tell.

It’s not all negative. There are some great examples of local and national party activists, party members, MP’s and councillors who really do understand it.

But so far no party has an obvious centralised social media strategy bringing together and mobilising all campaigners to truly listen to and engage with the public and key influencers.

What I’m really talking about here is online PR, and as far as I can see it’s here they are missing an opportunity.

Where is their online PR strategy? How are they creating and resourcing active social media engagement on a daily basis with online citizens: individuals, communities, influencers, bloggers, tweeters, publications and so on?

I can’t see any of that happening on a scale akin to Obama in the US for example.

Maybe it’s coming, or already happening. But I can’t see it, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Online PR is a great way of approaching the task in hand because it diverts attention from the channel, Twitter, the iPhone app or whatever to the meat of the matter – the content, community engagement and the direct conversation.

When the main parties get their head around the fact that this is what social media is about then they may see some success from it in terms of influencing opinion and voting intention.

As things stand, the general public are likely to see through token gestures and do what they normally do when it comes to politics – switch off.

Just as it should in other areas of politics, with social media it’s substance, not style, which holds the key to success.

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.