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.

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.

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

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.

friend has been appointed HDC’s social media and online PR agency for the life of this project, to maximise project coverage, generate ‘buzz’ and deliver a specific video content seeding campaign.

Research and strategy

The climate change audience is vast, ranging from the man on the street to campaigners to businesses to architects and on and on.

So first, friend carried out a research and strategy project to understand and define key audiences, influencers and channels, as well as the ‘rules of engagement’: conversation topics/themes and sentiments.

Social media and online PR campaigns

friend will develop social media and online PR activity to target key influencers and audiences to maximise coverage, conversation and buzz for the project.

Online Reputation Management

friend will be working with HDC to monitor the online space for conversations, mentions and interactions – spotting opportunities for HDC input or any negative voices we can rebut.

Measurement and reporting

On a monthly basis friend will be closely analysing and measuring all activity and results to ensure the activity is in line with the strategy.

Video seeding

friend are also working alongside HDC’s video production agency to deliver video content seeding activity.

I can see most employers embracing it as a fantastic new concept, despite get-mugs-to-work-for-free being a well-established business model!

But you wouldn’t expect the Guardian, with its socialist ideals, to engage in social exploitation, yet they seem to be giving crowdsourcing a go.

Instead of paying for professional photographers to cover last week’s 2009 Climate Camp, the Guardian setup a Flickr group to encourage people to upload their photos to document the event – I’d never heard of the event either!

We’ll assume it’s a bunch of hippies in tents, who need some Taser-wielding police action and possibly a death to raise their profile, but that’s enough free PR advice from me.

So is the Guardian’s journalistic crowdsourcing a breakthrough in democracy or simply a wage cutting exercise?

Given they are already at loggerheads with the National Union of Journalists for stopping the image reuse fees they paid photographers, I’m suspicious.

I personally never understood why when you bought a photograph, you couldn’t use it at liberty. Would you buy a chair if you had to pay a fee every time someone sat in it?  No, but I digress.

Citizen journalism, be it photographic or written in the form of a blog is an increasingly important part of the changing news landscape.  Although breaking news will often be distributed by Twitter and analysis delivered by the blogopshere, it is usually through traditional journalism that the initial story is unearthed.

In my mind, there is no question that society needs professional journalism, just how it will be funded in the digital age seems to be in doubt.

Paying for news online is an anathema that is unlikely to change.  However, charging for investigation, insight and expert opinion on that news is more likely to survive the social media revolution.

We also have to understand the difference between reporting news and investigative journalism. One documents news and the other makes it.

It may be possible to crowdsource the former using social networks, but almost certainly not the latter.

In this age of social media and online PR, fully understanding the marketing environment your business operates within is not just vital but now much more possible to do – and less forgivable if you still cut corners.

In the past, research for many clients was almost a dirty word. “Why should I pay to find out what I already know?”

Well it’s different now. The digital landscape is complex but it provides a mine of invaluable information, sometimes (at a basic level) at the touch of a button. The web offers us a vast ‘universe’ (in research speak) and therefore much larger sample sizes – this is good!

It also enables us to go down to levels of detail that often we couldn’t before. Through a defined approach we can fully research brand(s), audiences, products, competitors, channels, conversations, sentiments and so on.

This insight is crucial in order to create a social media or online PR strategy (or any marketing strategy for that matter) that is going to achieve your business objectives.

And it’s not just about upfront research and insight either. We are able to monitor and measure campaign results much more intricately than we could before. This means we can react quickly to market changes or under-performing marketing campaigns (both offline and online). Keeping the focus on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), we can fine tune ROI as we go.

Over the past few years, and in the past 12 months in particular, I’ve noticed an explosion in the number of web-based social media analysis tools that help us do this. I could write a book about all of them but for now there’s a great comprehensive list courtesy of Business Week.

I’ve used many of these – both free and paid for – and have my favourites but am always flexible, combining and switching between tools depending on which client I’m working with.

The important point is that one solution on its own is far too limited. Using Google alone to search the web is not enough from a social media and online PR perspective. And simply paying lots of money for the likes of Techigy or Social Radar is a good start but needs to be part of a toolbox – not the toolbox itself. Searching the social web demands a different approach.

And beware – you’ve also got to apply sound marketing and market research expertise to the process too – the information/data is one thing, how it’s organised, interpreted and presented is a whole other ball game.

The good thing is that smart businesses can more and more see the value of sophisticated online research and insight. So I’m still banging the same old drum but it’s a lot more satisfying these days.

Follow me on Twitter

Image courtesy of Wordle.net