Social networking practice
Does my head look big in this?
02/10/09 13:19
A Twitter user called
'Bigheadwatch' has just started following me. I
suppose it was inevitable; he or she has decided
to dedicate time to taking the mick out of
people who tweet about nothing except their own
importance. They commented that I ought to get
professional PR when earlier this week I put a
note up to say I had a new commission, a meeting
had gone well, stuff like that.
The thing is, I'm already doing my own PR, effectively. And it's working. I'm not puffing myself up trying to be the big I-am, but I know for a fact that when I tell people I'm busy with, for example, media training or speaking, I get considered for more work in a similar vein. One person who commissioned me for four figures worth of work tells me they did so because they needed someone (obviously) but I popped up on their screen commenting that I'd done something related at just the right time.
Yes, there are probably people using Twitter, Facebook et al to big themselves up. But no, I dont see this as negative and there might well be good business reasons for them to do so and there might well be more to it than puffery.
Speaking of bigheadedness, many thanks to all who continue to order copies of 'This Is Social Networking' from Amazon - it shoots up and down the pre-orders chart like anything but it seems to be performing healthily as I type. Release now confirmed for 23 October, I hope you'll enjoy it.
* Also speaking of bigheadedness, I've been asked to run another of my social media seminars in London - see the seminars page if you'd like to book.
The thing is, I'm already doing my own PR, effectively. And it's working. I'm not puffing myself up trying to be the big I-am, but I know for a fact that when I tell people I'm busy with, for example, media training or speaking, I get considered for more work in a similar vein. One person who commissioned me for four figures worth of work tells me they did so because they needed someone (obviously) but I popped up on their screen commenting that I'd done something related at just the right time.
Yes, there are probably people using Twitter, Facebook et al to big themselves up. But no, I dont see this as negative and there might well be good business reasons for them to do so and there might well be more to it than puffery.
Speaking of bigheadedness, many thanks to all who continue to order copies of 'This Is Social Networking' from Amazon - it shoots up and down the pre-orders chart like anything but it seems to be performing healthily as I type. Release now confirmed for 23 October, I hope you'll enjoy it.
* Also speaking of bigheadedness, I've been asked to run another of my social media seminars in London - see the seminars page if you'd like to book.
0 Comments
Disclosure of blogger interests
28/05/09 14:45
A great blog post here from Penelope Trunk and her Brazen
Careerist venture. I say great blog post because
it’s well-written and well-argued. I also
believe it’s completely wrong-headed.
It’s important though; if we’re
really serious about Digital Britain and the
consequent social networking and blogging that
appears as a result, we need to consider these
issues.
Essentially, Trunk is arguing that newspapers disclosing an interest in something are protecting themselves rather than informing the reader. So when I report something for the Guardian and am flown out somewhere by corporate hospitality to find out about it, I declare ‘Guy Clapperton had his accommodation and flights paid for by XX in connection with this piece’. We all know where we stand, the reader accepts that I’ll have been shown what the company in question wanted to show me. This is more important in, say, travel journalism than in my field - if you know a travel journalist went to Cuba only because the Cuban tourist body paid for it, you understand there’s an element of promotion involved, unbiased though the actual article will be.
Trunk believes this is all baloney. She believes this because I wouldn’t be telling anyone anything about any of this stuff if I weren’t being paid anyway - so the reader really needs a disclaimer saying ‘Guy Clapperton wouldn’t tell you about any of this stuff if someone weren’t throwing money at him’ (true of most of what I write but not of this blog, by the way - I write this of my own volition). That is of course a fair comment too, and it’s something I raise when I’m doing my media training. Journalists, particularly business journalists and those who write about products, often get prissy about how independent they are while the PR community has vested interests. Well guys, so do we, just different ones.
But if there’s a reason I’m able to report on anything and it’s down to a company paying my way, I do believe in disclosing it. This is why I’m a little perturbed to read Trunk’s view that bloggers should be exempt from the rule. In my view it’s quite simple: they shouldn’t. You can be fed a lot of unscrupulously biased coverage by bad bloggers among the excellent stuff from the more professional variety. I’ve been to media training sessions at which the advice has been ‘give the journalist information and contacts, give the blogger a freebie and you’ll get coverage’. I have a problem with this. First it’s patronising to a large number of bloggers - gee, we gave Guy Kawasaki a burger, maybe he’ll talk us up? No he won’t. But the ‘we gave a small but influential blogger a Blu-Ray player, maybe he’ll write something positive’ view is becoming endemic.
It gets back to a favourite theme of mine; there is by definition no professional standard for a blogger. Anyone can do it. So the ‘you can keep the review kit’ theory can sometimes be used to influence coverage. Trunk’s view, that we’re all writing from some sort of starting point, that we all have a reason for writing, is valid to an extent - but I still think disclosure of a vested interest gives the reader a much clearer picture of where you’re coming from and therefore arms them better to make up their own mind. Personally I’d love to see some sort of voluntary code for bloggers - in which they could, among other things, sign up and agree to disclose vested interests where they’re involved and undertake to be independent within their blog’s parameters.
Anyone who’d like to help me set up and administrate such a voluntary code is welcome to get in touch...
Essentially, Trunk is arguing that newspapers disclosing an interest in something are protecting themselves rather than informing the reader. So when I report something for the Guardian and am flown out somewhere by corporate hospitality to find out about it, I declare ‘Guy Clapperton had his accommodation and flights paid for by XX in connection with this piece’. We all know where we stand, the reader accepts that I’ll have been shown what the company in question wanted to show me. This is more important in, say, travel journalism than in my field - if you know a travel journalist went to Cuba only because the Cuban tourist body paid for it, you understand there’s an element of promotion involved, unbiased though the actual article will be.
Trunk believes this is all baloney. She believes this because I wouldn’t be telling anyone anything about any of this stuff if I weren’t being paid anyway - so the reader really needs a disclaimer saying ‘Guy Clapperton wouldn’t tell you about any of this stuff if someone weren’t throwing money at him’ (true of most of what I write but not of this blog, by the way - I write this of my own volition). That is of course a fair comment too, and it’s something I raise when I’m doing my media training. Journalists, particularly business journalists and those who write about products, often get prissy about how independent they are while the PR community has vested interests. Well guys, so do we, just different ones.
But if there’s a reason I’m able to report on anything and it’s down to a company paying my way, I do believe in disclosing it. This is why I’m a little perturbed to read Trunk’s view that bloggers should be exempt from the rule. In my view it’s quite simple: they shouldn’t. You can be fed a lot of unscrupulously biased coverage by bad bloggers among the excellent stuff from the more professional variety. I’ve been to media training sessions at which the advice has been ‘give the journalist information and contacts, give the blogger a freebie and you’ll get coverage’. I have a problem with this. First it’s patronising to a large number of bloggers - gee, we gave Guy Kawasaki a burger, maybe he’ll talk us up? No he won’t. But the ‘we gave a small but influential blogger a Blu-Ray player, maybe he’ll write something positive’ view is becoming endemic.
It gets back to a favourite theme of mine; there is by definition no professional standard for a blogger. Anyone can do it. So the ‘you can keep the review kit’ theory can sometimes be used to influence coverage. Trunk’s view, that we’re all writing from some sort of starting point, that we all have a reason for writing, is valid to an extent - but I still think disclosure of a vested interest gives the reader a much clearer picture of where you’re coming from and therefore arms them better to make up their own mind. Personally I’d love to see some sort of voluntary code for bloggers - in which they could, among other things, sign up and agree to disclose vested interests where they’re involved and undertake to be independent within their blog’s parameters.
Anyone who’d like to help me set up and administrate such a voluntary code is welcome to get in touch...
What's a social media expert?
21/05/09 11:48
There is some excellent sense in this blog entry from Joanne Jacobs
about social media experts. I come across them
often - people who claim expertise in social
networking and then when you ask for a bit more
depth they go all shy and - whisper it gently -
you realise just how little they can do.
The reasons for this include the fact that anyone can style themselves as an expert, and believe me journalists can be the worst. Jacobs makes this point and criticises people whose only experience is as a journalist. I have to defend my corner a little here as I’m writing a book on social networking and in my view ‘a writer who can make this comprehensible’ is just the chap for such a job.
It would be good if there were some sort of accreditation scheme for experts. You could have different levels of expert - I’d be very pleased if my own pockets of knowledge of the field could have some sort of qualifier like ‘follower and expert commentator’ whereas Jacobs and her ilk might come out as ‘consultant for coal-face social networking’, for example.
If something like that doesn’t happen soon then Joanne’s first complaint - that critics constantly carp at social media experts because their expertise can be so questionable, is going to become a truism rather than a revelation. It’s a bit like being a consultant I suspect - until someone asks what exactly you mean by that there’s no way of telling a brain surgeon from someone who does really low-level unqualified stuff.
The reasons for this include the fact that anyone can style themselves as an expert, and believe me journalists can be the worst. Jacobs makes this point and criticises people whose only experience is as a journalist. I have to defend my corner a little here as I’m writing a book on social networking and in my view ‘a writer who can make this comprehensible’ is just the chap for such a job.
It would be good if there were some sort of accreditation scheme for experts. You could have different levels of expert - I’d be very pleased if my own pockets of knowledge of the field could have some sort of qualifier like ‘follower and expert commentator’ whereas Jacobs and her ilk might come out as ‘consultant for coal-face social networking’, for example.
If something like that doesn’t happen soon then Joanne’s first complaint - that critics constantly carp at social media experts because their expertise can be so questionable, is going to become a truism rather than a revelation. It’s a bit like being a consultant I suspect - until someone asks what exactly you mean by that there’s no way of telling a brain surgeon from someone who does really low-level unqualified stuff.
Liking this new iPadio toy
18/05/09 12:50
I’ve been playing with this new iPadio thing
that allows you to ‘phlog’, or
‘phone blog’, again. It’s going to
be a useful tool for a lot of people. Here’s an
interview with their new chairman:
It took seconds to put that into this website and this and other services like it are going to change the way a lot of people blog and particularly podcast. No, it’s not great for editing afterwards so you have to do a competent interview first time around if it’s going to sound slick, but this - as compared to, for example, the otherwise-excellent Audioboo - works on any phone because the coding etc. is done at iPadio’s end.
My guess is that this and competing services are going to lead to a lot more audio content on a lot more blogs, very quickly.
It took seconds to put that into this website and this and other services like it are going to change the way a lot of people blog and particularly podcast. No, it’s not great for editing afterwards so you have to do a competent interview first time around if it’s going to sound slick, but this - as compared to, for example, the otherwise-excellent Audioboo - works on any phone because the coding etc. is done at iPadio’s end.
My guess is that this and competing services are going to lead to a lot more audio content on a lot more blogs, very quickly.
Social Networks and retail
11/05/09 13:06
Some excellent work on social media in retail comes
from the Fresh Networks blog. People who
don’t like links (apart from a few members
of my family I can’t think of any) can
have a look at the video here:
To me there are a number of initial rules about retail and social media.
1. Use it as a test bed by all means.
2. If your customers aren’t using social media don’t expect them to start - keep a presence in your existing channels until it’s right to move permanently. It may never be,
3. Don’t just sell, sell, sell - the ‘social’ bit means engaging, not bludgeoning. So your model is Tupperware Parties rather than a High Street store.
4. Don’t underestimate the resources you’ll need - a blog with a couple of entries isn’t going to do as much as full engagement through Facebook or Twitter.
If I could bring out one suggestion above all others that’s not on the video then it would be ‘check your customer first’ - see what social networks they’re already using, if any. I’d follow this with ‘don’t guess, check’ - following an attempt to explain to my mother-in-law that I was writing a book about social networks and trying to tell her what they were - only to be met with a full and cutting critique of my Facebook page, which she’d inspected for herself and of which she thought I could be making better use. The moral is that your instincts as to what your customers might be using could well be wrong. Check, research, and tailor your social networking activities accordingly!
Retail 2.0 interviews from Sarah Eno on Vimeo.
To me there are a number of initial rules about retail and social media.
1. Use it as a test bed by all means.
2. If your customers aren’t using social media don’t expect them to start - keep a presence in your existing channels until it’s right to move permanently. It may never be,
3. Don’t just sell, sell, sell - the ‘social’ bit means engaging, not bludgeoning. So your model is Tupperware Parties rather than a High Street store.
4. Don’t underestimate the resources you’ll need - a blog with a couple of entries isn’t going to do as much as full engagement through Facebook or Twitter.
If I could bring out one suggestion above all others that’s not on the video then it would be ‘check your customer first’ - see what social networks they’re already using, if any. I’d follow this with ‘don’t guess, check’ - following an attempt to explain to my mother-in-law that I was writing a book about social networks and trying to tell her what they were - only to be met with a full and cutting critique of my Facebook page, which she’d inspected for herself and of which she thought I could be making better use. The moral is that your instincts as to what your customers might be using could well be wrong. Check, research, and tailor your social networking activities accordingly!
Layers of social media
06/05/09 13:06
I like social media. I do like social media, social
networking, whatever you want to call it. It’s
just that sometimes people get it a little wrong.
Let me elaborate. They get the idea that people will want to know interesting stuff. Good. They find something on the Web. Great. They think someone else might want to know so they opt to share it. Right up until this point I’m with them.
Then they Facebook it - put it on their FB page. OK, still good. Then they link to their FB Page - not the original page - with some sort of scrunged social media site that aggregates links. At this stage they’re starting to lose the plot ever so slightly because if I come across their favourites on Digg, or Delicious, or whatever, I don’t want to be taken to a Facebook page, I want to go straight to whatever it was that’s piqued their fancy.
Then they Tweet the aggregator site. So to find whatever it was that interested them I have to receive their Tweet - no problem there - then click through to some daft aggregator site, work out how to bypass that, end up on their Facebook profile and eventually, very eventually, click through to a picture of a dog that can walk on its hind legs or something.
Sadly by that time I’ve lost the will to live. I’m seriously considering starting a campaign for straightforward links as a result of all this. I’d be intrigued to hear from anyone else who’s had similar experiences.
Let me elaborate. They get the idea that people will want to know interesting stuff. Good. They find something on the Web. Great. They think someone else might want to know so they opt to share it. Right up until this point I’m with them.
Then they Facebook it - put it on their FB page. OK, still good. Then they link to their FB Page - not the original page - with some sort of scrunged social media site that aggregates links. At this stage they’re starting to lose the plot ever so slightly because if I come across their favourites on Digg, or Delicious, or whatever, I don’t want to be taken to a Facebook page, I want to go straight to whatever it was that’s piqued their fancy.
Then they Tweet the aggregator site. So to find whatever it was that interested them I have to receive their Tweet - no problem there - then click through to some daft aggregator site, work out how to bypass that, end up on their Facebook profile and eventually, very eventually, click through to a picture of a dog that can walk on its hind legs or something.
Sadly by that time I’ve lost the will to live. I’m seriously considering starting a campaign for straightforward links as a result of all this. I’d be intrigued to hear from anyone else who’s had similar experiences.
Political twit
05/05/09 13:32
Great blog post here by Chris Nee about a
blog post by Nadine Dorries MP, which tells us
all why we’re wasting our time on Twitter.
Well, I’ve picked up a lot of commissions from my Twitter habit so I know I’m not - but the serious issue overlooked not only by Ms. Dorries but also by Mr. Nee is that she’s paid out of public funds - never mind politicians and expenses, I don’t pay my taxes so someone who has only glanced at something can take a sideswipe at it on a blog that’s supposed to reflect her job as a representative of the public. It’s outrageous that any MP is indulging themselves in this sort of trivia, let alone that she’s taking time and airspace to knock an enterprise that’s doing well in a time of recession.
I do urge you to mail her and complain about this misuse of her time. Her website’s contact page is here.
Well, I’ve picked up a lot of commissions from my Twitter habit so I know I’m not - but the serious issue overlooked not only by Ms. Dorries but also by Mr. Nee is that she’s paid out of public funds - never mind politicians and expenses, I don’t pay my taxes so someone who has only glanced at something can take a sideswipe at it on a blog that’s supposed to reflect her job as a representative of the public. It’s outrageous that any MP is indulging themselves in this sort of trivia, let alone that she’s taking time and airspace to knock an enterprise that’s doing well in a time of recession.
I do urge you to mail her and complain about this misuse of her time. Her website’s contact page is here.
Editing live comments
30/04/09 14:09
Occasionally you see something that reminds you of
why what you’re doing is exciting. Yes, this
computery social media stuff is all very good, but
it’s also radical, new and engaging. When
you’re in it every day it’s easy to lose
sight of that.
Which is why I’m so pleased to have read Joanna Geary’s account of editing a live feed on the Times website. Watching blog comments arriving as a news event unfolds is exciting enough - goodness knows I was excited enough when the key player in my Tweeting the Law entry decided to comment in person, magnify that about a squillion times and you begin to understand how it must feel when something really important is happening.
It must also be chilling, though. You decide as editor who’s going to get through. You decide who gets a say and who doesn’t. When blogging goes truly mainstream so that everyone feels it’s natural to comment, you’re effectively rationing democracy.That sounds melodramatic, mostly because it is - but it’s also true.
Geary’s piece is a rivetingly well-written account of how it feels to be part of that process. Highly recommended.
Which is why I’m so pleased to have read Joanna Geary’s account of editing a live feed on the Times website. Watching blog comments arriving as a news event unfolds is exciting enough - goodness knows I was excited enough when the key player in my Tweeting the Law entry decided to comment in person, magnify that about a squillion times and you begin to understand how it must feel when something really important is happening.
It must also be chilling, though. You decide as editor who’s going to get through. You decide who gets a say and who doesn’t. When blogging goes truly mainstream so that everyone feels it’s natural to comment, you’re effectively rationing democracy.That sounds melodramatic, mostly because it is - but it’s also true.
Geary’s piece is a rivetingly well-written account of how it feels to be part of that process. Highly recommended.
Twitter headlines - que?
29/04/09 11:47
I love this Copyblogger blog post. I love it more
than I ought to. It’s all about getting the
right headline for your Twitter post. Here it is.
It’s all about Twitter and getting a good headline. People read headlines before the read the articles that underpin them. I understand this stuff, I’ve been a journalist for 20 years.
What Brian at Copyblogger has missed, though, is that a Tweet isn’t, and doesn’t have, a headline. This is actually a problem for him because his whole post is based on the idea that people use Tweets to get others to look at their content. OK, sometimes this is true. Today alone I’ve Tweeted about the Raconteur supplement I edited which is in today’s Times and of course many readers will be coming to this blog entry through my Tweeting it or Facebooking it. But many Tweets are different. They are ends in themselves. This never, ever happens with headlines - they are always an invitation, never ever are they content in their own right, even when they end up being better than the article itself.
So yes, some of the Copyblogger stuff makes sense - be succinct, invite people into your world, write clearly. But don’t approach Twitter like headline writing. It is - or should be - a completely different thing.
It’s all about Twitter and getting a good headline. People read headlines before the read the articles that underpin them. I understand this stuff, I’ve been a journalist for 20 years.
What Brian at Copyblogger has missed, though, is that a Tweet isn’t, and doesn’t have, a headline. This is actually a problem for him because his whole post is based on the idea that people use Tweets to get others to look at their content. OK, sometimes this is true. Today alone I’ve Tweeted about the Raconteur supplement I edited which is in today’s Times and of course many readers will be coming to this blog entry through my Tweeting it or Facebooking it. But many Tweets are different. They are ends in themselves. This never, ever happens with headlines - they are always an invitation, never ever are they content in their own right, even when they end up being better than the article itself.
So yes, some of the Copyblogger stuff makes sense - be succinct, invite people into your world, write clearly. But don’t approach Twitter like headline writing. It is - or should be - a completely different thing.
Tweeting the law
27/04/09 11:13
A magistrate is in trouble for Tweeting about his
cases - I was annoyed at first as he was within the
law, but then I thought about it... Read
More...
Twitter terrors
23/04/09 15:19
So to the Techradar website, on which there is a list
of ten crimes that will get you
unfollowed on Twitter. Many of them make
sense. Some of them, though, are damned silly.
The first few are fine - not Tweeting too often
(we all do it at first), but it’s at no. 3
that the thing starts to come unstuck.
Don’t, it says, Retweet yourself. Why of
course I won’t. I’ll just assume
that everyone saw what I said the first time
around and ignore the fact that some of the
people with whom I’m trying to communicate
might be around at a different time from the
rest.
It’s no. 6 with which I really take issue, though. Don’t, it says, reply to celebrity Tweeters. In other words please take away from them every reason they had for being on Twitter in the first place. Certainly there will be one or two who’ll be there for their own glory but equally there are some who want to chat. Twitter and other social media is about bringing down the boundaries, but doing so in an environment the recipient of these messages can still control. The tone of this ‘rule’ would offend me if I were a celeb; it implies that they’re not real people and won’t respond if they’re approached in a reasonable, polite manner in a forum on which you expect to be approached. I’ve certainly had friendly words with a few of them and even more with non-celebs - the one thing they all share in common is that they’re people.
In fact the more I think about it the more I think this is silly snobbery.
Moving on. another one that gets to me is not asking people to retweet what you’ve said. OK, a lot of the time this can be self-serving and silly - but what if you really need help with something? Or what if you’re doing something for charity and would like to raise thousands rather than hundreds? It’s a crazy rule, simple as that. End of rant.
But what really gets to me is that someone feels they can tell ever
It’s no. 6 with which I really take issue, though. Don’t, it says, reply to celebrity Tweeters. In other words please take away from them every reason they had for being on Twitter in the first place. Certainly there will be one or two who’ll be there for their own glory but equally there are some who want to chat. Twitter and other social media is about bringing down the boundaries, but doing so in an environment the recipient of these messages can still control. The tone of this ‘rule’ would offend me if I were a celeb; it implies that they’re not real people and won’t respond if they’re approached in a reasonable, polite manner in a forum on which you expect to be approached. I’ve certainly had friendly words with a few of them and even more with non-celebs - the one thing they all share in common is that they’re people.
In fact the more I think about it the more I think this is silly snobbery.
Moving on. another one that gets to me is not asking people to retweet what you’ve said. OK, a lot of the time this can be self-serving and silly - but what if you really need help with something? Or what if you’re doing something for charity and would like to raise thousands rather than hundreds? It’s a crazy rule, simple as that. End of rant.
But what really gets to me is that someone feels they can tell ever
Befriending the little guy on Twitter
22/04/09 12:12
A Tweet from Sheamus Bennett (worth following if
you’re interested in social media, click
here if you’re on
Twitter and you can follow him easily) alerts me
to this excellent blog post on why we should be
following the smaller Tweeters and not just
aiming for the big numbers by following people
with loads of followers. The arguments are
solid; follow only the big hitters with hundreds
of thousands of followers and they won’t
have the time to see your Tweets, let alone
respond to them.
I have another reason for following people with fewer followers. They may be new, they may be inexperienced but they may well have something to say. And that’s the whole idea of this social media thing - finding out what makes people tick, what they’re doing by all means but more particularly why they should bother doing it. You might well learn something - I certainly have. The thing is, some of the celebrities or high-profile bloggers - the Stephen Frys or Guy Kawasakis who use social media - also have a great deal to say and much of it is interesting. They also have massive media interest, though, so if they want something heard the chances are very good that they’ll find a way to get the message out there somehow. Someone will report it, which they may not in the case of the bead maker in the West Country I’m following, or the advocate of mothers returning to work. They have comparatively few followers but they always reply and they often offer a fresher perspective on matters than I’d have thought of by myself.
So yes, follow the non-celebs who some people describe as the smaller timers on Twitter. Not just because it can be profitable (but hey, why not!) - but because you might read something interesting that other people don’t get to see.
I have another reason for following people with fewer followers. They may be new, they may be inexperienced but they may well have something to say. And that’s the whole idea of this social media thing - finding out what makes people tick, what they’re doing by all means but more particularly why they should bother doing it. You might well learn something - I certainly have. The thing is, some of the celebrities or high-profile bloggers - the Stephen Frys or Guy Kawasakis who use social media - also have a great deal to say and much of it is interesting. They also have massive media interest, though, so if they want something heard the chances are very good that they’ll find a way to get the message out there somehow. Someone will report it, which they may not in the case of the bead maker in the West Country I’m following, or the advocate of mothers returning to work. They have comparatively few followers but they always reply and they often offer a fresher perspective on matters than I’d have thought of by myself.
So yes, follow the non-celebs who some people describe as the smaller timers on Twitter. Not just because it can be profitable (but hey, why not!) - but because you might read something interesting that other people don’t get to see.
Announcing everything online
20/04/09 09:44
I can’t tell you how relieved I was to read
this blog entry from Edelman.
Someone with a bit of clout has at last noticed
that a great many of us are using Twitter,
Facebook and loads of other stuff to announce
absolutely everything about ourselves to a
waiting world.
People have started to fall slightly foul of this, albeit nobody has confessed to anything too severe. A while back the estimable Twitterer Stephen Fry announced that he was stuck on a delayed flight, and when he arrived at the airport there were the paparazzi waiting to take his picture. OK, he’s a celebrity and if he announces his whereabouts in a public place he can take his chances, of course - he’s been perfectly affable about how he effectively set himself up for it in interviews since then.
More disturbingly, I’ve noticed a trend towards people mentioning that they’ve bought a swish new computer. I like doing that myself, although due to budgeting it’s going to be a while before I do it again (also due to the fact that the existing one works fine so I have no excuse for anything new and shiny, which is frustrating). But if I’d done so, would I announce it to the world? I think probably not, on balance - or at least I wouldn’t announce that and then tell everyone when I’m out for a meeting, or visiting family, as some people do. The connection between ‘I have something of high value in my house’ and ‘The house is now empty for a few hours’ seems not to occur to a number of individuals.
I could have missed something (please do let me know if I have) but I’m waiting for the first reports of robberies or other crimes committed by criminals using social networks in their planning. Call me a cynic, but don’t tell me you don’t agree. In the meantime I fully agree with Edelman’s call for some sort of social networking safety code - on which I will now be working for inclusion in my book. We’ve got to start monitoring what we’re doing online not only for success stories (which we like) but for undesired side effects too.
People have started to fall slightly foul of this, albeit nobody has confessed to anything too severe. A while back the estimable Twitterer Stephen Fry announced that he was stuck on a delayed flight, and when he arrived at the airport there were the paparazzi waiting to take his picture. OK, he’s a celebrity and if he announces his whereabouts in a public place he can take his chances, of course - he’s been perfectly affable about how he effectively set himself up for it in interviews since then.
More disturbingly, I’ve noticed a trend towards people mentioning that they’ve bought a swish new computer. I like doing that myself, although due to budgeting it’s going to be a while before I do it again (also due to the fact that the existing one works fine so I have no excuse for anything new and shiny, which is frustrating). But if I’d done so, would I announce it to the world? I think probably not, on balance - or at least I wouldn’t announce that and then tell everyone when I’m out for a meeting, or visiting family, as some people do. The connection between ‘I have something of high value in my house’ and ‘The house is now empty for a few hours’ seems not to occur to a number of individuals.
I could have missed something (please do let me know if I have) but I’m waiting for the first reports of robberies or other crimes committed by criminals using social networks in their planning. Call me a cynic, but don’t tell me you don’t agree. In the meantime I fully agree with Edelman’s call for some sort of social networking safety code - on which I will now be working for inclusion in my book. We’ve got to start monitoring what we’re doing online not only for success stories (which we like) but for undesired side effects too.