Atomik Soapbox

How journalism works: Sex, lies and voice recorders

2010-01-31T05:30:00Z

News Ltd excelled itself this weekend with a piece of journalistic sleight-of-hand designed to deceive readers in the quest for more website clicks. The story - Erotic dancers at charity launch for sick kids - first appeared on the front page of the NT News as well as on their website. It wasn't long before other websites in the News Ltd group picked up on the story's "click potential", resulting in the piece being repeated at The Australian and becoming the featured story on the home page of News.com.

The article concerns the appearance of the Papparazzi Dancers at a charity function supporting Ronald McDonald House and reported the complaint of an unnamed 'guest' at the event who complained about the nature of the act.

"It was in the most (sic) poorest taste - they were taking their clothes off,'' the source said.

"It was disgusting, the fact they were announcing a child's charity is in such poor taste.

Although the original story was accompanied by attractive, but hardly controversial promotional photos of the dancers in question, by the time it reached the News.com home page it was accompanied by an entirely different image - a salacious and tittilating bum shot completely unrelated to the story. So, with the headline proclaiming the troupe to be 'erotic dancers' and a suggestive - if unconnected - photo, plenty of clicks would follow.

It's not surprising to discover that the story is highly flawed, if not entirely untrue. The Papparazzi Dancers are, it transpires, a dance troupe - not strippers as the story alleged. But in the world of online journalism, truth takes second place to sex - especially as an excuse to include racy images.

Three tricks were employed by this article to create the impression of a shocking, sexy story.

The unnamed source

All journalists are trained to corroborate their stories before going to press. The importance of factual accuracy used to be essential to any news room. Yet, as newsrooms have moved from investigators of truth to mere marketers of content, the time available and the motivation to check some stories has fallen away.

This particular story rests entirely on the hearsay of an unnamed 'source', supposedly a guest at the event. It is one anonymous person's word against many, but the source has two things on his or her side.

The story contained allegations of sexual content, making it attractive to a journalist
The source remains anonymous, hampering further follow ups or debunking

The lack of accountability when using an unnamed source prevents any genuine backlash. Who is this person? Is there another reason for these bizarre claims? Did they profit from making the claims? Are they related to the reporter in any way? There are plenty of additional questions one would want to ask a source making claims that otherwise don't stand up, but we are prevented from digging any deeper.

And so a single unknown person that we cannot question is given more significance than many official sources.

The journalist had attempted to corroborate the story by calling all other parties connected with the event, but as their answers actually debunked the entire story, the decision was obviously taken to run the story even though the basic premise was unproven. All the official on-the-record denials are never allowed to burst the reporter's 'scoop'. If the unnamed source's allegations are more interesting than the truth, then the unnamed source's views will be accepted. What happens next is an extremely common journalistic trick that distorts truth behind the appearance of even-handed investigation.

(Continues after image)

The buried denial

Read the headline and the first part of the story and you would come away thinking there was something in the claims. It isn't until you get to the final paragraphs that the most strident denials appear. It is as if the reporter ranked the denials in order of weight and ensured the most damning make it into the final paragraph. Journos understand that many readers only digest the first two or three paragraphs of a story before either moving onto the next one or making up their mind. As the opening paragraphs of this story put forward the allegation of 'strippers' quite forcefully, the later denials are viewed through a reader's predetermined viewpoint. "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they. It's obviously true." And that's if they get that far.

Yet, every other quote in the story - from the charity organisers, the television station, the local mayor and the manager of the troupe - completely demolish any and every claim from the source. The dancers were not strippers, the manager tells us.

"Dancers even have (outfits) gaffer-taped to their skin so there would be no wardrobe malfunctions," he said.

The charity spokesman was unaware of any complaint and...

...after investigating the allegation, said the dancers "were not a troupe of strippers, they were fully dressed".

Even the Palmerston Mayor couldn't understand how the claim could be made.

"It was nothing inappropriate, we had entertainment by dancers," he said.

"If someone was complaining, they must have gone to a different event than I did."

Supposedly, the journalist has therefore created a balanced report and probably convinces him or herself that they have been fair to all parties. But the structure of the story severely undermines the truth and creates a distortion in the reader's mind. This is definitely intentional and, like my post on Monday, is another example of how the myth of journalistic impartiality can be manipulated.

Yet, there is a third trick at play here as well; designed to discredit the deniers.

Quoting out of context

In diligently calling those connected with the event for comment, the journalist - voice recorder in hand - would have asked many questions in the hope of getting the few words required to create the desired angle. Quite often, a journalist will have a specific quotation in mind before even picking up the phone and merely trawls until the right soundbite is uttered. The journalist will ask, cajole and pester until the spokesperson says the required words. Other times, the journalist will be deliberately provocative so as to encourage a particular reaction. I can't say what happened in this particular case, obviously, but the practice is common in modern newsrooms, as described in Nick Davies' book, Flat Earth News.

Many of the comments posted by readers after the article leapt upon a particular quote from troupe manager Daniel Cunningham.

"A number of the dancers have tertiary training, but it's tasteful, lighthearted entertainment,'' he said.

"Is he trying to say that people with tertiary degrees don't strip, or that stripping is not stripping if the dancers have tertiary degrees?" says one commenter. "And who cares that they are tertiary trained - talk about red herrings. It is clearly inappropriate." says another.

But what we don't know is the question Cunningham was asked that provoked that response. It does seem an odd statement within the context of the story, but what about the context of the conversation Cunningham had with the journalist? By taking this statement, removing the original question and the discussion around it, instead presenting it as his response to the main allegation, it is designed to undermine Cunningham by suggesting he is advocating stripping by virtue of the dancer's education level! As, previously, I have similarly been quoted out of context by a journalist, this line leapt out at me as quite possibly a classic example of the trick.

Content - not truth

Today, journalism is less about producing genuine news - although that obviously does happen - and more about producing and distributing 'content'. It has become commoditised to the point that a flawed piece that can generate lots of clicks or paper sales is given more priority than an accurate piece with less widespread appeal.

The pressure of producing content for a regularly updated website and other media channels on top of the regular newspaper, in newsrooms that have seen dramatic reductions in staff over the last couple of decades, would inevitably lead to cut corners and tricks.

But when the line becomes blurred between truth and controversy merely to justify a titillating story and a sexy bum shot, we have to ask whether we are being served appropriately by the organisations we rely on to interpret the changing world around us. Rupert Murdoch still insists that all News Ltd sites will eventually have a paywall to charge readers. Something tells me we're not going to pay for this standard of gutter journalism.

News manipulation: The impartiality dilemma

2010-01-25T01:28:00Z

In their efforts to avoid accusations of bias, the modern news media has become more biased and more distorted than ever before. A perfect example of this 'biased impartiality' occurred this morning on Channel Seven's revamped Sunrise program. In a segment on the climate change debate, Kochie interviewed Dr Ben McNeil - Senior Research Fellow for the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales - and Lord Christopher Monckton. Who isn't.

This is not a piece about climate change - so don't start choking the comments with your theories on climate scepticism or rehashing half-remembered stats to support one side or other. I have my opinion and you, no doubt, have yours. But how much is that opinion shaped by 'facts' presented without a correct context - all in the interests of 'impartiality'. I'm on my soapbox today purely to rant about how the media's insistence on unbiased and neutral reporting has had the effect of entirely distorting the news, manipulating opinion, disputing fact and creating controversy where none is warranted. The climate change debate is only one arena in which this trend is painfully apparent. It could just as easily be the War on Terror, or private health or tobacco, abortion or even religion!

Monckton has just arrived in Australia to start a National lecture tour attempting to draw attention to the climate sceptic arguments. He was introduced on this morning's program by Kochie as "one of the world's leading sceptics on the issue". A policy adviser to PM Margaret Thatcher from 1982 to 1985 for parliamentary affairs, Monckton is a politician first and a scientist - well, not at all. Yet he was given a platform to spout his climate sceptic claims on a national program. Pitting Monckton against an official climate scientist has the effect of giving Monckton and his views equal recognition, and this sort of 'impartiality' has the effect of dramatically distorting the weight of evidence in the public eye.

Richard Dawkins - of whom I am a huge fan - recently declared that he would no longer engage in public debates with Creationists for much the same reasons as I decry the debating of climate sceptics in national news. His reasoning was that, in debating their beliefs he accords them validity. By acknowledging the arguments as worthy of debate, it creates the perception that the Creationists have an equal weight of argument to the humanists.

Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Monckton - and other climate change deniers - is continually given this same oxygen by a media obsessed with neutrality and unbiased reporting. Constantly criticised for bias one way or the other, newsrooms the world over now default to seeking comments from both sides before considering it safe to broadcast or print. There is a myth that news reporting and media has to be neutral, avoiding making judgments about the veracity of claims or the quality of evidence. In his essential book, Flat Earth News, Nick Davies describes how the neutrality myth and the clamour for impartiality has the effect of distorting truth and favouring those with the weakest argument.

Neutrality requires the journalist to become invisible, to refrain deliberately (under threat of discipline) from expressing the judgements which are essential for journalism. Neutrality requires the packaging of conflicting claims, which is precisely the opposite of truth-telling. If two men go to mow a meadow and one comes back and say 'The job's done' and the other comes back and says 'We never cut a single blade of grass', neutrality requires the journalist to report a controversy surrounding the state of the meadow, to throw together both men's claims and shove it out to the world with an implicit sign over the top declaring, 'We don't know what's happening - you decide.'

And so, despite the massive disparity between the mountain of evidence for man-made climate change and the few minor holes picked apart by the sceptics, in the public eye there appears to be genuine uncertainty about global warming.

There is no genuine uncertainty. The sceptics are vastly outnumbered. The evidence is far greater. As McNeil said this morning when Monckton tried to discredit all climate change science as flawed in the wake of the Himalayan glacier mistake, widely reported this weekend.

We have thousands and thousands of peer review (documents) and evidence to go by in these reports. If I was a reasonable person, I could easily accept the 999 observations that are out there.

It becomes a question of probability. Thousands of pieces on the one hand - a few errors or contradictory holes on the other. Where would you place your bets? Sadly, the tens of thousands of pieces of evidence get equivalent weight in the media against the handful of errors leapt upon by the climate sceptics. The Himalayan glacier mistake gets plenty of column inches in the press, unlike the vast majority of evidence that is not disputed and therefore not controversial enough to warrant a story.

And so the public becomes divided, especially as we all have our own biases and interests weighing on our opinions. Reading the comments on the Sunrise website following this mornings report demonstrates just how many viewers are willing to leap on the sceptic bandwagon - but not because of science but because of the risk of higher taxes. With doubt and uncertainty introduced into the debate, it makes any political solution so much harder as so many people don't want to suffer any impact for something they believe is unproven. Therefore, those with most to lose are more prone to side with the sceptics, fuelling the confusion further.

In giving Monckton a platform this morning, Seven also accorded him far more credibility than his own actions would demand. Monckton's claims that he is a member of the House of Lords (he's not) or that he is the recipient of a Nobel Prize (he isn't) were debunked quite easily in The Guardian by columnist George Monbiot. Monbiot went on to have an interesting email correspondence with Monckton (reproduced on his website) when Monckton's Wikipedia page suddenly saw the addition of a claim that The Guardian paid $50,000 in damages for printing the false Nobel prize story (since removed).

Monckton also has ties to lobby groups and astroturfing organisations such as The Heartland Institute - part-funded by Exxon and tobacco companies specifically to dispute science related to tobacco and climate change. Surely, Monckton's willingness to take money from big oil to spout his claims should be declared when seeking his opinion on issues that stand to have major impact on big oil. Such groups, commonly created, funded or supported by business interests, set out deliberately to force a different PR agenda into scientific debates. Very rarely are the links to political or industrial interests declared. Almost always they are courted by the news media to provide the alternative viewpoint in their coverage in order to maintain the neutrality myth.

Would you not consider Monckton's proven falsehoods and his relationships with those with a vested big business interest in debunking climate change as important contextual information when considering the validity of Monckton's opinions? If you were to base your opinions on those of Monckton, wouldn't you want to know if he was paid by big oil or prone to exaggeration and outright lies? Sadly, the lack of such contextual information when providing alternate viewpoints in today's news is not confined to just climate change. The neutrality dilemma has now infected every part of news, with less actual reporting and far too much regurgitation of 'official positions'.

Have no doubt. Impartial, neutral news reporting is anything but.

Verbatim gets ready to ruuuuumble!!!!!

2010-01-18T03:00:00Z

How did Verbatim's marketing team approach a tech-savvy audience with their functional and boringly inanimate digital storage offerings? By bringing them to life in a gladiatorial fight to the death, of course!

The best marketers have always known that strong cut-through isn't just about meeting a consumers need but also creating an emotional connection as well. Especially in markets where brands and products are closely competitive in pricing and benefits, an emotional edge can be immensely powerful in converting more sales.

Yet, many marketing campaigns, especially in B2B or tech, rely on providing logical information in the hope customers will be driven by a rational decision process. Gord Hotchkiss writes in the current issue of Search Marketing Standard about how the traditional marketing idea of plotting the customer journey along a linear funnel of rational decisions (ie; need, awareness, consideration, purchase) is wrong.

Why doesn't the model work? Because it's built on the assumption of rationality - decisions based on facts and not emotions. And humans just aren't built this way. Emotions drive all decisions, and our decision process includes balancing two opposing emotional forces - risk and reward.

Hotchkiss focuses on B2B marketing in his article, but we are all prone to buying with our heart instead of our head. If we're honest with ourselves, we know this to be true from our own buying behaviour. I know, for example, that the iPod isn't necessarily the best - or even the best value - mp3 player on the market. But Apple pours a huge amount of money and marketing into creating an emotional connection to the brand. If I look at an iPod and another equivalent device on the shelf, even though the tech specs and/or price may tell me to get the other device, my emotions want the iPod. The risk / reward in this is based around switching to an unknown model (risk) with the possible compatibility issues that brings, while the reward is the sense of pleasure and belonging in joining the white earphone 'crowd'. Being one of the in-crowd brings it's own emotional rewards - products and brands conveying status. That may sound incredibly shallow but check the labels on your clothes or the make of your car. There's an emotional investment in going for Ford over Holden (if you are of that ilk) or Levi's over Target-brand jeans beyond any rational assessment of the product. Those decisions are almost always entirely emotionally led and we are quite often willing to pay a premium for that emotional security.

Injecting life into your products

Some of the best marketing strategies are those that involve a sense of playing with the brand or use humour and entertainment to create positive brand experiences - particularly if these elements are interactive. This is also at the heart of viral marketing, as it is usually the most entertaining or clever campaigns that people will want to share with friends.The marketing spreads because of the sense of fun, taking with it the brand awareness, product information and other marketing goals along for the ride almost as secondary side-effects, even if these are the prime goals for the marketer.

Verbatim's Senshuken website allows users to create up to four of their own monsters constructed out of Verbatim products - hard drives, USB sticks, etc. You are then encouraged to pit your monsters against others in mortal combat, rising through rankings. The site has been live for a few months so some monsters already have impressive scores built over thousands of duels, so my team (three are below) have a long way to go. (Piq is my little champion! Love that little guy!)

Of course, the site allows anyone to embed video of their favourite victories on other websites, extending the fun further. See how Piq enjoys a good smackdown!

This incredible website was built by Masayuki Kido of Roxik. Beyond the marketing genius (and I'd love to see final figures on ROI, cut through, etc), the website is a technical marvel of Flash.

The result of all this is I can't look at a Verbatim USB stick now without thinking "Aww, cute little guy". I can't look at a desk top hard drive without considering what kind of a wallop it would give the competition. They have personality now. Verbatim has breathed life into inanimate objects that can't help but make me view them differently next time I'm buying storage media.

Will it influence my purchases? If there is a substantial difference in price and quality, maybe not. But if two products are close on price and on size or features, I'm willing to bet I go for the one with that little bit of fight in it. Sometimes, that's all the edge a brand needs.

"Can I interest you in my soul, madam?"

2010-01-12T23:30:00Z

I've done many, many different jobs in my twenty-odd years of working life - from the fun (working in night clubs) to the disgusting (drawing lots to see who would unpack the hamper from the old folks home in an industrial laundry). But by far the worst job I have ever done was back in the summer of 1996/7 when I spent three horrible months as a door-to-door salesman.

It is a job choice borne out of desperation. Surely, no one ever chooses to become one of the most hated of all salesmen. Even telemarketing is marginally less annoying. At least you can hang up on a sales call or screen your calls, but have them at the front door and it's a lot harder to get rid of them.

But I did learn a great deal in those three months about motivation, drive... and ethics. And how much I hate dogs. Really! Hate! Dogs!

I can still remember one particular door I knocked on. This day, I was flogging discount membership cards for a local video chain - ten free hires, that sort of thing. A little old lady answered the door and I started my patter. I was batting away the objections with ease, coming back with further reasons why she shouldn't miss this great deal. Every uncertainty she had was easily answered by the sales script in my head. I was charming and disarming and she was crumbling under the weight of my persuasive smile.

And then the sale was closed. She had said yes and went back inside to get her purse. That's when I decided this was crap. I knew she didn't want the card. I knew that she'd regret the purchase later when it sat, barely used underneath a magnet on the fridge until the expiry date. When she returned, I decided to ask her a couple of follow up questions. This was enough to take the sale out of close and back into negotiation. And by asking the right questions I quickly got the lady to admit that she had no use for the card. I politely informed her that the card was probably not for her and said goodbye.

I didn't get my commission on that sale and I don't think I got my target for the day either, but at least I didn't feel like I had manipulated someone into a purchase they would regret.

No matter how much we hate telemarketers and door knockers, marketers won't stop using them. We hate them, but they work. If we're honest, part of the reason we hate them is because they work. We hate the fact we got tricked into buying that lemon of an electric razor. We hate them because they make us feel uncomfortable or guilty saying no.

They work for precisely the reasons I didn't go through with the sale to the little old lady. It is about badgering, about convincing someone to buy something that they otherwise would not have wanted. Does anyone buy anything from a door knocker that they were otherwise planning to pick up in K-Mart? It's all impulse buys of stuff we didn't know we wanted or needed! It plays on social psychology of people not wanting to be rude which forces them to hear your entire pitch even if they would have quickly ignored or moved past a different marketing medium, such as a magazine ad or an email. The human element makes the pitch so much harder to ignore and reject than any other form of marketing. That is why charities and others still use clipboard-carrying young people outside shopping centres, because social convention makes us behave differently.

Human direct marketing techniques such as these are "push" marketing at it's purest. You are almost literally pushing the sale onto the customer. It is because this can be so effective that so many marketers still use these techniques. If it works, stuff the consequences of unhappy customers or annoyed people, right? Yet modern technology and the differing conventions of the web have demonstrated that "pull" marketing can have far better long term benefits. A "push" marketing customer is less likely to come back, jaded by the experience and regretting the sale. A "pull" marketing customer can become a loyal fan for life, actually wanting to participate in your marketing and willing you to contact them. But there are still those brands that are treating the social media space in much the same way as they would telemarketing or door knocking - spamming Twitter feeds, manipulating Facebook followers and butting in when it is least appropriate.

So where is the line? I know I agree with many who argue that marketers are annoying in social media, for example. But I am also a marketer who sees the benefits for my employer of marketing within social media. When is closing a sale right and when should we just back off? Can a marketer ever truly say that jumping in on a conversation or knocking on a door is wrong if it actually delivers the results they are paid to provide? Is guilting or charming or intimidating someone into a sale like a door knocker a reasonable tactic? When should marketers put ethics above results? And should they?

Augmented Reality: Minority Report isn't going to happen!

2010-01-08T03:17:16Z

Probably the most overused cliche in digital marketing today is referencing Minority Report when discussing augmented reality (AR). AR is on many marketing prediction lists for 2010 as the proliferation of 3G smartphones and the convergence of GPS, cameras and applications means location-specific information can appear on your phone.

As an example of what we are talking about here's a video demonstrating one of the first iPhone apps to use AR.

Great application, very useful, and demonstrating the huge potential of AR. But some would take the idea to extremes. The recent AdNews Annual issue flogged the Minorioty Report cliche in an over enthusiastic wild imagining of AR excess.

The sexy technology that Tom Cruise commands in the 2002 film Minority Report doesn't look quite as far-fetched today...

William and Sangeeta Leach; The AdNews Annual 2009, p30

You mean I can swap out my eyeballs in a dingy backroom sometime in 2010? Uh, no, I guess that's not what you mean, as another article makes clear.

Your future real streetscape may well be filled with augmented advertising, promotions and 3D characters. Products and people will interact with you, Minority Report style, as you stroll down your local streets.

Andrew Englisch; The AdNews Annual 2009, p43

Yeah, cause we all know how much we love being interrupted on the street by marketing. Perform a Google search for "Augmented Reality, Minority Report" and there are thousands of blog posts, newspaper articles and more comparing one with the other, in an over-excited display of marketing hysteria. Eight years ago, did the entire marketing industry go wild with excitement at the scenes of Tom Cruise encountering interactive billboards and iris-triggered direct marketing? Does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that is the future of marketing? Really?

Apparently so.

These applications will be able to interact with and bring to life any print-based AR, give double meaning and information to brand advertisements on billboards ... and transform location-based advertising into something out of Minority Report.

AdNews; Dec 28, 2009

It's coming, you know it is--it's relentless, and in a freaky Tom Cruise Minority Report style versus the friendly intelligent freeway sign in Steve Martin's LA Story too.

Fast Company; Dec 9, 2009

Bollocks. And don't get me started on Steve Martin's freeway sign. Martin has to pull over to the hard shoulder to have a conversation with a pushy road safety signal offering relationship advice. I think the majority of freeway drivers would see that as an interruption to their journey.

Scarily, Englisch takes his AR ideas further, from billboards to people.

You are exploring downtown Sydney, early evening, nicely chilled. Someone takes your eye. You discretely point your smartphone at them. Silent click.

Anyone else creeped out yet? He continues...

Their cute face instantly fills your camera's live-feed screen. In a blink you are presented with a full array of their personal data superimposed over their image. Age, profession, favourite foods, sexual preferences and Twitter feed. Your data packed screen says that you share a compatibility rating of 95%.

Most likely because you both selected 'idiot' when choosing your privacy settings. But wait - there's more...

Quickly you hit the "Drink?" button. What will they do? How will they respond? Seconds later: "Yes!" they ping you back.

I think Englisch is wrong. More than that, I hope he is. I really, really do. It is a scenario completely devoid of genuine human behaviour, predicting the future based on what technology can potentially do and not how people will most likely use it. The above example is just way too 'stalker-ish' to be taken seriously. And this is what I think is wrong with the whole Minority Report cliche. It's the usual trap of thinking about technology instead of anthropology. How will people use the technology? Certainly not in that way!

Okay, stick up your hand if you always try to avoid those clipboard carrying, bucket waving promotional chaps that hang around street corners and shopping centres trying to sign you up or grab a donation? Yeah, I know your hand is up. Sure you may stop once or twice out of guilt, but anyone who walks the same street a lot knows just how annoying it is to walk past a gauntlet of shiny happy people trying to get you to care about pandas every... single... lunchtime. Even though we don't stop, waving a hand dismissively or politely saying 'no', we've been interrupted and made to feel a smidge guilty too - and we resent it. We'd rather it didn't happen.

So why are we getting excited about technology that does the same thing? The last thing we want is for complete strangers to approach us, convinced that they are 95% compatible because a cheap computer application identified that we both like the same colour and prefer cats to dogs. The last thing we want is to be at the mercy of our technology - responding to it instead of controlling it. The last thing we want is for technology to add more interruptions into our already frantic days.

Come on, all marketers should know now that digital marketing is moving rapidly towards 'pull' and not 'push'. Any marketer who has paid attention over the last ten years knows that a brand trying to control the consumer or force a message is doomed to fail. AR may have the ability to do all the things described above and more, but it will evolve along the lines of human behaviour and not marketing wishful thinking or power trips.

So here's my AR prediction. It will be more about places than people. Point it at a shop and see the voucher pop up. Point at a restaurant and get the reviews. Etc, etc - we all know this stuff - very useful and largely inoffensive and unobtrusive. AR as a 'pull' medium, where the user chooses when to use it and what to access. But make it an interruption 'push' medium, allow it to live up to the Minority Report cliche, and human behaviour dictates AR will be a turnoff real quick.

An open letter to Senator Stephen Conroy from a concerned parent!

2009-12-17T03:02:31Z

Thank you Stephen Conroy! Thank you so much for keeping my family safe. By announcing that your new internet filter is a measure "to improve the safety of the internet for families", I feel reassured that you only have my, and my daughter's, best interests at heart.

But, I just have one question - I didn't know my family was at risk from the internet! I mean, my household has been connected to the web at increasingly fast speeds for the last ten years and my daughter has yet to be damaged in any way. Yet you say my child could be exposed to illegal sites featuring child porn, sexual violence and criminal instruction. Bloody hell! My daughter and I must have been incredibly lucky not to stumble across any of these sites up to now, especially if they are so commonly accessed by the average home user - as they must be for you to invest so much time, effort and money in this no doubt wonderful safeguard.

It's strange though. I was under the impression that Google and the other search engines filtered out such illegal websites from their search results, making it incredibly hard for us regular people to discover them by mistake. Instead of accidentally coming across a dodgy site in a search engine, people must be choosing to go there, so this filter is designed to target this deliberate behaviour. That would mean you are concerned my daughter may learn the specific url of such a 'dangerous' website and willingly type it in. Wow! My daughter isn't as well brought up as I thought she was! Thanks for pointing out how terrible a father I've been by not teaching her the basic values of our society. I bow to your superior experience of what goes on in my house and will immediately report myself to DOCS.

But wait - according to your press release, this is about more than just child porn and illegal websites; the filter will apparently apply to all 'Restricted Classification' material. Sure, that includes all those nasty bestiality, kiddie porn and illegal sites of one shade or another, but there are other reasons why a site might be refused classification. And, according to you, the "RC Content list will be compiled through a public complaints mechanism." Fantastic! If I merely don't like something, or am offended, I can complain and may end up getting the entire site banned! I'm sure the mechanism will require more than one complaint and would presumably have a review system similar to other complaints bodies, but some lobby groups are pretty good at getting heard if something offends their own world view. I bet there are a few groups already angling to submit complaints against atheist sites, political sites, or any 'controversial' topic that offends their sensibilities by merely existing and posing an alternative viewpoint. RC already applies to a website discussing euthanasia, a community organisation site advising drug users how to stay safe and a site for safe discussion of young gays struggling to cope with their sexuality, among others. If these sites are deemed objectionable or controversial enough to be refused classification - illegality is not the only target here. Posing awkward questions, providing unpopular information or contradicting current political ideologies can cause the filter to slam down.

That's great. at least I know my daughter won't be exposed to content that challenges the safe world view you would like us to have. Better she is not allowed to think too deeply about such topics as how society deals with old age and painful illness. Better she never learns how not to catch HIV should she ever take up drugs. Better she try her hardest not to turn out gay. It just raises too many difficult questions regarding current government policy. We know politicians don't like us thinking too hard about the more difficult topics as it makes us demand better answers from you and - depending on your responses - may make us less likely to vote for you in future.

As to those other sites that somehow wind up on the blacklist when it was leaked earlier in the year - you know, the bus companies, dentist and other legal businesses that found themselves blocked with no explanation why - I'm sure everything was done correctly. If it's on the list, I'll just assume that the dentist was in reality a white slave trader and the bus companies trafficking in cocaine. There has to be a legitimate reason why these otherwise legal websites appeared on the blacklist if you've got such a foolproof 'mechanism' in place. Right?

Then again, you've not said how this "public complaints mechanism" will work, so I'm not sure. And neither is anyone else. Tell you what - how about a button we can install on our web browser tool bars. We can call it the "Ban Button". Clicking the button when you're on a website automatically submits the site to ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority). It can work like Digg or Tweetmeme - if a page gets enough hits on the Ban Button, it goes on the RC list! Now there's a funky Web 2.0 social media thingy style idea that will get you props with the kids and the geek crowd! They love their social media voting buttons!

So thanks Senator Conroy. I can send my daughter to her room now without any fears that she'll be on the internet plotting the overthrow of the government or chatting to perverted old men in a chatroom.

What? You mean the filter won't prevent chatroom conversations? She can still be exposed to paedophiles grooming teenagers in social networks and messenging services? You say the filter won't prevent people spreading illegal content through BitTorrent or other file sharing services? You say we'll be blocked from sites I don't think we've ever accessed - at the cost of other legal sites getting caught in the web - while the crims and perverts still get to do what they do unhindered?

Well, I guess I may need to take some other action then if I wish my daughter to be safe. Like - oh I don't know - teaching my daughter how to use the internet, setting acceptable limits and behaviours, helping her to think for herself and understand right from wrong, and - crucially - knowing what she is doing when she is online. Maybe I can call this revolutionary strategy something catchy, like... I know! Parenting!

Adult video games - won't somebody think of the children?

Adult video games: won't somebody think of the children?

2009-12-15T23:59:04Z

I'm a parent. Therefore, according to the news reports, I should be scared about the prospect of extremely violent video games - or ones that portray sexual imagery or drug use - being made available in this country. The argument I continue hearing from parents in these news items is that - even with an R18+ classification system for video games - their children may still be exposed to these unsavoury pixilated adventures.

Sure, okay, I can see there is a risk that R18+ games can still find their way into a school bag. We all know what sneeky little tykes our kids are. So here's what I propose.

Let's not stop at video games. After all - they're not the only things we restrict to 18 years and older.

It's time we took back the video store and made it safe for children again. Anything R18+ should be banned in Australia. After all, it's the only way we can be sure our children won't be exposed to this filth. Sure that means no more porno, but it also means no more Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver, no more chuckles at The Hangover (yes, it's R18+), no more Bruno - although that last one is a plus.

We have to be 100% certain under 18s aren't exposed to content their little brains can't be trusted to understand. But here's the problem. I'm sure many of you parents have some of these films in your own home collections. How on earth do you cope with preventing little Billy blowing his mind by slipping your copy of Scarface into the Blu-ray player? I hope you've got the DVD cupboard locked! Not to worry, when the ban comes into effect, I'll come round with the 'boys' and confiscate all such dangerous items. Hey, you'll still have Finding Nemo to watch, so it's not all bad.

While we're about it, alcohol is restricted to over 18s, so we'll be confiscating your beer fridge as well. It's time we brought in prohibition, banning alcohol across Australia. You just know that little Billy is ready to break into the drinks cabinet the moment your back is turned.

What do you mean you're not prepared to give up alcohol? Are you disputing the stats that show that about one quarter of all children between 12 and 17 have a drink within any given week and that over 450,000 children (13.2%) live in households where they are at risk of exposure to binge drinking? That is far worse than any current video game problem so let's stamp it out fast because we parents are obviously crap at policing this particular 18+ rule! If you can't cope with telling little Billy that you're not going to buy him Left For Dead 2 for Christmas, you're certainly not capable of denying him a scotch and dry on Boxing Day!

So let's close the nightclubs and bars - because we all know how easy they are to sneak into with a fake ID. Hell, we all did it ourselves even if we try to prevent our own children from doing so! Sure, that means a bit of unemployment, and we adults will remain painfully sober when the boss makes our lives a misery, but we can't have any double standards here can we? As parents we've shown ourselves totally incapable of taking responsibility for the moral upbringing of our kids, so it is far easier just to ban these things outright.

Oh, and it's bye-bye porn, while we're at it. All those top shelf magazines gone. No more 'exotic dancing' clubs. Board up the sex shops. Sure, there are a fair few adults who don't mind a bit of titillation among consenting adults and a few cheeky toys, videos or magazines can be the spice in some relationships. But we all know those mags end up behind the bike sheds at school with that one kid who always somehow manages to create a black market in back issues of Razzle or whatever they call themselves.I don't know about you, but I worry every day about Billy asking me what a dildo is! It won't be a problem if all the dildos, vibrators, fluffy handcuffs and other filth are collected up for landfill.

Hang on though - what about driving? Another activity restricted to adults and an activity that, let's face it, does have a strong track record of leading to illegal behaviour and even massive death tolls. Here we have something with a direct and provable cause and effect between the capacity and access to a car and the willingness to speed, drive recklessly and perform other dangerous behaviours eventuating in death and mass carnage. We know restricting the driving age hasn't kept the young joy riders off the road, so we should also lobby for the banning of cars. Yup, catch a bus instead. You're kids will be safer for it.

Yes, I know the average age of a video game player in Australia is 25+. But even though something is designed solely for adult use, restricted to prevent minors gaining access and clearly marked to advise parents of the risks, it is perfectly obvious to me that we parents are not capable of responsibly monitoring or raising our children in such an environment. Christ, allowing 18+ content out into our society would mean I would have to actually pay attention to what my child is doing!

Social media through history: President Roosevelt

2009-12-08T05:59:16Z

If you want to make me chuckle, talk to me about how social media is something new - a recent innovation or modern cultural phenomenon. The only thing that's new about social media is the standard suspicious business reaction to something that - quite frankly - ain't all that surprising if you have a sense of history. The technology may have changed, but technology is merely the delivery system. The principles are exactly the same as they have been for millenia. Do CEOs and managers really believe listening and responding and building relationships with their public is a controversial new concept?

Just a few days ago I came across an interesting snippet of information. Over a hundred years ago, President Roosevelt noticed that members of the press were huddled outside the White House in the rain. Realising that wouldn't necessarily inspire them to write friendly copy of his administration, he ordered that a room be set aside for them inside the White House - and so the presidential press corps was born. (Reference) Roosevelt understood that a close, interactive and responsive relationship with the press would help produce good publicity as well as good will. No longer were presidential activites confined to formal press releases with no opening for questions. Roosevelt answered questions of the press himself - the first President to do so.

Most successive presidents continued this relationship with the press to differing degrees (Taft abolished the practice until Wilson reintroduced it in 1913 with what is now recognised as the first regularly scheduled press conference). Harding, Wilson's successor, required questions to be submitted in advance and would pick which he would answer. Coolidge was even more censorious, reading out a submitted question only to then directly ignore it and move on. This, understandably, meant the press developed a more cynical attitude. As a result, the press weren't as accommodating as they had been with Roosevelt.

Today, just like Taft and Wilson, many businesses continue to pick and choose the conversations they will respond to, or restrict channels of feedback to certain topics if they allow any conversation at all. Sometimes they also try to ignore difficult questions or uncomfortable feedback in the hope they will fade away. I think we all know that such a cynical approach to communication doesn't work... Still, the White House learned this mistake decades ago and reintroduced an open press room with direct Presidential access. Hardly a new revelation.

President Kennedy was the first to broadcast live press briefings, removing the luxury of pre-screening questions and controlled information release. This created an immediacy and accountability that no previous president had achieved. If Kennedy or his spokesperson refused to answer a question, everyone still knew it had been asked - on the record - and could draw conclusions. The control of information was therefore shared between the press and the White House, forming a relationship and system of inquiry and genuine debate that lasts until today.

No one is suggesting that there isn't manipulation and spin going on and there are certainly times in virtually every presidency when I'm sure they wanted to just nail the doors to the press room shut with all the journos inside. Yet the pros far outweigh the cons with a far more informed democracy than ever before in history.

By opening a dialogue with the American people through the press room, the White House made itself accountable to the people while at the same time placing themselves at the centre of the conversation. Each new technology - radio, television, internet - has only enhanced this relationship. It is therefore no surprise that politicians have embraced social media in recent months as it is really only an extension of the same tradition. The new technologies did not create the expectation of open, transparent relationships - that was President Roosevelt on a particularly rainy day.

So if the White House could see the value in this kind of communication strategy over a hundred years ago, why do so many businesses balk at something as simple as a corporate blog or Twitter stream? Do they really think their activities are more secretive and precious than the President of the United States?

The client relationship

2009-11-27T04:15:11Z

Is there another industry with such a wide disconnect between client and professional as web and digital design? These professionals seem to have client horror stories so bizarre, so out of touch and so hilarious that we love to swap stories of unrealistic requests, ridiculous comments and terrifying payment negotiations.

In recent days I have become addicted to the site Clients From Hell, where people are encouraged to add their own client horror stories to a growing litany of forehead slapping inanity.

Why so much? My nephew works on computers at Best Buy and makes $12 an hour.

There's also the genius "If architects had to work like web designers!" - originally posted on A List Apart, it quickly spread across the blogosphere as web designers and creative types recognised their own experiences reflected within.

And then there's this brilliant video from Scofield Editorial demonstrating how ridiculous common client requests are when placed in a different context.

Funny as all these may be, they do illustrate a problem. How can we expect clients to pay us more money for the steak instead of the taco when we haven't demonstrated to them the differences involved to justify the value? How can we get briefs that make sense if we don't take the time to educate the client on their true needs?

Because the online industries are impenetrable to the majority of people who still believe websites magically appear in their browser, are they really stupid for failing to understand the complexities involved or are we stupid for not educating the mainstream on how things actually work?

I want to make a website that only people in Nashville can see.

The constant push of technology means that most people have software and tools on their computers capable of doing what seemed miraculous a few years ago. As the wider population has become used to the idea that everything is quick and easy - from creating images in Photoshop to editing video in MovieMaker - the genuine hard development and creative work in these fields has been devalued.

Prospective client $400 for a logo?! Why are you so expensive? My nephew has Photoshop--I can just get him to do it.
Me: Does your nephew have Microsoft Word?
Prospective client: Yes.
Me: Then have him write you a novel while he's at it.

Creativity has always been a far harder concept to place value on for a client. You can quickly check the working of a mathematician or engineer and show a clear 'cause and effect' of work to result which can then be commoditised with a value. But how do we put a value on the difference between a graphic designer creating a logo and a client's nephew using an open source logo-building software?

It isn't the client's fault that they can't see the difference. We need to be far clearer in demonstrating to them the difference and the steps involved in producing professional work. And also the value of that professional work. After all, if a client honestly believes that his nephew's version is better than your $400 effort, is he wrong to think so if we can't adequately demonstrate how much a logo can impact on branding, sales and ROI?

That looks good, but can you add a blog too? We've already used our budget on the rest of the site so how does $50 sound for adding the blog?

We need to educate them so that they understand what we have done for them. Instead of baffling them with complex jargon and marketing speak in order to demonstrate our credentials, we need to break things down to concepts they can relate to and understand. They need to know that Flash is more complex than basic imagery. They need to know that code is laborious and time consuming to develop. They need to know why innovative and fresh design is better than templates, that cut and paste is not as powerful as inspiration and originality.

Sure, this may mean pulling back the curtain and revealing the professor pulling Oz's levers, and this is why many professionals shy away from such transparency. No one wants to give away their trade secrets.

But that doesn't mean a client will become so knowledgeable that they won't still require your services and expertise. Just because we understand the skill and effort a chef puts into a good meal in a restaurant doesn't mean we then always try to replicate the feat in our own kitchens. I'll never make a curry as good as the little place around the corner, even if he gave me a complete list of the spices and step by step instructions. That is why I have an appreciation of what he does and will always spend whatever he wants to charge for a chili beef with a cheese naan.

The resurrection of Louie the Fly

2009-11-26T00:56:06Z

If the mark of a good product is being able to demonstrate its effectiveness, Mortein's long running Louie the Fly campaign is an interesting twist!

Louie the Fly has been popping up in their television commercials now for over fifty years. Like an insect Kenny from South Park, this superbug is struck down and killed by the power of Mortein every time - only to be resurrected, Lazarus-like, to continue his disease-spreading rampage in Australian kitchens in the next commercial to come along.

If I were to choose a fly spray, I'd pick the one where the bugs stay dead!

Bloody oath, it's National Swear Day!

2009-11-25T03:13:28Z

Apparently, I'm a potential wife-beater. I didn't know that, never having beaten my lovely wife and never having inflicted violence against women in any shape or form. But according to a campaign underway today, men should swear never to inflict violence on women. Otherwise, I guess the implication is, we would.

Today is National Swear Day, in support of the My Oath campaign being run on behalf of Unifem, the United Nations Development Fund for Women.

The concept of National Swear Day is for the ten million men in Australia to be encouraged in the media and by celebrities to swear an oath that states:

We swear:

never to commit violence against women

never to excuse violence against women, and

never to remain silent about violence against women

My problem is that, as far as I am concerned, I sort of take all of that as 'read'. I would think all of you reading this would as well. In all honesty, I find it vaguely offensive that I'm being encouraged to swear an oath committing me to a course of action that would be pretty much already hot-wired into my DNA. It's like getting me to swear that I will continue breathing or continue eating on a daily basis. Well, d'uh!

Actually, what it is closer to is being placed on a good behaviour bond for a crime I didn't commit. All Aussie men are stood in the dock, being paroled with the undertaking that we'll be good boys from now on. That doesn't really sit right with me - especially as those who do commit the crimes aren't stood next to me.

As Cathie McGinn (@acatinatree) commented on Twitter:

The idea that violence against women is some default setting you actively have to strive to overcome sickens me.

Of course, the argument for the campaign is that it raises awareness and creates the stigma that violence against women is socially unacceptable. But does it really? So what if me and a few thousand other similar males, the Prime Minister and minor on-air celebs like Hamish and Andy take the oath? Were any of us at risk of committing such acts anyway? Would those in our society who are most at risk of perpetrating violence against women feel influenced by a radio DJ saying hitting women is wrong when they are in the full red haze of a violent temper? Would anyone capable and/or disturbed enough to attack a wife or partner or daughter or whatever be the sort of person to pull back at the last minute and say "Hang on - I took an oath not to do this. Let's talk reasonably through our feelings instead."

I really don't see how this campaign can achieve anything except some commentary within marketing circles about an experiential campaign that reached x number of people; pat them on the back, give those guys an award. Where Movember is an experiential campaign that raises humongous buckets of cash to fight prostate cancer and male depression (and you can still sponsor my irritating, crumb-laden, itchy mo here), this Swear Day campaign seems to have nothing more than 'PR gimmick' writ large across it.

Couple this with the publicity the organisers have tried to extract by incorporating Google Wave into the strategy as an apparent 'world first', and the whole thing begins to reek of lots of buzz with little substance. The extremely limp Google Wave exercise is a perfect example of the shallowness of the campaign as - open to all public users of Google Wave - it has failed spectacularly in engaging users to discuss the issues or interact in a meaningful way towards the supposed goal. Merely clicking yes to take the oath, in a Wave only seen by a technologically fortunate few, doesn't really demonstrate any deep thinking, engagement, conversation or mind-changing behaviour. Many of the comments on the Wave are more to do with the excitement of seeing lots of live people on the one Wave at once, and what that means for geekdom, than any profound discussion of the worthy cause.

There is also a whiff of sexism in all this as well. As Cathie McGinn again pointed out:

I think what bothers me most re. #whiteribbonday is that women's voices are absent, perpetuating a sense of women as victim/passive...

Warrick Rendell (@Warwraith) also was incensed by the gender issues in considering violence a one way problem.

What about violence by women? Or violence by men against men?

All violence is wrong. National Swear Day merely buries the real issues of why some people in our society inflict physical harm against others underneath a feelgood message with no real insight, understanding or practicality behind it. There is no mechanism for National Swear Day to actually instigate change.

An awareness campaign may be a noble goal, but does merely creating awareness amongst those most likely to be already aware represent a good use of marketing resources? Will that awareness generate any kind of change?

A good campaign creates real, measurable change with a defined cause and effect. A bad campaign achieves nothing towards the core goal. Guess what I'm expecting to happen here.

Nett Magazine: relevance, ethics and buzz

2009-11-18T23:14:24Z

A few more of my recent articles and contributions to Nett Magazine are now freely available online for those of you yet to pick up a copy. I haven't updated this blog with Nett articles for a while, so it's time to remind you all why I am so proud to be involved with it.

Last week, Nett won the Publishers Australia Bell Award for Best Custom Magazine and was also announced as runner up in the Best B2B category. We were ecstatic with the win, cementing our Best Magazine Launch gong from last year.

Awards aside though, the ongoing cycle of articles and publication continues on and here are some of my more recent contributions from issue 22.

A beginner's guide to relevance

A couple of years ago I was a rail commuter, spending hours each day on trains and in stations. It wasn't unusual to walk through the ticket barrier to be accosted by promotional models handing out flyers for something or other completely forgettable. After all, at that uncivilised time of the morning I'm more focused on getting where I need to be at a time that won't earn me scorn, on a public transport network designed to thwart me. Are morning commuters really in the best frame of mind to receive marketing for a new movie, clothing outlet, bank account?

An article for small business owners on how to target the right people with the right message more effectively, the article discusses various online marketing strategies on behalf of Netregistry.

Not all conversations are markets

For many business owners, social media are what staff waste too much time on. For others, they're an opportunity to spruik their products and services to an engaged audience. However, both these attitudes can get you into trouble - with staff, customers and the general public - if you break the laws of the online community. The problem is, nobody knows exactly what those laws are.

Twelve communicators, marketers, consultants and business owners - including Mark Pesce (@mpesce), Stephen Collins (@Trib) Ian Lyons (@ianlyons) and myself - provide their own opinions on what is acceptable and what is unethical behaviour when marketing in social media.

Kickstart: A regional growth opportunity

Mackay-based Clare McFadyen wanted a website that listed shared accommodation for regional centres and couldn't find one - so she built her own. Our panel gives her some ideas to build up buzz and momentum.

The Kickstart panel - Zara Freedman of ZFWeb, Josh Mehlman (former Nett editor) and myself - advise Clare on how to build an audience to get her website off the starting blocks.

Baloney detection - A beginner's guide

2009-11-18T03:14:30Z

Misinformation has been a problem ever since language was invented. The moment we had words, we were telling each other that the sun was a god, the world was flat and that fire was one of only four elements.

But as mankind has evolved in our knowledge and also our ability to reason, misinformation has continued to keep pace. Political and religious agendas cause people to willingly choose misinformation over proven fact. Personal ignorance or a mistaken viewpoint (or simple mischievousness) can be magnified through modern communications to become highly damaging but pervasive myths. As the internet provides ever increasing clever connectivity to allow us to further democratise information, our perception of the world - its history, science and psychology - is growing highly dependent on our ability to cynically identify those pieces of information that take us down dead ends of reason.

Richard Dawkins - uber skeptic and devotee of reason - recently launched a new podcast series. The first episode is this 15 minute long but fascinating description of the Baloney Detection Kit by Michael Shermer - a series of questions or filters through which a logical mind should screen the information it receives to determine its validity.

When we're growing up, we tend to be pretty credulous. We just believe almost anything that people tell us - especially authorities and adults, text books and politicians and television, YouTube, the internet... There's just this sort of sea of information coming at us. How can you tell the difference between what's right or what's wrong? How do you know?

Essential viewing for anyone who cares about reality instead of agendas and fakery.

I've previously discussed the issues surrounding the democratisation of online information - particularly with reference to Wikipedia:-

Wonderful though this new information age is, it demands that we all become skeptics if we are to successfully navigate our way through without completely distorting our world views.

Rock DJ part 3: The show must always go on

2009-11-01T23:20:00Z

Strobe lights and headaches don't mix.

Stomach bugs and beer don't mix.

But taking the night off and still receiving a pay packet don't mix either.

I don't think I ever missed a night in all the years I DJed both in the UK and Australia. At certain periods I was DJing up to three nights a week and holding down a full time job, so there was very little time to be sick. DJing can be a rain, hail or shine type gig, particularly when you've carved out that niche for yourself.

Social media is no different. Blogging requires constant attention, otherwise the audience will drift away. Quite often, I find myself forcing myself to produce a couple more posts even though I don't feel particularly inspired, awake or even well.

There are many times I've DJed dosed up on flu tablets or chomping on Immodium with one eye on the CD countdown and the other on the gents room door. Yet my worst experience of 'suffering for my art' dates back to my time working in club in Bournemouth, UK, circa 1990. Whiskey's was the name of the nightclub, and again I was the Thursday night fixture with a strong local following of goths, rockers, indie shoe-gazers and punks.

I had a migraine. It was a thumper. Pills weren't shifting it and there was no way I could cancel the gig. Firstly, there was no DJ in reserve who could play the same music. If I didn't turn up, the club would be forced to bring in one of their mainstream DJs and the crowd would go somewhere else. Secondly, if I didn't turn up I didn't get paid, and there was rent to pay.

So turn up I did. Pump up the volume, flick on the lights, on with the show.

Anyone who has ever suffered a severe headache knows that flashing lights and loud music is like salt on an open wound. My girlfriend at the time (oh god, don't ask me her name, please don't...) was the only one to know I was in pain in the DJ box, running to the bar to fetch water for me and giving me pitying looks as I switched the strobes on again.

You might be thinking; couldn't I just have avoided certain flashy lights or lowered the volume just a little? Sorry, not how it works. The crowd doesn't know or care how I'm feeling. They've paid their money, bought their drinks and are looking for a good night. How can I place my own comfort above a couple of hundred or so others expecting a show of a certain standard? I was being paid to put on the best show that I could and that's about pride as much as it is about money.

Social media works exactly the same - it is about the audience and not yourself. You can't switch off when it becomes uncomfortable or inconvenient for you. If a particular social strategy turns negative for whatever reason, you can't decide to sit it out, only coming back on board when it's fun and positive again.

Once your social media strategy has created expectations - for example, prompt replies or regular blog posts - you had better be on your death bed to muck around with that schedule. Once lost, it will be much harder to get the crowd back.

How many blogs have one of those posts that are all about "Sorry I haven't posted much lately. Been ill, work's been tough, family issues getting in the way. I promise to blog more regularly." Do readers ever care when reading something like that? Usually, whenever I see a post like that, the blog doesn't become more regular. If anything it is usually one of the last posts ever to appear on the blog and signals the end - a loss of interest and commitment.

Commitment is the key word here. If you have a social media strategy, either a personal hobby or a business marketing campaign, you need to be able to carry on even when it isn't fun. You need to push through the pain barrier. You need to deliver and keep delivering. After all, that is the implicit promise you made when you invited others to follow, subscribe, friend, fan or whatever.

So stiffen up. Have a backup plan; some posts in reserve or someone else capable of moderating the Twitter feed or Facebook page seamlessly on your behalf if you fall under a truck. Otherwise grin and bear it, because the show must go on.

Rock DJ Part 1: You don't build communities

Rock DJ Part 2: Free is better than a cover charge

Rock DJ part 2: Free is better than a cover charge

2009-10-29T23:00:00Z

When we first started running The Pit out of DJs Nightspot in Gosford, it was free entry. Thursday nights had always been notoriously quiet in Gosford - crikey, even most weekends resembled a ghost town - so there were no high expectations and we were on a trial.

The club was packed. That first year was the best we ever saw in five years of running The Pit and it became the place to be every Thursday night. We weren't the only free venue, but we were the only one that provided that particular music. Free just helped the new night grow and spread that much quicker.

After a year or so, the manager wanted a change. He had noticed that some were coming every week but weren't buying drinks. He wasn't making any money off some of the crowd that came through the door and they were enjoying dancing to a DJ he still had to pay. Remember, he's never made so much money off Thursday nights before, but the thought of some people getting a free ride was too much.

So the manager added a door charge. Two dollars at first, it had grown to five dollars by the end. It might not seem like much, but it was enough to see the crowd start to drift away. Those who would casually come in on a Thursday for a free bit of fun - cashless students and bear-footed hippies - no longer came. And so their friends who had been buying drinks didn't either. Less people in the club meant less atmosphere and buzz meant less people came back every week and less new people discovered the club.

The difference wasn't huge and it wasn't overnight, but the door charge was the clear before-and-after point that marked the downturn. As the crowd declined the door charge increased to offset the difference and eventually the night was finished.

Placing any obstacle to admission, no matter how trivial, can dramatically reduce numbers. David Meerman Scott talks frequently in books and talks of how Mailer Mailer multiplied downloads of their ebook - The Email Marketing Metrics Report - twenty times, merely by removing the need to enter an email address. That's right, even entering an email address - significantly less hassle than paying two dollars - is enough to prevent people from accessing your content.

The Mailer Mailer website is now listed at number one in Google for the valuable keyword phrase email marketing metrics, their industry. Now, you can't tell me there's no financial return on being the top listing in Google for your industry.

Free is the greatest acquisition tool you can have. Even if you can't convert a return out of every crowd member you acquire this way, chances are you're still making more than if you charged a couple of bucks at the door.