UKNetMonitor

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 29 May 2012 12:34:00 +0000

Responding to Stephen Fry

How a TalkTalk guy beat the social media teams of the major UK ISPs.

Stephen Fry tweeted this at 7.08 AM on 28 May 2012:

“Thanks BT - just close my BB a/c for no reason, why don’t you? Hello Sky, Virgin - anyone but Bloody Trouble. Grrrrr” (Here)

As you might imagine, his million-plus followers were not backward in coming forward with their advice as to where he should go for his broadband. What interested us, was how quickly the different competing ISPs got in touch.

In true Usain Bolt style Virgin Media were quick out of the blocks with a tweet less than 2 hours later:

@stephenfry We would love to have you back, we've certainly missed you! | JM 8:55 AM - 28 May

Five minutes later, AAISP were on the case:

@stephenfry Let us know if we can help with your internets! :) 9:00 AM - 28 May

A quarter of an hour on, Be Broadband responded:

@stephenfry just let us know if you would like us to help you sort anything out 9:13 AM - 28 May

In the meantime, @BTCare got around to responding, seven hours after Fry’s original post.

@stephenfry Hi, I can sort this out for you. 2:07 PM - 28 May

Other ISPs, late to the party, piled in. 13 hours later, O2 Broadband put themselves forward.

@stephenfry Hello there, if you're interested in O2 Broadband, visit: http://j.mp/H8Bkcq Let us know if we can be of any help! 9:26 PM 28 May

More than 24 hours later, some still thought they were in with a chance. Hello PlusNet, I’m talking about you:

We are owned by BT Retail but operate independently... happy to answer any questions, if you have any ^MT 10:34 AM - 29 May

But the winner was Tushaar Masri. A TalkTalk guy, who took the initiative to respond directly, on his own account (not TalkTalk’s) within an hour of Fry’s original post, at a quarter to eight on a Monday morning.

@stephenfry I work for TalkTalk, let me no of u would like a quote... 7:45 AM - 28 May

I've no idea whether Mr Fry stayed with BT (my own experiences of @btcare have always been excellent) or has gone with another ISP, but the lesson I draw here is the importance of encouraging everyone in your organisation to act as a social media ambassador for the company, and not to wait for the official channels to put their shoes on.

UPDATE:
Also interesting to note by referrals to this post what social media platforms these ISPs are relying on. Anyone using Pulsar or Mediafunnel should be asking some serious questions. (Shameless plug for UKNetMonitor, see post below)

20 Questions to ask when choosing a social media monitoring service

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:55:00 +0000

Along with the growth in social media we have seen something of an explosion in the development of social media monitoring services. Choosing the right one is an essential part of your social media strategy, and largely depends on what it is you want to achieve. If you want to get it right, and most importantly get value for money, then ask some of these questions.

1. Just how comprehensive a service do you need? Some services only cover Facebook, Twitter and a selection of blogs, but if you need a complete picture, make sure that your monitoring is also covering other social networks, such as LinkedIn, PInterest and Google+, or even foreign platforms like Weibo. More importantly, discussion forums, consumer review sites, and comments on mainstream media sites are probably more influential, more widely read, and more significant than posts on any other platform.

Just as important as the range of platforms is the geographic and linguistic scope. Do you need to know what people are saying everywhere in the world, and in any language? Even if you only operate in one territory, your stakeholders are all over the world, and the way information travels, a comment on a Chinese discussion forum, is as likely to impact your reputation (or that of your suppliers) as a post on a Canadian blog. If your monitoring service is covering the world and multiple languages then make sure it also provides a translation. If you can't understand it, it is valueless information they are giving you.

Will your monitoring service cover those parts of the web that others can’t reach? Whole swathes of the web do not get covered by search engines, and typically need registration, log-ins, and passwords. An effective service will identify those sites/forums and set up appropriate mechanisms to access the buzz behind the wall.

What about audio, video and images?

2. How focused do you need your monitoring? You can do keyword searching yourself, but that’s the problem. You need to find needles in haystacks, and your monitoring service needs to be highly effective in filtering out spam, content farmers, duplicates, repeats, adverts, blogrolls and so on. There is a tension here between filtering out too much, which risks missing that important post, and not filtering enough which means you will be swamped.

3. Can you calibrate significance? It is said that more than half of mentions of supermarkets are people giving directions or arranging to meet nearby. You probably don’t want that in your feed, so it is vital that your monitoring service can make an accurate judgement about what you need to see. Can it accurately calibrate what is, and what isn’t significant? This will vary according to organisation and issue. You may think a customer reporting a delay of 2 minutes in getting through to customer service is immaterial, others may not. Your monitoring service needs to be able to calibrate to your requirements. Does one customer posting a poor review of your product matter, or should it only be flagged when several do? It should be your call.

4. Can it disambiguate effectively? Few organisations have completely unique brand names, and the ability to identify relevant posts is at the heart of effective monitoring. This is not just being able to tell the difference between “The Automobile Association” and “Alcoholics Anonymous”, but can it distinguish between The AA in the UK, and The AA in Ireland, South Africa or New Zealand? Relying on semantics to differentiate between the two is a weak response destined to fail. “AA +recovery”? Is that about cars or alcoholics? A good monitoring service will never include irrelevant posts.

5. Are the data outputs tailored? Like Burger King, you should get your data, your way. Do you need different outputs for different people within your organisation? Printed reports and executive summaries are useful for some audiences, but others will want access to online drillable dashboards. Do you need to get emails, text alerts, or phone calls to alert you to specific items? You will probably want an XML or RSS feed that directly supply your in-house information systems. What about other platforms? Do you need to access your monitoring service on your tablet, or phone? Do you want to be able to track your own organisations responses to posts through the monitoring service?

6. What kind of statistical analysis do you need? There is a full range of metrics that can be applied, particularly when you have a wealth of accurate information (nb GIGO as they used to say in the computer world). Statistical analysis is valuable in quickly identifying things that matter, and being able to visualise the big picture is essential. Your monitoring service should be able to present the information in a way that suits your business. Can you highlight trends, or out of the ordinary events how you need it? Charts, maps, hotspots, and gauges are all useful tools.

7. Do you need historic data and trend analysis? If all you are doing is responding to what is being said NOW, then probably not, but the ability to go back and see what people were saying, how sentiment has changed over time can add value. How far back do you want your monitoring service to keep data?

8. How quickly do you really need to see posts about your organisation? There are two trade-offs to bear in mind: cost and accuracy. Any instantaneous feed is likely to suffer from some of the problems above. Human intervention is required to ensure that the data you get is relevant, material, significant and accurate. This takes time. Then there is cost. Near real-time human intervention will push up the cost. If you are monitoring social media in a crisis then this is exactly what you need, but if your main goal is customer service, then a reply within a hour or two, or even 24 hours, may be enough and will bring down the cost. More strategic reputation management (provided it is supported by an urgent alert system) does not need that kind of immediacy, so there is more room to save costs.

9. Do you just want a cuttings service, or some intelligent curation? Any organisation with more than one brand, product or service, will find it useful for citations to be categorised. Can you have it your way? Monitoring should be able to categorise and therefore extract particular products, sites, territories, or even themes such as sustainability, price, or customer service.

10. How accurate to you want your sentiment analysis? If you are dealing with lots of data, then errors should even themselves out. However, once you start to drill down it becomes more important that sentiment analysis is accurate. Machine based, semantic analysis is at best around 75% accurate. In the UK, in particular there is a heavy use of irony, and when a post in less than 140 characters, computers are frankly poor at judging sentiment. People are good at both understanding intent, as well as context. We do it all the time.

11. How does your monitoring service assess the influence of a poster or website? This is a controversial area with a number of different metrics available, but some degree of sensible judgement should also be applied. One poster may be very influential in one field, but irrelevant in another.

12. Do you need a profanity filter? The output of your monitoring service may be widely circulated around your organisation, or even be made public for your customers to see. Do you want everyone to see everything verbatim? Similarly there may be inappropriate or personal comments being made that do not warrant being repeated around an organisation. A social media monitoring service should be able to trap those.

13. How flexible is the account management? Can you tailor what different people within your organisation receive, and how they receive it? You should expect to be able to direct specific traffic to the right place. Is there any account manager that does more than send you an invoice, that you can talk to if you need help or advice?

14. Do you need the right mix of experience in the industry with the flexibility to cope with emerging new social media platforms? This is a fast moving sector and the ability to detect and monitor emerging sites of influence is critical, but some mature perspective and experience is necessary. particularly in a crisis.

15. How much does your monitoring service need to understand your organisation, or at least your sector? There are benefits to be drawn from using a vertically specialised service that will quickly grasp what is significant in your industry, but equally a horizontal provider will have an overview that allows for cross-knowledge of emerging trends and issues.

16. What kind of advice and active engagement do you require? Do you want a holistic approach to social media with one organisation providing monitoring, marketing advice, SEO, reputation management, customer service etc. Or do you take the view that your press clipping service doesn't advise you on PR, why should your social media monitoring service? What additional services would be useful and add value? Strategic or tactical advice, or responding to posts on your behalf? Can your monitoring service carry out ad hoc pieces of research, say into reaction to competitor launches?

17. What kind of organisation do you want to deal with? This can range from simply a seller (or more likely a re-seller) of a packaged software solution, to a committed team of people dedicated to your own processes that you can actually talk to. Will you need out of hours contacts? What type of people are they? Where do you want the focus to lie: social media experts, data processing specialists, PR practitioners, consumer advocates, reputation managers? Actually, probably the most important question is “Are they people?” or are you just dealing with a machine?

18. The usual due diligence questions will, of course apply. Is your monitoring service going to be there next year? Do they have the resilience to cope with data recovery? Can they cope with sudden high volumes of work in the event of a crisis? Do they meet your own social and environmental responsibility standards? What is their record on client confidentiality? Do they understand the particular legal issues around social media monitoring (particularly copyright, privacy and libel)?

19. How much will it cost? The million dollar question, but fortunately not a million dollar answer. Because Google is free, many organisations seem to think that all forms of monitoring should be similarly priced. (This, at the same time that they are spending large budgets on market research.) The cost will depend on what you want. It is only the value that you get that really matters. Whilst any organisation can point to that "one post" it flagged up that saved the client millions, it is the day-to-day input into your organisation’s work that adds value. Much of the value will depend on what you do with the information you get, but how much management time is being saved by outsourcing the monitoring? How much insight is being contributed?

20. Can we help you?

Image: xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

MoneySavingExpert now has as many active users as Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:31:00 +0000

Monitoring Social means more than Facebook & Twitter. At UKNetMonitor we have tended to bang on a bit about how important discussion forums are. They engender trust and loyalty, as well as active considered engagement, and consequently have considerable influence over reputations. Particularly over the longer-term, compared the the now six-hour long attention span of Twitter. YouGov’s latest research underlines this in spades:

“Moneysavingexpert.com, the expert consumer financial advice site, now has as many active users as Twitter. As well as articles on financial products, users of the site can create profiles, leave comments and interact in similar ways to other social media sites. This points towards a new phase - the rise of social sites with slightly more purpose than just connecting to people for the sake of it.”

Monitoring discussion forums is not easy. Few of them have effective APIs and long threads don’t index well for search. This is why the kind of high degree of human intervention is essential for anyone wanting to monitor what is being said and read on the forums. Anyone relying on a solely computer-based keyword search monitoring, is only hearing half of the conversation, and probably the wrong half at that.

Anywhere working

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:17:00 +0000

There were many reasons why I started UKNetMonitor seven years ago, but one of them was that I had young children, and was having trouble getting the work-life balance thing right. This was largely because I loved my exciting job at Telefonica O2 (and so was doing long hours) but mainly because I was doing three to four hours commuting every day. Dead time.

I had the words of a very good HR Director ringing in my ears: “Work is what you do, not where you go”, and so, when we started the company, we decided that we would provide work in such a way that anyone could do it, anytime, anywhere. And it works. Here are just some of the reasons why remote work is great for employers, as well as employees:

No commute means people can start earlier, or work later without disrupting their lives. That means clients are serviced for longer.
Our carbon footprint is smaller, not just because of less travelling, but because we need smaller offices (heat, light etc.)
We can recruit from a much broader pool of talent, in particular, parents looking after their school children, who can put in a nearly full working day if they don’t have to commute, but also people with mobility disabilities.
Remote workers can quickly be called upon whenever there are peaks of work at very short notice if necessary.
Because work is distributed, our systems are more reliable and sustainable. A power cut in the office, or even just bad weather, doesn’t bring everything to a grinding halt.
Remote workers don’t need to be paid a city premium but can be paid above local rates.
Remote workers can be anywhere in the world, so if we need people working in different time zones, or people with different language skills, we can easily employ them.
Remote workers are very productive. There are probably more distractions in a modern office, than there are anywhere else.
Family and personal life impinges significantly less on work. If someone needs to go to the dentist, they don’t need to take the whole day off.
We get the “whole” person, not just the one that turns up to the office.
Staff meetings take place in the pub.

For the individual much the same can be said:

No commute means more time with the family, or doing what I want to do.
I can organise my day so that I have breakfast with the family, but am also there to read the kids a bed-time story, having done a full day’s work.
Less travelling costs me less money.
I can find work that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to do, at wages which are typically higher than locally.
If it is a quiet day then I can go off and do something else, rather than clock watch and pretend to be working. If it is a busy day then it is easier for me to juggle all my other needs.
If I need to look after myself or my family, I can without letting everyone in the team down.
If I work better early in the morning, or late at night, then I can choose to do that because I am not bound by office hours or train timetables.
I can be myself, without having to conform to some corporate stereotype. I don’t even need to get dressed to work.
Staff meetings take place in the pub.

There are many other reasons for employers to think about encouraging remote working. Whilst it works for us, it certainly isn’t good for everyone – our business just needs a computer and a fast internet connection – and there are certainly downsides, but they are few. That is why we are excited by the AnyWhere Working initiative: “Work anywhere. Save time, money and the world” is a good slogan, but it doesn’t tell half the story.

Measuring social significance, influence and reputation

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:55:00 +0000

At the deep heart of social curation is giving extra weight to some people’s opinions than those of others. As the volume of user generated content grows, measuring social significance is certainly becoming more important. The volume of opinion and comment is becoming too great to monitor and respond to effectively for many brands. When UKNetMonitor started curating social media in 2005, we were typically coming across only 100 significant mentions a week of some fairly large household names. Now it runs into thousands a day, along with the tens of thousands of insignificant mentions. As social content has grown we have developed a range of tools that measure significance to help sort the wheat from the chaff. These have been centred around (a) the individual poster, (b) the website, (c) the context of the posting, as well as (d) the actual content, often culminating in an easily digested 5-star rating system.

Website significance has always been handily measurable with page ranks, inbound links, and where available stat counters. For discussion forums, chat rooms and newsgroups we can look at metrics like the number of active members, threads and posts. Of course, this doesn’t tell the whole picture, as a web site may be highly significant to one brand but pretty unimportant to another. But it is not a bad rule of thumb.

The context of the posting is all important. This is not just about the political, consumer or economic environment at the time, but about the current priorities of a brand, which may have, for example, just launched a new product, or got a new CEO. These are inevitably ever-changing and somewhat subjective, but also go to the content.

The significance of content is equally variable. Some aspects are easy: we know that one negative review of a product is likely to shift opinion, more than two positive reviews, so sentiment measuring is important. Content relating to hot topics, such as the environment, or crime are likely to attract more attention. We can put measures in place for all of this and more, but they do differ according to the perspective of the company or brand. No one single algorithm can be applied.

The importance of the individual poster will be one of the greater challenges for 2012. If social curation is to be weighted by an individual’s importance then we need an accurate measure, and we also need to know what we mean by important. Is it just loud, or is it influential, by which we mean opinion forming? Does it need to be action provoking? A single disruptive voice could as significant, as a crowd. Like page-ranking, people-ranking leads us down an iterative measurement process. How many friends and followers? How many friends and followers do they have? How many retweets, shares and likes? By whom? Is the poster a creator of original content, or a trusted curator in their own right? Ah, yes … trust. How long have people been following a poster? All this needs to go into the heady mix aka algorithm. And then there is the real world. What about people’s off-line influence? Rupert Murdoch’s ability to garner thousands of followers on Twitter within hours was not entirely due to the quality of his tweets. Before we had social media, opinion-formers were identified rather subjectively. In each industry we knew who the movers and groovers were without having to put a score on them. Our ambitions have grown, and now it is not a question of identifying the top 100, but the top 10,000 or top half a million people, in our own efforts to get our message heard, or to hear what is being said.

Like it or not the demand for tools to measure social significance is likely grow, and the market is growing to meet that demand. As well as the myriad of overgrown counting machines crunching their way through the Twitter API, services like Klout, and PeerIndex are beginning to get a foothold, whilst others are coming on stream in the coming months. Each have their failings, but like democracy, they may prove to be the least bad system. If social curation means our world view is defined by the interests of our social friends, reputation ranking means our online significance will increasingly depend on the significance of our friends. Once again, we end up in a vortex where we need to choose our friends carefully.

Social curation is an alluring evil

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:30:00 +0000

"Getting information off the internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant" - Mitchell Kapor

When we used to rely on newspapers for our information it was common to read just the one paper that most closely aligned itself to our own prejudices. This gave us a warm but warped perspective on the world, with our own narrow outlook on life being confirmed by the events and opinions we read about. Our consumption of the internet hasn’t changed much of that at all. Despite opening us up to tap into and untold variety of opinions, interpretations and analysis, Google can always provide us with the evidence that confirms our specific point of view is right. Facebook and Twitter can provide us with the like-minded friends. That’s why we like it. And social curation means it is going to get worse.

Search engines have been tailoring, not just their adverts, but their search results to match what they think we are interested in for some time. Facebook does much the same. Twitter provides us with a wholly self-selected stream of opinion. What is changing however, is that these platforms are not just looking at what we are interested in, but they are analysing what our internet friends are interested it. Social curation selects what we see by analysing what our friends are sharing, liking, plus+’ing, retweeting, With apps like Zeebox, even our selection of what we watch on TV is being influenced by who our friends are and what they are watching. Just as you could be defined by the junk mail you received, the internet now defines us increasingly by the friends we keep. If we choose a wide circle of friends with varied interests, and opinions then all will be well, but it is inevitable that there will be bias in what the internet delivers to us. This is just those with the loudest voices getting the most attention: those with high social media skills and presence (and not just those with impressive Klout scores) will have their opinions figuring more prominently on the different internet platforms we inhabit. Nothing wrong with that, but in allowing our internet consumption to be determined by our e-social circle we are narrowing our personal weltanschauung into a decreasingly downward spiral if we are not careful. It is not us – broad-minded people that we are - that will exclude minority or contrary opinion and information from our Facebook timelines, our Twitter feeds, and Google+ streams; it is the platforms themselves that force us to look through the wrong end of the telescope.

The range of content management systems that rely on social is growing, or at least growing more social. Digg, Stumbleupon, Paper.li, Scoop.it, Storify, Postrank (now owned by Google) and Pearltrees are the ones to watch in 2012.

Content curation is no bad thing. We are all suffering from information overload, and this is, after all, what UKNetMonitor does for its clients – we sift for the significant and relevant posts about our clients so that we and they can assess and analyse no more and no less than the information needed. However, we do it dispassionately and hopefully reasonably objectively.

We should applaud content curation that provides us with the serendipitous, that does inject provoking material, and does challenge our own world view, but social curation relies on the opinions, biases and prejudices of our social friends/likes/follows/circles as the arbiter of our content. This means an ever narrowing perspective of self-reflecting mirrors. We should choose our friends carefully and widely in future. Otherwise we (individuals and businesses) just end up drinking our own bathwater.

Forums still dominate social media

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:32:00 +0000

Despite the clear dominance of Facebook and Twitter as the platforms of choice for people to express opinions, once again we have seen the influence of discussion forums providing the most significant weight of opinion that brands should be concerned with.

For our sixth year of social media monitoring we have curated posts that were significant and relevant to our clients from 856,793 different posters, including blogs, social networks, discussion forums, comments on the websites of mainstream media, customer reviews. Having sorted out the wheat from the chaff, this gives us some insight into where meaningful and influential opinions are being expressed. Looking simply at volumes of posts or traffic, about everything (Bieber, anyone? ) we, predictably see Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Yahoo Answers, and LinkedIn on top. But, this is no help to a brand or reputation manager. Opinions are being influenced elsewhere. Where? On the discussion forums. Of our Top 40 sites, 19 were discussion forums, accounting for 51% of the influential posts. This should surprise no-one. We are more likely to trust the opinions of those with whom we share a common interest.

Another key take-out from our findings is the importance of opinions being expressed in the comment sections of the websites of mainstream media. Just as many noteworthy comments are appearing here, as appear on Twitter. Newspaper and broadcasters websites remain highly viewed and are increasingly proving to be noisy debating chambers as well – particularly at a local and regional level.

This is something our clients fully understand, but why is it that so many others think a social media strategy means Facebook and Twitter, overlooking the enormous opinion forming influence of the forums and online newspapers? We think it is because it is too difficult. Monitoring of discussion forums is not easy. Measuring it is even harder. Conversational threads are not susceptible to the kind of key word searching done by software alone, and a high degree of human intervention and intelligence is required. Anyone relying on a purely computer based platform for monitoring consumer generated content, is missing out half the picture, and probably the most important half.

Of course, this isn’t the whole story; no-one should overlook the power of twitter as an amplifier, and opinion spreader, nor should anyone under-estimate the intimacy and trust people have within the friends on Facebook, but anyone devoting more than half of their social media attention to Facebook and Twitter (because there are cheap tools that make it easy) should re-think. Social media monitoring needs to cover the whole waterfront.

And, yes, MySpace did not appear in the Top 40, and UseNet Newsgroups are fading fast. Google Plus, meanwhile is slowly making its presence felt and we expect to see a stronger showing next year. For anyone interested, our top 40 sites during 2011 were:

1	Twitter
2	Facebook
3	forums.moneysavingexpert.com
4	www.digitalspy.co.uk
5	www.boards.ie
6	forums.thinkbroadband.com
7	www.cableforum.co.uk
8	www.sagazone.co.uk
9	forums.overclockers.co.uk
10	www.youtube.com
11	www.ispreview.co.uk
12	pub37.bravenet.com
13	www.mumsnet.com
14	www.dailymail.co.uk
15	www.reviewcentre.com
16	www.guardian.co.uk
17	www.techwatch.co.uk
18	www.3g.co.uk
19	uk.answers.yahoo.com
20	www.miningmx.com
21	www.netmums.com
22	community.adn.com
23	www.thestudentroom.co.uk
24	www.bbc.co.uk
25	www.cable.co.uk
26	www.hotukdeals.com
27	forums.macrumors.com
28	www.thisismoney.co.uk
29	www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk
30	www.pistonheads.com
31	www.babyandbump.com
32	www.brandrepublic.com
33	www.adn.com
34	discussions.apple.com
35	www.bitterwallet.com
36	www.sheffieldforum.co.uk
37	www.iii.co.uk
38	www.telegraph.co.uk
39	www.dooyoo.co.uk
40	www.techradar.com

Employee Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:43:00 +0000

We spend a lot of time monitoring what employees are saying about their clients, which is quite a lot. Unsurprisingly this has resulted in many companies developing sophisticated employee blogging policies. (The best of which is simply: "We pay you. We read what you post. The two are linked.") Some companies have chosen to be quite draconian, whilst others encourage a free open, and often, public debate. it seems this may change, in the US at least , following an NLRB ruling, which appears to provide a considerable level of protection to employees from any disciplinary action resulting from posts about their work.

"Employees have a protected right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves. Explicit or implicit criticism by a co-worker of the manner in which they are performing their jobs is a subject about which employee discussion is protected by Section 7. That is particularly true in this case, where at least some of the discriminatees had an expectation that LC might take her criticisms to management. By terminating the five discriminatees for discussing LC's criticisms of HUB employees' work, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)"

Sutton Valence Preparatory School is fundraising for The Children of Yirgaalem

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:50:00 +0000

Sutton Valence Preparatory School is fundraising for The Children of Yirgaalem

All support welcome ...

Saving money on market research

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:37:00 +0000

An interesting piece of market research (ironically done by a survey ) from MarketTools, claims that 94% of companies do not yet use social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter to gather customer feedback. The most common ways companies gather customer feedback are email or online surveys (51%), formal phone surveys (28%) and informal phone calls (28%).

When organisations are putting so much emphasis on improving customer satisfaction, within the inevitable constraints of cost-cutting, a golden opportunity is being missed. Conducting market research by surveys - whether online, phone or focus groups is expensive. Few would doubt that. Monitoring social media on the other hand actually provides a richer seam of information, not just quantitative but qualitative customer feedback in near real-time. Five years ago, when UKNetMonitor first started monitoring user generated content on the web, the main concern of our clients was reputation management. Since then we have seen social media used to raise awareness, build brands and provide for some limited measure of customer engagement, but the large unfulfilled area remains customer feedback. Our advice is to walk away from the surveys, don't just look at social media as another sales and marketing channel, but get into active listening mode. Simply harnessing the freely given opinion of customers must give the biggest ROI available to any organisation on a tight budget. Why pay to extract opinion and comment from reluctant interviewees, when real customers are enthusiastically expressing them, and want organisations to listen?

Sentiment scoring

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:14:00 +0000

We keep enjoying the rubbish that is generated by automated sentiment scoring. Here's some classics from twitrratr.com which rated a search for what people were saying about a particular website, as 9 positive, 39 Neutral, and 4 negative. Looking deeper however, it includes classic mis-scoring such as:

"fuck you*****. i need to pay my bill but because you've cut me off i can't call you to pay. & your website payment pages don't work. good one" - rated as POSITIVE
"Oh my God, FUCK YOU ***** WEBSITE. Why can't you just be straight forward! Maybe if you didn't have so much shit going on, you would load! - rated as NEUTRAL
"soooo pee'd off with *****. Not the ppl on the helpline but the**** website need shooting" - rated as NEUTRAL
"Why is the **** website always down whenever I need to try access my account? #fail" - rated as NEUTRAL
so excited for our new website - check it out! www.royalhuntoxford.com" - rated as POSITIVE (but totally irrelevant).

As always, garbage in garbage out. Any brand manager relying on this kind of analysis is going to be missing the real picture by a mile. Lovely graphs and great to have metrics, but if the underlying analysis is false it is of little value.

Machine driven semantic analysis can only get you so far, as so much of sentiment depends on context and perspective. Humans still rule at this, and this is why organisations that need accurate data, and reliable information use the high quality premium service that UKNetMonitor offers.

Sentiment monitoring Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:20:00 +0000

Can't resist posting more examples of duff sentiment measurement. I'm sure Sainsbury won't think this is a particularly daming post: " I've been to Sainsbury's. Had a lovely chat with two random old ladies. They prefer XBox to PlayStation. I couldn't talk sense into them. " but it gets marked up as negative by a machine.

Sentiment monitoring

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:10:00 +0000

The problems of machine based sentiment monitoring never cease to entertain us. Amused to see this tweet ranked by one of our competitors as being "negative: "Got the raging munchies! Think I'll pop to Asda and grab a few bits to munch on!" It just doesn't cut the mustard. GIGO. The only reliable sentiment monitoring is still human based, able to parse the syntax with some sense, and assess the context, instead of relying on a list of negative words.

Bears and Popes ...

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:20:00 +0000

"Consumers are increasingly using social media websites such as Facebook to vent their anger after receiving poor service, according to a survey. A quarter of consumers polled by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) said that they did not get good service from businesses."

Social media monitoring

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:29:00 +0000

Been meaning to post this link up for a while.

The problem(s) with social media monitoring technologies

Definitely worth a read.

Dealing with shill reviewing

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:29:00 +0000

At UKNetMonitor we spend a lot of time monitoring what is being said about our clients on review sites, such as Ciao, DooYoo, TripAdvisor and so on. A frequent issue is that of "shill reviewing", where highly positive reviews are posted up - typically by someone employed to promote a brand, pretending to be a bona fide customers. These can be difficult to spot, and ordinary data miners typically fail and simply collect any review that is posted. Our human moderators check for veracity in a number of ways. Firstly, shill reviewers tend to be very crude and over egg the review posting uncritical comments. More importanly we take the trouble to see whether a poster is a long-standing member of that particular board, and whether or not they have posted reviews about other things. Nothing stands out more than someone making their first (and often only) post which is unequivocally favourable. We can also spot if the same of similar reviews appear elsewhere - particularly if they are all on the same day. What should a client do if we spot shill reviewing? Most boards will respond constructively to a take-down request. Shill reviewing is bad for their own integrity as much as anything else.

It is worth noting that this kind of activity is actually illegal in the UK. Posing as a consumer to promote something would be considered an unfair trading practice. The power of customer reviews does, however, remain strong. We are naturally inclined to believe what is said by reviewers, and more often than not consumer reviews are just that - honest accounts of someone's experience.

Resilience, the web and Michael Jackson's death

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Michael Jackson's death was clearly felt by the social media networks across the web causing some to fall over as news and views were quickly swapped. We're glad to report that all UKNetMonitor's systems (and people) coped well with the massive increase in overnight traffic needing to be spidered, scraped, filtered,moderated and coded.

Bloggers and twitterers alike will be keen to point to how effective social media is at disseminating news and comment, so I will only note that I first heard the news on old fashioned analogue radio, although that is probably more to do with the time zone I was in when Mr Jackson died.

Discussion forums are where reputations are made and broken

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:45:00 +0000

We've said it over and over again, but with so much focus now on the developing new blogging and micro-blogging platforms, it is easy to overlook what is going on in the forums. Louis Venter makes an excellent point at searchcowboys where he says "The transition from customer to an anti-brand campaigner can start from many paths. A common path lies in forums with a grumbling forum thread." Venter goes on to look out how a grumble on a forum can find its way onto a mainstream website like The BBC, and then the reputational problems start once the impact on search is felt. How do you manage to get your "good news" above the BBC's report in Google?

The answer is, of course, to act before something reputationally damaging migrates from a forum. Be aware of what is being said on the forums, and engage promptly. Monitoring what is being said - and read, in discussion forums is not easy. We have yet to come across any search engine that indexes forums comprehensively, effectively and reliably, which is why at UKNetMonitor we use human search to monitor what is being discussed on forums. At one end of the spectrum Twitter is undoubtedly establishing a well earned reputation for being the "breaking news" channel, but at the other if you want to know if there is a fault with your product, if customers are unhappy with some aspect of your service, there is no better place to look than in the forums. Armies of dedicated enthusiasts, alongside itinerant solution-seekers mix to provide an almost real-time flow of feedback and information that is unsurpassable.

Once a customer flags and problem or issue on a forum, that it is time to engage. Deal with the problem then and it won't migrate. Deal with the problem well, and reputations can be enhanced. Dismissing discussion forums as backwaters for geeks, and leaving a problem to fester will only result in bad news spreading - and doesn't it spread quickly?

How to engage has to be the subject of a separate post, but we certainly recognise it is not easy. Companies that simply jump into a thread are rarely welcome. Building trust over a long period is essential, and every forum has different protocols, tone, and behaviours.

MySpace is dead! Long live Web 3.0

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:02:00 +0000

Well, that headline may be a little premature, but today's news that MySpace is slashing 30% of jobs comes as little surprise. It seems that whenever we look up MySpace sites these days, the owner last logged in some time a year ago, with only infrequent updates. The rise of Facebook and subsequently Twitter shows (a) how fast new platforms emerge, and more importanlty (b) how fickle people are in choosing their favourite mode of expression and quickly moving on. Clearly for any platform to work in terms of meaningful communication it needs to have a critical mass of users, and then the virtuous circle begins. None of us want to be on betamax. The short history of Web 2.0 (how we hate that expression, but we know what we mean) tells us that Facebook and Twitter will not remain the favoured platforms for long. Something else will come along and replace them. Current expectations of Web 3.0 point towards semantic, congruous, mobile, contextual, distributed, integrated, mixable, and personalised services. All very worthy, but spotting the winning applications will become harder as more compete. At UKNetMonitor we are constantly developing new ways of being able to monitor new platforms of cosnumer opinion. When a company was reasonably safe just racking the output of bloggers, this was straightforward, but the rise of new social networks and blogging platforms makes the task ever more difficult and unmanageable. This is where we come in. Monitoring, evaluating, and increasing volumes of published opinion.

Reaction to the Digital Britain report

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:19:00 +0000

101 THINGS PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT “DIGITAL BRITAIN”

Executive Summary

Publication of Lord Carter’s long awaited Digital Britain report has generated considerable and widespread comment across the internet, particularly on blogs and forums focussed on broadband service providers. Twitter has lit up with comments. By a significant margin the commentary is negative and at best, luke-warm. Although covering a wide range of issues, and containing a large number of recommendations, the spotlight of attention has been principally on the proposal for a 50p levy on telephone lines, and the recommendations to tackle intellectual property piracy. The impact on radio and the mobile networks also figure as noteworthy.

· Commentators are broadly disappointed with the lack of radical steps for concrete action, with much criticism of the need for more consultation. That the report lacks insight or understanding appears to be a common theme.

· The reaction to proposals to force ISPs to tackle illegal file-sharing is almost universally unwelcome, and derided as impractical.

· A 2mb universal broadband service is generally regarded as unambitious and fails to bring Britain to a competitive global position.

· The position of the mobile networks is recognised to be critical, with a number of people noting the vital contribution to infrastructure provision. Mobile is seen to be a winner from the proposals, especially as a result of the proposed levy on fixed lines.

· The end of analogue national radio transmission seems to raise further questions, in particular for car users.

· The recommendation of a 50p a month levy on fixed lines attracts more attention than any other proposal, and is widely considered to be another form of unnecessary taxation – a digital poll tax.

CHANNEL 4

Commentators are not impressed by proposals to let Channel 4 have a part share of the licence fee.

1. As a license fee payer, if BBC money is given to C4 can I demand C4 make decent telly as part of their public service remit? [twitter.com cathoderaytube] Link

2. The government has given its blessing to a partnership between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide, but has said it will not be a “forced marriage”. [blogs.pressgazette.co.uk] Link

3. Provision of Channel 4 television content is none of the government’s business or the BBC’s business either [newsforums.bbc.co.uk] Link

4. Govt says ‘intervention is required’ for children’s content and asks C4 nicely if they could help with a few ideas. Great! [twitter.com colwn] Link

CONTENT

Rights and intellectual property/Piracy

The reaction to proposals to force ISPs to tackle illegal file-sharing is almost universally unwelcome, and derided as impractical.

5. BPI boss Geoff Taylor is not impressed with the UK government’s Digital Britain report, which was issued this afternoon. Although he welcomed the prospect of new laws forcing ISPs to reduce file-sharing, he slammed the government’s decision not to implement a three strikes regime to cut off persistent file-sharers, and to instead shift the burden back to rights-owners to sue individual infringers. [musically.com] Link

6. It’s far from being passed in to law just yet of course, but the Digital Britain report does signal what steps the Government intends to take to prevent piracy, so expect a big fallout on this, and fast. [www.electricpig.co.uk] Link

7. Anti-piracy proposals are worse than 3 strikes & UR out.It’s 3-strikes and we disclose UR personal info to record industry. [twitter.com fauxtronic] Link

8. you could get a £50,000 fine and jail time for sharing a file! page 117 of the #digitalbritain, or you could join PPUK -forming response now [twitter.com PiratePartyUK] Link [there is doubt as to whether either of these steps will deter or even inconvenience the mobile, technologically savvy youngsters who comprise the core of unauthorised file-sharers today, though]. [ipkitten.blogspot.com] Link

9. Given that a very large proportion on people with Broadband access are engaged in this proccess nearly every day of the week and given that the technology around filesharing is constantly evolving, unless you are prepared to legislate to disconnect persistant offenders, a solution that european governments now seem to be ruling out, I doubt that you are ever going to be able to prevent the practice. [silvertonia.blogspot.com] Link

10. for those knowledgable about such things, expect regulated traffic throttling, more snooping on your internet use and this time it’ll be the government rather than those dodgy detective companies with suspect legality who are the perpetrators. [www.thisobserver.co.uk] Link

11. On Digital britain proposals: ‘requiring isps to send out warning letters to people downloading illegally is like making airlines responsible for drug smuggling’ [twitter.com LisR] Link

12. Media giants need to get their act together. Much piracy is because they use outmoded distribution patterns for films & music [twitter.com cathoderaytube] Link

13. Does that mean intellectual theft for enjoyment and to avoid DRM without profit is fine then? Woohoo! [twitter.com badgergravling] Link

14. The report said they would only crack down on peer to peer networks. Would downloading from the likes of RapidShare be covered also though? Even though that isn’t peer to peer. [www.cableforum.co.uk] Link

15. Government to set up scheme for regulated licensing of “orphan works” [twitter.com jordanhatcher] Link

16. The government is going to write a law which outlaws something already illegal? Let’s hope that works, or they might have to legislate something to ensure that law-enforcing law isn’t scoffed at [xrrf.blogspot.com] Link

EDUCATION

Education & Skills

17. @GrahamBM Agree with you on #digitalbritain - doesn’t embrace public/educational service of cultural content [twitter.com bridgetmck] Link

Media Literacy

18. There will also be more IT training for citizens [You’ve heard of Bootcamps. Well, these will be Reboot Camps. but will there be special training in anger management and router rage?] [ipkitten.blogspot.com] Link

GENERAL

General

Commentators are broadly disappointed with the lack of radical steps for concrete action, with much criticism of the need for more consultation. That the report lacks insight or understanding appears to be a common theme.

19. Nothing in the Digital Britain report to suggest we’ll be ‘the Digital capital of the world’. Another soundbite that won’t be delivered [blog.taragana.com] Link

20. Good Digital Britain mickeytake by The Register: [twitter.com 4TMSocialMedia] Link

21. It was all a bit boring wasn’t it? Apart from the Digital Poll Tax. [twitter.com dgwbirch] Link

22. I think I hate pretty much everything in the Digital Britain report [twitter.com ian9outof10] Link

23. Am saddened that despite consultation Digital Britain is still bending over and taking it from the media industry [twitter.com barneyc] Link

24. Digital Bling [twitter.com tobyhemming] Link

25. Digital Britain “will be key to our economic growth, social inclusiveness and well-being as a nation” [twitter.com IABUK] Link

26. DigitalBritain ‘s report seems written about yesterday for people in the past [twitter.com higgis] Link

27. digitalbritain seems to be written by people who had to have Twitter explained to them by their secretaries. [twitter.com threedaymonk] Link

28. “bread and milk tomorrow” would seem to be the upshot... [www.digitalspy.co.uk] Link

29. This is akin to Al Gore claiming he invented the internet. Gordon Brown can barely save his own arse from his political rivals. Sounds like public bantering to me [www.hardforum.com] Link

30. Overall, then, we don’t think Digital Britain is going to have anybody dancing in the street - but Lord Carter has done a good job of balancing the demands of the copyright lobby with the rights of ordinary internet users, and he’s come up with some smart ways to finance broadband and DAB without asking a near-bankrupt government for big piles of cash. [www.techradar.com] Link

31. But really, who cares? Having read the briefs, there is nothing in the report that a competent department of state could drive through without the assistance of a White paper report. [cityunslicker.blogspot.com] Link

32. FSB welcomes Govt’s commitment to fast broadband, but it’s not enough. Almost 60% of small firms want minimum of 8mbps [interactive2.dius.gov.uk] Link

33. Is that it? 50p/month phone line levy plus some “airy fairy it would be good ifs”! [www.digitalspy.co.uk] Link

34. Jeremy Hunt seems to capture the prevailing mood: What are the real actions arising from the #digitalbritain report? [twitter.com scottross] Link

35. to day marks another bad were bent biased views once again are excepted for the truth. today the united kingdom sets a new low for it people were a biased report will spout everything that wrong in all terms of right. this report digital Brittan. [torrentfreak.com] Link

36. the best thing about digital britain is the USB-like logo [twitter.com orangeacme] Link

37. Mostly because it didn’t do anything, except for a wolly promise on filesharing legislation that might not ever actually be delivered and a (granted unexpected and not unwise) levy on landlines. [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

38. So nothing concrete at all, more DAB speculation, no firm decision on top slicing the licence fee and encouraging the ongoing Channel 4 BBC Worldwide discussions. Some piracy legislation to follow [www.tvforum.co.uk] Link

39. It really isn’t bad, but it becomes vague whenever it is about to describe what will actually happen, who will do it, and how it will all work. As a guidebook for the next 10 years I would say it is a fair effort. [forums.thinkbroadband.com] Link

40. To my mind, that means if you want to sell print to the Government, you’d better find a way of helping them to purchase from you online. [w2p-webtoprint.blogspot.com] Link

41. Given the state of the public finances it is right not to throw new money at the Digital Britain project, and should instead strengthen the demand case for higher-speed broadband as part of its industrial activism agenda, including the shift to a low-carbon economy. [www.cbi.org.uk] Link

42. All set for #digitalbritain. Will be listening to Ben Bradshaw address the commons from 3.30pm and posting the choicest cuts here. [twitter.com tim] Link

43. EPIC FAIL from the soon to be ex-MP for Exeter and his 1990s consultancy cohorts Carter and Meek. a) DAB is DEAD AND BURIED outside the UK. Can’t replace FM portable radios, very high costs of transmission and poor reception. b) The 2000 3G auctions crucified the mobile industry. Don’t they ever learn? c) No credible plan for 100 Mb/s broadband. d) Yet more consultancy jobs for the boys. e) Landline supplements are discriminatory. NEW LABOUR TAXES THE PUBLIC. f) Will this be remembered after the electoral execution of the Labour Party by next June? [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

44. Basically it’s an endless round of consultations and reports with almost nothing final ever actually being implemented. The Government (I believe quite rightly) does not want to pour more public money into the bottomless pit of “PSB” much of which we know is not really PSB.

45. But to keep everyone happy they conduct an endless series of consultations and reports so they look as if they are doing something but nothing ever actually happens. [www.digitalspy.co.uk] Link

46. Remember this is a report from a Government that knows it’s out on its ear in less than a year - and a minister who’ll be in a happier and more lucrative new job within weeks. It’s one of those reports [www.theregister.co.uk] Link

47. All in all I think this is a good report. There were always going to be difficulties with putting together a document with such a wide remit and I’m sure that as we get time to digest it other questions will arise. However Lord Carter should be able to move on to his fresh challenges with a reasonable sense of satisfaction. [www.trefor.net] Link

48. But come on – IT industry, digital industry, creative industries, ask yourselves: This is far, far better than the nothing we have been used to. [editor.computing.co.uk] Link

49. To our communications Minister: You’re fucking retarded if you think Britain can become a “world leader” in digital technology. [twitter.com GodslayerUK] Link

50. What is happening now is the equivalent of the Victorians putting wheels on canal boats which are then pulled along rails by horses. [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

51. Trying not to get too excited about Digital Britain as in Scotland ‘wireless’ means the radio and not wifi. #digitalbritain[twitter.com craigmcgill] Link

52. Now I understand why Lord Carter isn’t hanging around [twitter.com sdjohns] Link

53. So the question is, does the report set out to achieve what everyone thought it would? The answer to that is that it depends on what you thought the report would set out to achieve in the first place. [www.thinkbroadband.com] Link

54. Well, that’s it - join us again for the next Digital Britain review, probably about a year after the Tories get in. [www.theregister.co.uk] Link

55. broadcasters, businesses, consumers, individuals... where are citizens? quick skim reads more ‘doing to’ little ‘doing with’ [twitter.com andy_williamson] Link

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

56. NESTA will launch Reboot Britain in early July which will use the opportunities offered by digitisation to find practical solutions to some of the intractable social challenges we face, for example, providing public services which are more efficient and shaped by the people who use them. Websites such as ‘fixmystreet.com’ – which allows citizens to report service issues in their communities, are already changing the way local services are delivered. [www.is4profit.com] Link

57. Government of the web, not just on the web” is a critical sentence in today’s Digital Britain report. [www.podnosh.com] Link

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

58. The Office of Fair Trading has decided against a major reform of the rules governing local media mergers. The regulator said today in a statement to coincide with the Digital Britain report that only “modest changes” were needed - despite intense lobbying from newspaper groups. Thanks, to the pointy heads at the Office of Fair Trading, the bombs have been averted. “Slough is free again to read newspapers from publishers who may lack the synergies to afford good journalism for years to come.” [www.pressgazette.co.uk] Link

59. newspaper publishers have failed to win a relaxation in cross-media ownership laws. [www.paidcontent.co.uk] Link

NETWORKS

Broadband

A 2megabit universal broadband service is generally regarded as unambitious and fails to being Britain to a competitive global position.

60. 2 megabits? Is that what Digital Britain seriously suggested? What are they, Luddites? How pathetic. [twitter.com Sunday] Link

61. “self exclusion accounted for 42% of those without Internet access”. So it’s then top priority to give everyone 2mb access? #digitalbritain [twitter.com graemehunter] Link

62. What a great advance under NuLabour, our broadband speed some time in the future, will achieve that already passed by many nations today.

63. Millions of homes across Britain will not have access to superfast broadband, despite promises by the Government.

64. Thats not news, if you ever find a promise that has be honoured by this government ....... thats news.But rarer to find than hen’s teeth. [www.dailymail.co.uk] Link

65. Gordon Brown says that with a 2Mbps minimum connection we’ll “lead the world”, which is complete drivel when you remember that the USA and Japan offer broadband at 101Mbps and 160Mbps respectively. [www.thisobserver.co.uk] Link

66. Living in an area where 1Mb is classed as a good connection I live in hope that #digitalbritain can change things for the better. Please [twitter.com R3DH3AD] Link

Mobile

The position of the mobile networks is recognised to be critical, with a number of people noting the vital contribution to infrastructure provision. Mobile is seen to be a winner from the proposals, especially as a result of the proposed levy on fixed lines.

67. The grand strategy behind the document is to get every single person in Britain using the internet, a proposal which the government claims makes moral as well as economic sense, citing a perceived link between what it calls ‘digital exclusion’ and genuine social exclusion.

68. In terms of specific wireless action points the report has today set out its three objectives: A rapid transition to next generation high-speed mobile broadband. Progress towards universal coverage in 3G and what the report calls Next Generation Mobile. This includes coverage on London’s Underground. The maintenance of a highly competitive mobile market. Furthermore, the government has formally accepted the essentials of a report filed by its Independent Spectrum Broker back in May. [www.mobile-ent.biz] Link

69. the government is seeking to improve mobile infrastructure, both by making 3G available everywhere (even underground in the Tube train network) and by investing in the construction of a 4G network. [techgeist.net] Link

70. The Digital Britain report, published today, says mobile phones are the key to providing broadband Internet access for all. Noting that the next generation of mobile phones are developing PC functionality, and praising the mobile industry’s “extraordinary capacity to take complex technology and make it simple, reliable and low cost” [www.mobilemarketingmagazine.co.uk] Link

71. those of us in rural areas with shit mobile coverage have no choice about keeping our BT phone lines and hence paying levy [twitter.com digitaldales] Link

Radio

The end of analogue national radio transmission seems to raise further questions, in particular for car users.

72. I’m all for scrapping AM transmissions, but I think someone ought to tell the government how the traffic information used on millions of car sat nav’s is carried ! In any case, FM is a thousand times better quality than digital radio. [forums.thinkbroadband.com] Link

73. Does an “upgarde” of national radio stations from analogue to DAB by 2015 mean they’ll turn off their FM transmissions then? [twitter.com dmaudsley] Link

74. Hang on, the only national radio stations I know of are BBC1/2/3/4, and aren’t they already available on digital? Quick check and yes, they are digital already, as is Classic FM (which I didn’t think was available nationally) Wow, what a political achievement, getting the national radio stations on digital by 2015, and beating the target by 6 years! [www.cableforum.co.uk] Link

75. Analogue radio to be switched off by 2015!!! eek! [www.cableforum.co.uk] Link

76. You didn’t think government bailed out basket cases? There’s an exception for radio. Carter wants analog spectrum used by FM and AM vacated at the end of 2015 - so you’re going to get DAB whether you want it or not. The report wants all receivers to be compatible with WorldDMB profile 1, which means supports for DAB and DRM (but not DVB-H). And Carter wants digital radio in every car by 2012. After 2015, FM spectrum it will be handed over to low-power local radio stations “temporarily”. As a sweetener for DAB operators, they can keep their licenses until 2030. [www.theregister.co.uk] Link

77. Commercial radio to pay for part of cost of BBC providing universal service on radio? Not sure that’ll go down well... [twitter.com AlexanderBaker] Link

78. Wow, is there any real reason to try and end the analogue radio that we all currently enjoy? I’ve read articles about the failer of DAB and when you add that to the millions of devices in the UK, it seems stupid to kill it off so soon. Pretty much every car will have a pointless head unit in it :/ [www.theregister.co.uk] Link

PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

Few are convinced of the need to force the BBC’s competitors to broadcast their channels.

79. So SKY/Virgin should pay BBC to carry BBC channels. I say no to that why should they pay to carry BBC channels. If BBC channels want to be on SKY/Virgin they should have to pay SKY/Virgin. But the TV TAX should be put into a pot and BBC could be part subscriptions/ads. And if TV TAX goes into a pool any show made with the TAX money should be FTA and ad FREE. [www.digitalspy.co.uk] Link

FIXED LINE LEVY

The recommendation of a 50p a month levy on fixed lines attracts more attention than any other proposal, as is widely considered to be another form of unnecessary taxation – a digital poll tax.

80. the idea that everyone with a fixed line should pay a levy so that a relative few can have cheaper access to broadband alongside Ofcom becoming the piracy police isn’t filling me with joy. Infact if I had a printer, enough paper, some lubricant and Lord Carter I think I know where I’d put the report, but I’ll try and read it to get some more detail. Absolutely outrageous. [forums.thinkbroadband.com] Link

81. Another Broon stealth tax. It’ll start off at 50p a month and rise to several hundred pounds a year. [www.thisislondon.co.uk] Link

82. Can someone do the math - tax on all fixed lines to raise £150m per year - how much is that “small levy”?? [twitter.com dafyddbach] Link

83. If there are 50 million lines in the UK (probably more) it will bring in £300M / year. And at a guess VAT will be added so £52.5M to the exchequer too. How much will the government take “for managing the improvement programme [forums.thinkbroadband.com] Link

84. Another day, another Tax. When will we bid rid of these idiots.

85. Outrageous. This is the communications versus of the 10p tax regime which will fall disproportionately on the poor: Ofcom’s latest survey revealed that 30% have no plan to go onlinle because they have no interest or are too poor. [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

86. Seems that landline levy will be to pay for 2Mbps broadband across the country - still trying to get clarification on DAB #digitalbritain [twitter.com dmaudsley] Link

87. Biggest surprise is the 50p levy on fixed phone lines to pay for universal broadband [twitter.com busfield] Link

88. Errr tax levy on all fixed lines to fund USO? Think we know who will end up paying that tax, and I for one I’m not at all happy about it regardless of how much it is. [www.thinkbroadband.com] Link

89. tax on fixed phone lines - can only be great news for Skype. [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

90. The tax payer pays yet again [www.digitalspy.co.uk] Link

91. does that extend to Mobile Phones? Because I can see some folk abandoning fixed phonelines if that comes about [www.cableforum.co.uk] Link

92. £6 on every phoneline per annum thanks to #digitalbritain. Another waste of millions of pounds inbound no doubt! [twitter.com TheSMudgeh] Link

93. People will interpret the broadband tax as Licence Fee 2. [www.thisislondon.co.uk] Link

94. so you can get rid of your copper line now, go wireless, and save £6 a year, or nearly US$ 10 at today’s exchange rate]. [ipkitten.blogspot.com] Link

95. BT, Sky and TalkTalk all confirm they were unaware of £6 broadband levy,[twitter.com ianvisits] Link

96. It’s a TAX on non-broadband and non-Virgin customers. [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

97. that will rise to £5 per month in very short time give Govt. an inch and they take 10 miles why don’t they just put the cost of the upgrade to fibre on there (our) expenses … [www.pcpro.co.uk] Link

98. Why all the fuss about the monthly levy on fixed phone lines to pay for broadband it will not apply to the majority of people in this country [www.guardian.co.uk] Link

99. what the actual fuck.. BROADBAND TAX !?!! £6 A YEAR im sorry but some on Digital britain report is taking the piss apparently [twitter.com JoshuaBurns] Link

100. Not content with raiding our pensions, re-re-introducing the fuel tax escalator, abolishing the 10% tax band for the low paid, and a host of other tax swindles, the Government is now slapping a 5+% or so tax on your telephone line on top of the VAT. [www.theregister.co.uk] Link

101. Why charge Phone customers for broadband improvements-They are unrelated-They as may well put a tax on Mars Bars to fund it. [twitter.com domsparks] Link

Is it over for Twitter?

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:21:00 +0000

Love it or loathe it there is no denying that Twitter has revolutionised the way in which corporate reputations are being made or broken by social media. The speed with which information is being spread around challenges even the best corporate communicators to manage the message. Increasing transparency is a harsh environment for many, although embraced by the more enlightened.

Hubspot's latest "State of the Twittersphere" report clearly shows the massive growth. Nevertheless, there are signs that growth is beginning to slow, and also some question marks about how many users are actually using the platform consistently. the 80:20 rule is stretched by Twitter, where apparently 10% of users account for 90% of all tweets.

We haven't seen any slow down in the rate of postings about our clients, and increasingly the first consumer opinion expressed on the web is on Twitter and the discussion forums, rather than on blogs - where hopefully a more considered opinion is delivered. The old adage about the truth still putting its shoes on to catch up with a lie holds true, and Twitter's first mover advantage in the opinion-forming stakes makes its ability to influence corporate reputations a critical one. As more users are turning to Twitter, not just to follow their friends, but for information and opinion, the more important it becomes. The majority of Twitter users may never have posted, but it is clear that they are reading other people's tweets. A popular misconception about corporate reputation is that it is what people are saying that matters. It isn't. It is what people are reading.

New Facebook usernames

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:58:00 +0000

News that Facebook will be allowing its members to have vanity usernames highlights an ongoing problem we face in monitoring the net. We have to spend a lot of time recoding whenever a platform makes a change to its own code. Facebook's initiative poses a greater difficulty. Up to now the URL of a Facebook profile has been something like "http://www.facebook.com/username/#/profile.php?id=571808826&ref=profile" - the key bit being the ID number which has enabled us to track individuals posting comments about our clients. Usernames will make this easier, but matching up the old numbers to the new usernames (so that we do not lose the thread of what is being said) is not something to be relished. We shall see what the weekend brings...

Measuring Influence

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:03:00 +0000

In sorting out the wheat from the chaff in social media we spend considerable time assessing the best way to measure the influence and significance of a particular website – a subject about which there is widespread debate, and little consensus on the web. Part of the problem lies with the growing number of platforms, giving rise to a number of different metrics. Blogs, Twitter, discussion forums, other websites, even newsgroups all require different yardsticks. Assessing the relative value of, say, the number of followers on Twitter compared to the number of members of a forum is inevitably subjective.

So. What do we have at our disposal? Well, here are just some of the measures that we at UKNetMonitor use:

For pretty much all types of website we have Page Ranks, SERPs, in-bound/back links, domain traffic estimates, unique visitors and page views. Further out we can look at the various bookmarking or social aggregators services, such as Delicious, Digg, Stumbleupon, FriendFeed, Feedburner,and Reddit to check for buzz. Additional there are platform specific measures:

For blogs, we can look at number of comments, RSS subscribers, or even Technorati's authority index.

For discussion forums and newsgroups we can see the number of forum members, how many threads (and how large they are) – and for individual forum members we can look at the number of posts they have made, their longevity on the forum, and number of favourable comments from other forum members.

For Twitter a key measure is that we can see the number of followers, whilst the Twitalyser uses measures such as retweets to aggregate the same sort of measures of influence listed above, as influence, signal, generosity, velocity and clout.

For Social Networks we can look at the Group size, as well as the level of posting activity.

For Multimedia we can see how many times a photo or a clip has been seen, watched, or the number of subscribers to each channel.

Ultimately, however, whilst these statistical measures point us in the right direction, there has to be a qualitative judgement made about a particular site, individual blogger, or prolific forum poster. This involves rather less tangible values such as trust, credibility, and a point of view of authority, expertise or insight. This is where are human moderators come into their own, knowing the neighbourhood and building up recognition of individuals or individual sites as important.

Can we ignore consumer opinion?

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:32:00 +0000

Bryan Appleyard writes a cogent piece in the Sunday Times, in some part prompted by Rupert Murdoch's suggestion that the days of "free" content are coming to an end. Appleyard queries the impact of the rise of individualism that has resulted form the growth of Web 2.0, and concludes that the web is now a fallen angel. His call for us to "Break free of this world wide delusion" does reflect some of the clear downsides of having a multiplicity of free platforms for anyone to publish to the world. Yes, Web 2.0 is challenging the status quo and its institutions. Yes, individuals (whether generators or consumers of web content) can be anarchic, cultist and irrational. What interests us, however, is the old establishment becoming concerned about the rising power of the individual. Well, of course they are, but is this the right response? Businesses are learning to embrace blogs, discussion forums, and social networks as a valuable tool to understand the opinions of consumers - we may rail against some of the idiocy in the deeper reaches of the forums, but Web 2.0 is not creating it, only making it transparent. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. The rise of the blogger and Twitterer must be seen in the broader context of an emergent individualism in the face of an increasingly frightened (and therefore reactionary) establishment. Driven by a genuine desire to provide consumers with what they want, businesses are, by and large, not part of that. Dismissing user generated content, however, crazy it can seem at times, is denying a changing reality that individuals, be they consumers or voters, are eager to have their say and be heard. Why would you not listen?

National Work from Home Day

noreply@blogger.com (UKNetMonitor) — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Today is National Work From Home Day. I am alerted to this by some nonsense from a company selling water coolers telling us that people who work from home are in danger becoming dehydrated because they forget to drink. Seems a bit unlikely to me, but underlying the report is the implication that people working from home have such powers of concentration that they cannot be distracted from their work, even by thirst. As most of the UKNetMonitor people work from their homes, I would certainly concur. Our experience has been all good. We hold to the view that work is what you do, and not where you go - something taught to me by an enlightened HR Director. Apart from the clear environmental, and time-saving benefits of not having people travelling to and from work, working from home allows people to acheive a better work-lie balance, secures a greater degree of autonomy, and allows individuals to be who they really are, rather than being transmogrified into a corporate archetype whenever they enter an office.