• Skip to main content

Simon Collister, PhD

Strategy + Consulting

  • About Simon
  • News
  • Contact

social media

Twitter at the peak of the hype cycle

04/23/2009 by simoncollister 1 Comment

Neville has a good post taking a brief but insightful look at Twitter's current popularity, charting it against Gartner's famous Hype Cycle.

Twitter HC

Neville writes that Twitter is currently perched atop the initial Peak of Inflated Expectations and quotes Gartner's Mark Raskino who argues that if we take micro-blogging as an abstract technology its current mass popularity lies in the fact that it's a tool which helps journalists (and bloggers) do their job and is thus gaining significant media attention.

I would add to this and suggest that the journalist example is one half of Twitter's popularity. Once the media write about Twitter, their audiences sign up and find that as well as being a useful tool for journalists it's also a useful for them. In fact it's a damn useful tool for just about anyone. Thus the inflation continues.

Neville also reinforces this point with a quote from Don Dodge who suggests that the power of Twitter lies not in the technology, but in the people (which is something I've been saying for a while):

"Social networks are all about connecting people and letting them communicate. It is the power of the network…not the technology."

Neville ends his post with the (perhaps leading) question:

"How quickly will it slide down into and then out of the trough of disillusionment?"

I believe the answer to this question is: quicker than we think.

As Twitter gains popularity via the dual drivers of mainstream media coverage and amazing public utility it becomes a ripe target for spammers, shysters, snakeoil salesmen, etc.

Sure this has always been the case with any product, tool or service but key to twitter is the realtime, network effect conditions under which it operates.

If people love Twitter for it's live connection with friends and colleagues then they'll hate it for the speed and ease with which spammers and shysters can invade their lives.

It's already happening: first there were fake, spammy accounts following you automatically and now I and others are complaining of receiving direct messages from spammy, fake accounts without even following them.

And maybe this is the real driver of innovation or the migration to new social media platforms. Friend Feed is growing nicely but maybe it's not going to gain critical mass until Twitter is clogged up with spam – or indeed, mired in the Trough of Disillusionment.

Tags: Twitter, Neville Hobson, Gartner, Hype Cycle, Friend Feed

Filed Under: social media, Spam, Technology, Twitter, Web 2.0

I’m back damnit and here’s your starter for 10: an OpenCIPR

04/20/2009 by simoncollister 4 Comments

OK. I'm back blogging again. Apologies for the haitus. Twas caused by busy, busy work and too much homelife going on.

So I have a few thoughts on s0me issues around public engagement and social media which I aim to write up soonest, in the meantime I wanted to float this idea:

Does the desire exist among UK PR types for an OpenCIPR?

Well, is there? I didn;t renew my membership earleir this year but after discussions with a good few digtial PR types was convinced that there are a number of areas where an organisation of social media and digital PR and communications types would be very useful, e.g. taking the marketing and ad agencies on through thought-leadership; developing and sharing best practice communally (a la Will McInnes' Measurement Camp); knwoeldge sharing, networking, drinking, etc.

But this thought led naturally to the next…. in a social/digital age do we need (a) formal organisation to organise? My opinion: no.

So I propose re-joining the CIPR and establishing a OpenCIPR grassroots version. This is something David Wilcox and others did with the RSA. And if they can do it with the RSA we can do it with the CIPR.

But I need to know a) that this isn't a stupid idea and b) others are willing to get involved.

Please leave your views in the comments. kthxbai

Tags: CIPR, OpenCIPR, open source organising

Filed Under: CIPR, Crowdsurfing, New media, PR, social media

Organising in the age of Networked Movements

03/05/2009 by simoncollister 4 Comments

I posted last week about my decision to not renew my membership of the UK’s PR trade body, the CIPR for various reasons.

I'm currently re-considering (more to come on that one hopefully) my lapsed membership, but weighing up the pros and cons of why I didn’t renew my membership helped me crystallise a line of thought I’ve had for a few weeks.

This thought is thus: the primary problem with trade organisations such as the CIPR or NUJ is quite simply that they are organisations.

That is, they struggle (or appear to be struggling) to adapt to the challenges posed by a socially-enabled Internet precisely because their organisational structure is geared towards fulfilling a role in an industrial, non-networked world.

For example, I don’t need the CIPR to co-ordinate a venue, guestlist, speaker and refreshments in order to attend a networking vent because a network of 50 people connected via the Internet can achieve something similar – moreover, they can achieve something better by co-creating the event.

This idea is also relevant when thinking about the way political parties (in the UK) are adapting to social media. While the Labour Party is making great strides in freeing up debate and campaigning I stand by the argument that they are never going to really get social until they do one of two things.

The first, is to radically restructure the way the party organises itself. That is, turn the party from a top-down campaigning body to a purely bottom-up network of campaigners. The difference may appear subtle but the effect is radically different.

Secondly, they could do what Obama did with the Democrat Party in the 2008 Presidential Election campaign. Rather than restructure the party (although there were definitely some changes made to the way to party operates), the Obama team centralised a large part of the campaign organisation but significantly they devolved a lot of the on-the-ground ‘campaigning’ activity to its networks of supporters.

For example, quoting Micah Sifry in an excellent essay, Sarah Oates, notes “campaigns are designed to share tasks, but not authority”. Conversely “networks share authority but not tasks”. The real test, for the Obama team, Sifry notes, will come when his team looks how to carry forward the ‘shared authority’ created during the campaign into the White House. I suspect that the Obama movement will struggle to integrate its decentralised, networked, informal organisation into the traditionally top-down formality of government.

Of course, I may be wrong and we have already seen Obama’s Change.gov programme initiate attempts to crowd-source policy making. But how successful this will be over the longer-term remains to be seen (and is the topic of another post!).

More significantly, this idea of sharing ‘authority’ vs sharing ‘activity’ (or tasks) illustrates that real political co-creation and networked campaigning appears – so far – to work best in opposition where parties and organisations are not fettered by the constraints of top-down government.

Having said that, I appreciate Obama is trying to change this and the UK government has a number of great social media thinkers and doers currently engaged in trying to make Government more networked. This is an interesting space and will continue to become curiouser and curioser. I plan to track progress in the UK and on the other side of the Atlantic and keep you posted on developments.

Technorati tags: Organisation, Barack Obama, CIPR, Micah Sifry, Paula Oates

Filed Under: CIPR, Digital strategy, edemocracy, Internet, Labour, Micah Sifry, Politics, social media, Technology

UK Government’s BERR launches YouTube Channel

02/25/2009 by simoncollister 4 Comments

I've just spotted that the UK Government's Department for Business and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has launched its own YouTube channel (I wonder if it's the handiwork of @neilyneil?).

One of the first videos uploaded is a piece to camera by Lord Carter talking about his recently published Digital Britain report:

Pleasingly BERR have opened up the comment section to allow viewers to discuss and feedback on Lord Carter's report.
Unfortunately, no-one has contributed yet.
See Joss's comment below. Looking again this morning it seems the comment option is now turned. I'm sure it wasn't yesterday when I looked… looks like BERR are trying to drive discussion to their own destination www.digitalbritainforum.org.uk which, in its own words, is a "discussion site …created by the Secretariat for the
Digital Britain Steering Board, to provide a space for you to engage
with us directly in an online debate about Digital Britain.
" Wow! The "Secretariat for the
Digital Britain Steering Board" – how social is that 🙂

It's worth noting that there is already a huge volume of discussion of the report online. Just take a look at a Twitter search for the hashtag #digitalbritain. I'd recommend Lord Carter get online himself and started engaging in the discussions already happening.

Technorati tags: BERR, Lord Carter, Digital Britain

Filed Under: Digital strategy, edemocracy, Net Neutrality, New media, social media, Technology, Twitter, YouTube

What does the CIPR and NUJ have in common?

02/24/2009 by simoncollister 10 Comments

So I have a confession. I let my CIPR membership lapse last month. I may still renew it, but to be perfectly honest I’m not sure what *real* benefits I get out of the organisaiton anymore.

The particular benefits they sold me on during the post-lapse sales call included: meeting other PR professionals at breakfast briefings and networking events and the all inclusive PR Week subscription.

But I find I do my best networking online, reading and commenting on blogs. And now by following and engaging others via Twitter (and other social media tools).

On top of that I try to get along to events like Twestival; alternative ‘networking’ events organised by non-traditional players in non-traditional spaces. Likewise I find I get all the latest news, gossip and cutting-edge thinking from blogs and Twitter too, rather than PR Week.

In short I just don’t think I need to be a member of the CIPR anymore.

Of course, this also means I don’t get to claim I’m an accredited PR practitioner or use the professional suffix MCIPR. Like I say, I may still renew but I’m struggling to see the benefits so would welcome others’ opinions.

As I mull over these thoughts, it was also good to see another blogger's encounter with his professional organisation, the NUJ.

Adam Tinworth's blog post starts innocently enough but soon degenerates/ascends into a car crash of a comment thread. With friends like these…. as they say!

Technorati tags: CIPR, NUJ, membership organisations

Filed Under: CIPR, Internet, New media, PR, social media

“Ghost blogging is illegal”, says CIPR

01/21/2009 by simoncollister 7 Comments

Rather an interesting statement has made its way into the latest iteration of the CIPR’s Social Media Guidelines. According to the section in the Guidelines covering Social Media and the CIPR Code of Conduct:

"[CIPR] Members' use of social media must be transparent, and they must make extra effort to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. … In this regard, members should be aware that ‘ghosting’ a blog is illegal"

Uh, sorry? Come again. “[M]embers should be aware that ‘ghosting’ a blog is illegal”. Since when? Well, according to last year’s Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, misleading marketing practices are illegal. But does this really extend to any blog that is ghosted?

Back to the CIPR: “[c]reating fake blogs (‘ghosting’)” is an example of a social media activity that falls under this legislation."

I’m not so sure. Yes, I agree a ghosted blog is disingenuous, bad social media practice and yes, I would agree that a blog purporting to be written by a genuine customer but in reality written by a marketing team would breach the legislation.

But can you go as far as to issue a blanket statement claiming *all* ghosted blogs breach unfair trading regulations? I think it’s unlikely.

So what’s the CIPR’s rational? To be honest, I’m not sure. It always errs on the side of caution, but this is potentially misleading. Interestingly, the statement is a new addition from the original consultation document so maybe they took on advice from someone at the consultation stage.

If they did then great. As usual I blogged my submission which was largely similar to the previous year's and also as usual I didn’t receive any feedback on my submission so I don’t know who submitted recommendations and what changes were made. 

Filed Under: CIPR, PR, social media, Web 2.0

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 32
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2026