Danny Whatmough.com

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has been making headlines this week following his controversial anti-Brown outburst at the European parliament (video below). The headlines didn’t appear in traditional media outlets however. Rather, they appeared online and were spread via social media.

Maybe the traditional news believe that the speech, in purely political terms, was fairly inconsequential no matter what was said. As Daniel himself says: “I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP.”

But the public disagrees. With over 80,000 hits, the rant quickly became the most viewed video on YouTube, in the world – quite a feat!

This raises a few interesting questions: Is the mainstream media out of touch with public sentiment? Is it relying on traditional stories released or issued from the same old sources? Does this (again) merely demonstrate that social media has the potential to become a fundamental news distribution services that resonates very powerfully with consumers because it is driven by consumers?

I am perhaps being too tough on the traditional media. The old ‘quality control’ argument surely stands up. This wasn’t front page news, but the comments raised do seem to have resonated very powerfully with a public that is disillusioned and fed up with the dreary, bland news we are getting day in, day out.

Its also worth pointing out, as the Guardian mentions, that the speech itself is perfect for the Internet. A short video, with easy to follow arguments, delivered in a passionate way, not to mention the money-shot of Brown at the end. Succinct, to the point and engaging.

Whatever your politics, the democratisation of news is well and truly upon us.

It looks as though Twitter will soon announce plans to charge businesses and power-users for additional features. Twitter’s rise in the US and UK has been incredible over the last few months. For me the main marker has been the celebrity influx – seeing Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross catching up with Jason Calacanis and Robert Scoble demonstrates how the user base is evolving.

I’m actually quite surprised that Twitter is making this step already. This surprise is perhaps due to the way other social networks have dragged their feet in the past, relying on VC money to consolidate a user base before experimenting with monetisation. Facebook has perhaps proved that this is a bad strategy. But it was in no way certain that Twitter would buck the trend. It has enough in the coffers to continue growing its legion of fans for some time.

So Twitter’s move is a bold one. The new ‘definition box’ at the top left seems to suggest that some sort of advertising is on its way – even if only experimental. And advertising does seem to be an obvious step at least in some form.

But these latest rumours are for me the most interesting development. I think its a potentially winning formula for a few reasons:

Additive rather than subtractive

What Twitter has done so far is to build a highly simple, but effective network. When something works so well, the obvious next step is to add more and more functionality. Twitter has stuck to simplicity. The other common trend is to bring in ‘premium’ layers that restrict certain existing functionality behind a pay-wall. Restricting what users currently get for free is a very dangerous approach. It is good to see that Twitter seems to be planning to offer additional business-focused features at a price on top of existing functionality. This will improve experience for these users rather than restrict it for all.

Reduced reliance on advertising

We all know that advertising is suffering and online ad spend, whilst continuing to rise, will reach saturation soon. As advertising pounds are stretched further and further it will become more important for sites like Twitter and Facebook (and news portals) to find other options. Twitter’s reluctance to merely slap advertising all over the site is, in my mind, refreshing.

Adds value to Twitter.com

One of Twitter’s key strengths is its API. By allowing other platforms, software and devices to access its, the popularity of Twitter has grown. This is again in opposition to Facebook’s closed approach. However, the API does reduce the importance of Twitter.com as a destination. And this reduces the effect of on-site advertising too, although including adverts in the API would be an option (with a potential for revenue sharing with application developers), but one that would significantly impact user experience.  By adding more value to Twitter.com (i.e. the new features) you give power-users a reason to return to the site.

It will be interesting to see further details when these are made available, but in theory, this is a bold step that has the potential to be very successful. It also seems to give a degree of credibility to the use of Twitter as a promotional/marketing channel (if this were needed).

Poor old ITV. Just when it looks as though they might be getting it together, it all goes wrong.

Today’s announcement is hardly surprising considering the nature of TV, TV advertising, advertising in general etc. and, of course, the ‘economic climate’.

I don’t really watch ITV – only really the football (and even that is in trouble) – and rarely rarely rarely visit the website.

Over at the Guardian, Jemima Kiss has a nice analysis of exactly what today’s ‘restructuring’ will mean for the company:

“With a share price already at a rock bottom 23.75p, ITV has been forced to take some drastic action. But ditching digital and abandoning investment in the most innovative parts of its business is extremely short sighted. If you think of a business as a family, these young digital businesses are the children that haven’t yet achieved their full potential, and ITV has given up on them already.”

And for the most part I agree with this viewpoint, although getting rid of portals like Friends Reunited is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that ITV has simply failed to find a niche in this new fangled digital world.

The local video arena that Jemima mentions is an interesting one and is certainly ripe for the taking. Especially with the demise of local media in general. Over in the US, the NYT is launching a new blog network to try and capture local news. In my mind, ITV are ideally placed to do the same here in the UK. But can they? Will they? Doesn’t look likely after today.

When did you last have some Skittles? I can’t even remember. It was so long ago.

But, to be fair, I’m not really their target market.

SO WHY ARE THEY SPENDING MONEY MARKETING TO ME?!

The social media/marketing/PR gossip-machine has been in overdrive this week with the “news” that Skittles has replaced its homepage with a Twitter search page. Woohoo!

Gawker is in awe of the personal PR potential this affords us all:

“And Twitter users are, as planned, including the word “Skittles” in their posts in order to have the honor of appearing on the Skittles.com home page.”

An honour indeed.

So, a few questions for Agency.com and Skittles:

1. Who would really want to go to the Skittles homepage? Its a frigging sweet!

2. Who is your target audience?

3. Where do you find these people?

4. Do they read Brand Republic or AdAge?

5. Are they even on Twitter?

The FT in all its social media wisdom proclaims the stunt a  success:

“Early indications suggest the campaign is a success. The Skittles meme went viral on Twitter, and “#Skittles” is today’s most-popular term on the micro-blogging site.”

Wow, a success? After only a few hours? Twitter really is amazing!

But what will this actually do for sales of Skittles? Yes, this website is not a vital marketing vehicle for a brand like this, so you might argue ‘why not?’. Econsultancy praises it as an ‘amazing social media campaign’. Is it? Can we really call a campaign ‘amazing’ after only a few days? It’s interesting certainly, but how do we measure success? Surely in the same way we do with all kinds of marketing: sales, revenues, returns…

Of course brand engagement and ‘conversation’ is important, but it wont run a successful business on its own. Too much social media seems to exist only for itself or for the enjoyment of those who ‘get it’. This, in my mind, is a narrow and dangerous approach. Innocent are an example of a brand that continually seems to ‘get it’, but for all the right reasons. Their site creates meaningful content and develops valued relationships with its key audiences. Skittles doesn’t seem to have made a real effort to engage or to add anything into the mix.

So my real question is whether Skittles will see measurable results and long-term benefits. The ‘buzz’ around this seems to stem mainly from social media ‘gurus’ and the like. It’s a stunt. One that makes ‘us’ think, but will if affect the bottom line? Will it reach those that matter? I really do hope they prove me wrong.