If you’re going to use social media, make sure you use it to be social!

As you may have picked up already today, we have released our second report investigating how some of the UK’s leading technology companies are using social media. You can download it here.

For the second year in a row, we found that UK technology companies are missing out on the potential of social media by not being social and failing to use these new channels to engage with their audiences.

Only 31% of brands with a Facebook account used it to engage with users and, of those that used Twitter, only 14% of tweets were replies and retweets. When it came to the companies that had a blog, only 20% received comments and only one company took the trouble to reply to comments received.

In the study, we took the 2010 Deloitte Fast Tech 50 – a list of the UK’s 50 fastest growing technology companies and benchmarked their social media activity.

Facebook for B2B is on the rise

One of the most interesting findings this year was that the use of Facebook amongst B2B companies has skyrocketed in the last 12 months with 70% of B2B companies on the platform compared to just 40% previously. Linkedin was still the most popular network used overall (92%), followed by Twitter (80%). YouTube remained the least popular for the second year running (44%). Despite the increase in adoption, most companies were still only using these channels for ‘push’ marketing techniques with 65% of companies with a Facebook page using it for one way communications and 96% of blogs simply broadcasting article and news content without inviting responses.

B2B v B2C

As might be expected, B2C brands in the study were far more likely to engage with users than B2B companies. Of the B2C companies with a Facebook page, 63% used it to engage with consumers compared to just 22% of B2B companies. And, while the percentage of B2B tweets that were replies was only 7%, B2C rated much higher (35%).

Tech companies were also still failing to effectively integrate social media channels with their website. Only 58% of companies in the study had social media links on their homepage despite over 90% of companies having at least one social media site. Half of companies linked Twitter from their homepage, but only 14% linked to a YouTube page or blog.

It’s no longer whether you use it, it’s how you use it

This matches what we’ve found in the last year when speaking to tech companies about social media PR. Whereas a few years ago much of the conversation was about whether tech brands should be using social media. These days, most companies know that they have to get in on the social media act, but are still unsure how to go about it. I predict we’ll see further maturing over the next year, so when version three of the report comes along, maybe we’ll finally see companies using social to be social.

Download ‘How social are you?‘

Originally posted here.

FT ditches iOS apps – more publishers to follow?

The news last week that the FT is to remove its apps from the Apple app store is the latest episode in the ongoing saga surrounding media publishers and their digital content strategies.

If you’ve missed the story so far, then what you need to know is that Apple, in February, changed the rules and forced publishers to run subscription services for any apps on the platform through its in-app purchasing function.

The catch here is that Apple takes 30% of all monies received through in-app purchases. And, as you can imagine, publishers like the FT aren’t very happy about this.

First of many?

The FT has taken matters into its own hands and has pulled its apps from the store and has created a new web-based app for the iPhone and iPad instead. A version for Android will be available soon.

And others will possibly follow suit. Amazon launched a web version of its Kindle iOS app in the summer and it looks as though the WSJ will soon remove all in-app purchasing options to ensure compliance with Apple’s new rules.

Of course Apple is hoping that the sheer number of users on its devices will persuade publishers that the 30% levy is a necessary evil. However, these moves suggest publishers might not have the same mindset.

The data game

Another key part of this that is often overlooked is the data angle. Another part of Apple’s rule change is that no publisher or app developer can retain information about customers that make in-app purchases. For a company like the FT, this is a massive issue. Acquiring data on subscribers and using this for marketing opportunities is absolutely vital to its entire business model.

The irony here is that Apple could be doing itself out of long term app revenues. There has always been an argument over whether platform specific apps or HTML5 cross-platform apps (like the new FT web-app) will be the future with many, myself included, believing the former is unsustainable and the latter will provide much more flexibility for publishers and users alike. This move by the FT seems to confirm that view, albeit the motives are for slightly different reasons.

Going against the app model

It seems that, if anything, Apple is forcing publishers to look at alternatives that might, ironically, do them out of some of the big revenues they currently enjoy from the app store.

The main arguments against web-based apps are they are often slower, less feature-rich and don’t have offline-reading modes. But with HTML5 technology developing quickly, these could soon be irrelevant.

Of course Apple is unlikely to go down without a fight, especially if more high profile publishers move away from the app store. The FT and Apple have apparently held talks over this issue already with neither seemingly willing to budge at this stage.

This is a fight that has many rounds to come. The eventual winners might be uncertain at this stage, but it is another blow for publishers tirelessly searching for answers to the digital conundrum.

First published on the EML Wildfire tech PR blog

Even Scoble agrees with me that Quora is all hype!

On Thursday, I wrote a blog about how I was amazed at the amount of hype Quora was receiving.

One of the main perpetrators of this hype has been tech blogger extraordinare, Robert Scoble.

A month ago, he was full of praise for the service:

“Thanks Quora for providing a great community and way for people to communicate about what’s interesting in their lives in a new way. That’s innovation in blogging.”

And yet, today we get this:

“Turns out I was totally wrong [about it being a good service for blogging]. It’s a horrid service for blogging, where you want to put some personality into answers. It’s just fine for a QA site, but we already have lots of those and, in fact, the competitors in this space are starting to react… Even worse, I’m getting dozens of emails from people pissed that their questions have been changed, their answers marked “not helpful,” or that they got kicked off the service altogether. Admittedly one of the things I really love about the service is there is very little, if any, spam and everyone is forced to use their real name, but lots of people want to talk about their business or not use their real names.”

Hyperventilating nerds

Scoble is part of the problem. He is the embodiment of the problems the technology industry (and the media) has when it comes to overhyping the latest thing.

Those of us who class ourselves as geeks are always running around hypervenilating over the next ‘new thing’. If you’ve seen any of Scoble’s videos with new tech CEOs you’ll know what I mean. The sycophantic idol-worship he emits as he runs around demoing every new piece of software like a hamster on steroids is quite laughable really.

To be fair to Scoble, he’s pretty honest when he’s made a mistake and judged something unfairly as this post shows

And maybe we need people like Scoble. He pushes things into the limelight for the crowd to decide. Some succeed, most fail.

Services like Quora become victims of their own hype (or Scoble and Techcrunch’s hype). Victims of their own PR.

All PR isn’t good PR

Is this a bad thing? Maybe services like Quora that try very hard are just never deemed to succeed, or at least not on the scale some might think. They won’t be the next Twitter or Facebook or Google, but then the vast majority of businesses never will be.

In the comments in Scoble’s piece, some are comparing Quora to Digg. The latter is a service that, although has often promised much, it never reached the heights some predicted. Instead it is a pleasure ground for geeks. Not that this is a bad thing. Digg is a very successful operation with a healthy revenue stream. Quora could do worse.

The wisdom of the crowd

At the end of the day, the wisdom of the crowd will prevail.

While some of us geeks would love everything we see to become super brilliant, with Scoble at the front as some larger than life cheerleader, most of them never will.

The market and the crowd will always decide.

And that’s what makes this roulette wheel of the tech start up world so utterly addictive!

picture credit

Are IT journalists abandoning a sinking ship; is PR the lifeboat?

PR Week reports today that legendary IT journalist and editor of CIO magazine, Martin Veitch, is leaving journalism for the verdant pastures of PR (with Bite).

This follows on the back of some other notable moves in a similar direction recently.

So what does this mean about the state of IT journalism and, indeed, the attraction of PR (an industry which many of these movers no doubt bemoaned on a regular basis!)?

Media woes

The problems the media face have been well documented by myself and others for a long time and need no re-evaluation. And the IT sector is no different, especially when we consider the more traditional ‘print’ titles. After the demise of IT Week in 2008, Computing has recently gone fortnightly and even Computer Weekly has made redundancies (not very insightful, but I also think the continually decreasing quality of the paper used by Computer Weekly is a bad sign…!).

The changing face of PR

And whilst the future looks less and less rosy on one side of the pond, PR perhaps offers an increasingly attractive proposition. I covered an article in the Independent last week which reported the appointment of a number of key journalists by Edelman recently. As the article states:

“In generating their own video and text-based digital content on behalf of clients, [PRs/their clients] are not only taking the bread from the table of a weakened advertising sector but encroaching onto the old territory of television and press companies.”

I took a bit of a (deliberately) controversial line of argument suggesting that journalists were therefore not really needed by PRs anymore and, whilst this is certainly not entirely the case, what it perhaps shows (as I stated in the comments) is that some of those traditional skills that journalists have always had (ability to craft a story, find an angle, write great content) are increasingly being needed by PRs.

It’s therefore no surprise to see Bite and Edelman creating ‘client strategy’ and ‘chief content officer’ roles for ex-journos [and it's certainly not the first and/or last time a journalist will turn to PR]. For those of us living and breathing this ‘new PR’ already, the question will be, whether hiring journalists is the way for PR agencies to go, and/or whether there are new skills that we all need to be learning to put us in the best position to help our clients enter into this brave new world!

picture credit

Technological ignorance and the digital economy bill

I watched with interest the progress of the digital economy bill last week. If you missed the news about it, the Government succeeded in pushing through the bill in the ‘wash-up’ period – the days before parliament is dissolved in preperation for the election.

The DEB brings about a range of new laws and legislations, but the most controversial are the actions that ISPs can now take against illegal file-sharers. ISPs must now send a series of letters to any internet account holder whose line has been used for illegal activities. If the activities still occur, the ISP will be permitted to terminate the account for a certain period.

For me, the bill is a great example of how badly technology is still understood and how difficult this issue is to solve. This bill is clearly intended to root out the worst file-sharers and stop the downloading and sharing of illegal material; but it will do nothing of the sort.

File-sharers will always find ways round the system – the use of VPNs or FTPs have already been touted by many as a way of encrypting the flow of content.

The people this bill will potentially hurt is those who don’t know that illegal activity is happening on their account – parents, small businesses, hotels etc.

Could this even see the end of free Wifi?

For me, this is an incredibly short-sighted bill. One that has come about through intense lobbying by a body that is shit scared of what will happen to it in the future – the music and film industry. And both of the main parties (excluding of course Tom Watson and a few others) are equally to blame.

I have much sympathy for content creators, indeed I used to work in the music industry so know the problems inside out. This is just not the way to deal with it.

When technology is concerned, there is often no quick fix, but there is often plenty of ignorance.

picture credit

About

This is my story. I've always been fascinated by the internet. My first passion was music and I studied a music degree at Birmingham University. But once graduated I quickly went back to the web working as a digital marketer. I also ran a web startup for a few years. In the need of a new challenge, I turned to the world of PR and now work as an Account Director at EML Wildfire. My interest is primarily looking at how PR professionals can make the most of the web and digital marketing. This blog contains my thoughts and things I find inspirational.

© 2012 Danny Whatmough - Made by me