Category Archives: Media

I’ve been thinking about community websites lately and my conversations with local churches getting more regular.  Already today I have  found myself in a huddle discussing Twitter, Facebook and web design.  Apologies to Deborah who assumed that I have Sundays off from all this   These are just jottings from a couple of conversations.

• Some websites fail because they are seen as a dumping ground for random information and links. Ones with a single minded focus and purpose are much stronger. A purpose might be,  ”to engage with people outside the organisation and grow membership”.  A statement like this would determine the choice of stories, language, design etc.

• Confusion often about whether the site is outward or inward looking – aimed at engaging with new people, or there to serve the internal organisation. An outreach would fail if the content is muddled with material that has little relevance for an external audience.

• Some websites are seen as an isolated activity disconnected from other communications platforms like social media, newsletters, notice boards etc. Much better if there is an wider communications plan and that the activities are linked together – editorially, technically and in terms of design.

• Website design is more than trendy graphics and buttons. A simple layout and clear navigational hierarchy is as much a part of the design. Commercial templates often provide elements which confuse rather than clarify the brand. Much better to choose an unobtrusive and clean template and then focus on the navigational structure, excellent copywriting and photography.

• Economical writing, story structure and a balanced layout of text and images is a very rare to find. Possibly because the writers have little inclination or knowledge to address these aspects.

• The inclusion of consistently presented images and video is a daunting technical obstacle for many publishers. The use of Vimeo and Flickr for hosting and embedding video and photos (rather than uploading directly to the website) is a good option and provides further linkage to social promotion.

• Twitter is good for directing users TO stories on your website. Facebook is a good place to publish stories FROM your website for sharing and discussion.

• Always include a call to action or opportunity for further engagement in a posting.

Not advice just notes.  Feel free to contradict of comment in any way.

Many thanks to VCS Learning for putting on the social media event at i2 offices on Whitehall Road   I was there representing Oblong Leeds

@tomriordan

Tom Riordan CEO Leeds City Council spoke about his use of Twitter to help people understand the work of the council and to help change perceptions. He explained that some people had an impression of the council as being inaccessible – Twitter is a way for him to open up the council.

Twitter also makes him accessible as a CEO, and said that he always responds to Twitter messages. He was aware that some users engage in negative snipes but said he always responds politely.

I was encouraged that Tom Riordan sees Twitter as an interactive tool rather than simply a means of broadcasting. He was quite clear to say that he uses Twitter to get a feel for prevailing opinions and get feedback. A listening CEO of a council. And because Twitter is so instant he can be ahead of the game, “even beats the 24 hour news channels”

Some benefits include seeing his organisation from a range of perspectives, extending his own networks and linking with other people and organisations which can inform his decision making.

Twitter is also very good at alerting council staff to important news and in some ways fulfils the function of a newsletter.

He said that council leader Keith Wakefield was a new convert to twitter and that it is the former Twitter cynics that might make the best tweeters.

The verdict on Facebook was less favourable which he reserves for personal interactions and doesn’t talk about business. Facebook he said can be problematic – all too easy to say something embarrassing. Linked in he uses to gather people into his network and sometimes to engage interesting groups – but not to do much posting.

@AlexSwallow

Alex Swallow founder of Young Charity Trustees spoke next. He went through some solid and sensible uses of social media.

But the thing that struck me was that without social media his organisation probably would not have existed. Young Charity Trustees can exist without and office, without being registered as an organisation, have no paid staff, no printed materials and no costs.

–

So, social media is an important brand building and PR tool. You can create and organisation’s identity and presence in the wider world. You can give the public insights into your organisation, making the walls invisible. You can change perceptions You can listen to your customers and stakeholders and form new partnerships. You can manage your own press coverage and tell the world what you had for tea.

This is an interesting development, with YouTube going to launch channels for content made by big production companies.

The main broadcasters have been pushing up the quality of their prime time offerings with HD and next 3D, period dramas etc – this could be to differentiate themselves from all the other video washing around. The idea was perhaps that you watch YouTube on your PC and on your phone, but the TV is reserved for something better. However…

It seems that YouTube is now playing the quality game. Presumably to differentiate itself from something else.

All the providers are aiming to be platform independent – so you get drama on your phone and youtube on Your TV.

A lot of people for years have been saying that TV channels will die – i heard that predicted on the Today programme only a few weeks ago. I see no sign of it. I think TV channels are the supermarket packaging that will help consumers identify content and with which they will build loyalty. There are many emerging examples of channels and micro channels – blogs are among them, made up of original content on a theme and in a style.

Mainstream broadcasters commission a large part of their output from external production companies, but now those same companies might be making programmes for YouTube.  It’s going to be a bit like saying Coke and Pepsi are the same stuff just in different branded bottles.  A BBC programme is not necessarily made by the BBC or even seen on the BBC.    All very confusing.  Labelling and packaging of the programmes and channels will be critical.

Adopt the voice of Churchill for this next bit….

Big channels are where broadcasters can assert their authority though high editorial and presentation standards.  These channels will be the place to go for significant, well timed cultural events. Families and friends will rush home to catch the big show. Twitter will be alive with conversation around scheduled events and the nation will believe it is one.  WE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE CHANNELS.

Anyway, read more about it in the Telegraph (a channel) here YouTube takes aim at broadcasters with 60 new channels

Why has there been a failure to deal with sexual exploitation, and why are cities, businesses and communities underplaying the possible scale of the problem on their doorstep?  Jimmy Savile has had a lifetime of exposure and it seems baffling to many that this has not been dealt with before now.

There are many cases, I am sure, in which child abusers have got away with crimes over many years. Why, for example, have some priests got away with this in spite of belonging to a caring and moral communities? The fact that that they have the opportunity to commit the crimes doesn’t explain why they have been able to cover up the evidence. You can understand why the victim would want to remain silent, they have been exploited and controlled. But what is the responsibility of organisations and communities to speak out about problems on their patch and make sure this doesn’t happen? Perhaps the answer lies in self interest and corporate reputation?

The scenario: a respected organisation or community has at its heart an “evil” monster who is committing terrible crimes. The implication is that the community as a whole is not perfect and that somehow they have allowed this to happen. Furthermore this terrible presence reflects very badly on the image they are trying to reflect to the wider world. In Savile’s case the corporate image and the person where inextricably linked. While a community may not wilfully cover up such crimes, there is a terrible price to pay by exposing them. Subconsciously, individuals may so believe the brand image of an individual, community or organisation and be in denial that anything like this could possibly happen. We believe our own marketing.

The entertainment industry (and perhaps the church in some cases) is built on brand image. Entertainers like Jimmy Savile invent themselves to fit into the expectations of the industry – DJs, TV presenters, chat show hosts to some extent relinquish individuality in order to make their careers. The pressure to conform to these stereotypes is a terrible pressure and it is not surprising that some go off the rails. Savile was uniquely not himself.

I wouldn’t want to claim any special experience, but I have encountered a few high profile entertainers who have seemed very close to the edge. One was an ageing international film star whom I caught with a young woman- but no names.  In the entertainment industry there is sometimes a denial of a person’s true identity and individuality which is very sad. There are very powerful public assumptions about who these people are and what they represent. The priests and TV celebrities who committed crimes were trusted figures who were revered and had power over those who follow them. This reverence and power is not without significance.

In Sheffield we are putting the finishing touches to a film which attempts to promote some discussion around the sexual exploitation issue. It’s aimed at teenage boys and is called “Can We Talk About This”. The film discusses the facts and experiences of sexual exploitation, but most importantly addresses the key issue – we are all reluctant to talk about sexual exploitation.

Cities around the UK are competing like mad for a positive brand image. The ideal city is prosperous, clean and great for families; The perfect city provides equal opportunity for all, and public safety is near the top of the list. It’s not surprising therefor that any city would like to avoid a unique association with sexual exploitation or any other public disaster. Rochdale is a fine part of the world but the recent sex trials will undoubtedly be bad for business.

This unwillingness to go anywhere near the problem impedes our ability to deal with it in practical terms. In any city there are areas where young people are routinely picked up by organised groups for sexual exploitation. One solution would be to publicise the danger areas of the city and to explicitly warn the the public, but just imagine the outcry from commercial businesses located in these areas. According to some figures, at any one time there are many thousands of children caught up in sexual exploitation but very few are brought to justice. We must do better.

The protection of our young people requires that we admit that there’s a problem and that those in authority set their own interest aside when dealing with these crimes. They may threaten our strategic brand image, but let’s see if the PR departments are big enough to handle it.

We as a community may only see the world as we want to see it and deny anything which is unpleasant. The challenge is to open our eyes, to be brave enough to acknowledge truth and to deal with realty.