twitter usage

Social Media – In The Interest of Balance…..

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Aaaaaaah, crap. And it was all going so well. I’d formulated my opinons and adopted my stance and could feel the concrete setting around my position. I had predicted the end.

Then, this.

It’s a post from August, the video may be older and it is – I suppose – possible that the whole social media edifice could have crumbled since then. I will acknowledge, however, that it’s unlikely.

So, there we have it. Social media is everywhere, touching everyone. It’s a people-driven economy, stupid.

But, but, but. Well. I’m sure it’s robust and all – some of the statistics do seem a little on the astounding side, mind (70% of companies now use LinkedIn as their primary recruitment tool?) – but it still doesn’t answer three of the important questions.

1) What happens when people get bored of the medium du jour and sod off somewhere else? How do you track them – where they go, what they’re doing, what decisions they’re making, what they’re buying etc etc etc? 

2) There maybe literally brazillions of people registered for these services – but we know they’re not all using them regularly, in fact (and sorry, I have no stats) we know that a good chunk register and never use the service again. And global internet penetration stands at 24.5% – lots of potential audience simply cannot access any of these services.

3) How do commercial enterprises (brands) leverage social media to make money? No-one’s making money out of social media right now – not even the social media owners. I read a point of view which actually said – why bother with social media ROI – if you’re doing it right, then it will deliver. Hmm – how convenient.

 Anyway, in the interests of balance – there it is. Never say I don’t give you anything.

Social Media – The End is Nigh!

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

In a recent post, I said I was delighted to be the first to announce the beginning of the beginning of the end of social media. Obviously, I was being provocative – and I’ve been inundated with literally no comments at all about my position.

That has not stopped me maintaining my stance, but changing it slightly. Today, blog snorkellers, I am announcing the beginning of the beginning of the end of this round of social media. That’s not to say that there won’t be more, but this lot are definitely on the way out.

Why am I taking this view? Well, partially because my gut tells me it’s true – and as you’ll all know, there’s a big school of thought that says all decisions should be made with the gut – and partially because of this.

Yes, the Times of London – if you summarise the article and extrapolate the messages – doesn’t believe it’s for real either. And the geeky types they’ve got to explain the social media thing are just trotting out the same old, same old nonsense. So, don’t listen to me if you don’t want to – but do read The Times.

Social Media – Culturally Diverse, or Simply Take It or Leave It?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, Evaluation, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Apologies in advance – this isn’t a terribly clever post. (And we do like a bit of clever, blog-snorkellers, don’t we?)

It’s simply that I got randomly forced, like a reluctant and rather fleshy square peg into an unattractive and not-terribly-fulfilling round hole, into attending a training course recently, entitled ‘Communicating Across Cultures’. With the help of some Janets and Johns, we were introduced to the pitfalls of dealing with colleagues and stakeholders from other parts of the world, and the things we might need to think about in order to ensure that the message got across, that we didn’t mortally affend anyone and that the right outcomes were achieved. We talked about direct and indirect styles  of communication, task vs relationship focusing and egalitarianism and status as a leadership and personality styles.

Then, in direct contrast, at home, over the weekend, over a glass of wine, I watched a movie called ‘Body of Lies’. (Which gives you an insight into the sort of cultural level at which I am comfortable operating.) Said movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, is almost an anti-course in cultural awareness. Russell Crowe is extremely effective as the senior CIA operator who – quite clearly – does not give a shit whether he offends or not, and is either self-confident enough, or deluded enough, not to care how he is perceived. At the end, however, you feel he is rather more isolated than he would like to be and, while achieving against his goals and the goals of his employer, there is something slightly pathetic and tenuous about him.

Unfortunately, I cannot help but thinking that social media is the Russell Crowe Body of Lies character. It’s heavy-handed and there’s no room for nuance. Indeed, as the province of the cyber-hippy, where we should all love each other and share everything and give peace a chance, well – there’s no need for nuance, is there?

It works well across communities and countries which share common cultural dimensions. What this will mean in practice is that the US, the UK, Australia and South Africa will be comfortable sharing a social medium, but it’s unlikely that China, or India or (perhaps surprisingly) Brazil are going to want to join them.

The thing about communicating effectively across cultures – and being successful as a business across cultures – is that it requires a basket of difefrent tools – words, attitude, behaviours and knowing which medium to use. The thing about social media is that it is one-dimensional and it brings nothing to this party.

It’s something else for the social media gurus to start working on and something else for their clients to throw money at. And I’d warrant that it’s something else that will never be resolved.

Social Media – Really Worth the Risk?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Came across this paragraph this morning. I’m not going to go into the context – suffice it to say it was the conclusion of a commentary on Barack Obama’s ‘off-the-record’ comment that Kanye West is a ‘jackass’. (Which he is, but that’s another song, as they say.)

 Anyway – it’s not new – it’s what every comms practitioner knows, simply updated for the social media age in which we live.

 “In today’s wired world, every bystander with a camera phone, a blog or a Twitter account can play reporter and turn an off-hand comment into a worldwide news story. For almost any setting, the best policy today is not to say, write or do anything that you don’t want to see in the newspaper tomorrow, on the TV news tonight or on Twitter or YouTube in the next two minutes.”

 So – given that we take this truth to be self-evident – how does this square with official employee use of social media? Already this week I’ve come across – and published – the quite extraordinary assertion that “….since this type of communication is often viewed as less formal than other (sic), there is increased risk for inadvertent disclosure”. And we know, from some very high-profile examples, that – above and beyond inadvertent screw-ups – there are also employees who come over all Tourette’s when confronted by Twitter or YouTube.

 As I’ve said already, I’ve changed my mind. Doing nothing and hoping it will go away is not an option. Every organisation, by now, should either have, or be giving thought to, a social media policy. Preferably one that doesn’t entertain the notion of allowing employees free rein to post to social media either during company time, from company machinery or on behalf of the body corporate. The sanctions against anyone doing it should be quite draconian.

 I was, frankly, open-mouthed when I found out that WholeFoods has over 1,370,000 followers on Twitter. It is extraordinary. I was reasonably shaken when I saw Starbucks had nearly 294,000. Even allowing for the large proportion who became followers on their first visit to Twitter and have never visited again, that still a lot of potential dialogue and a lot of room for error.

 I know that Ford and Coke have created social media ambassadors – carefully trained, briefed and monitored social media spokespeople – to deal with their respective 15,000 and 8,500 followers. I’m presuming that WholeFoods and Starbucks has done the same.

 Best Buy, with its Twelpforce, hasn’t and the experiment is not considered, universally, a success. They’ve had some Tourette’s incidents with some of their employee Tweeters.

 The point is, I guess, that I’m not convinced of the value-add of social media. If it didn’t exist, would anyone actually bother to invent it? What I am convinced of is the increasing amount of time, effort and budget that is going to have to be invested in it – and its ancillary activities like training and monitoring – if those companies who have so bravely (and so very quickly) embraced the technology are going to keep on top of it.

 I am also convinced that the rise of social media has introduced a new, and very elevated, level of risk into external and internal corporate communications that we, the gatekeepers, ignore at our peril. As social media cannot be (properly) monitored and isn’t regulated, so it is difficult to create a plan for its use or target the message.

 Every organisation should, by now, either have, or be working on, a social media policy. And it should aim to restrict corporate usage. Before the trouble starts.

Social Media – In Cyberspace, No-one Listens to You Scream

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I was working for a company in relation to whom the use of the phrase ‘set in its ways’ was being kind. It was a company run by quite elderly gentlemen in suits (even those who weren’t quite elderly somehow were, if you see what I mean) who sat around in old wood-panelled offices and once a year, at Christmas, stood outside the gates and threw sovereigns to the barefoot orphans in the snow. OK, they didn’t, but it was THAT sort of company. The company made its money by enticing people to its premises and selling them intoxicating beverages and a selection of (mostly) fried food and, sometimes, a bed for the night.

In 1999, the world changed. Almost overnight, the talk was of internet entrepreneurs and dotcom business and simply extraordinary amounts of money were being bandied around in connection with the aformentioned entrepreneurs and businesses. This, we were told, was the future – there was to be no looking back and before very long, everything was going to be done over the internet. Shopping, socialising, consulting, meeting – everything. Don’t argue, we were told, it is inevitable.

Shiny Object Syndrome took hold. Hitherto rational companies started re-inventing themselves as dotcoms. Massive investments were made – in technologies that no-one fully understood and were not able to fully leverage or utilise. The company that I was working for was the subject of an article in the FT – would it be able to reinvent itself as a dotcom – how would the inevitable change to a digital way of life affect its business.

I’d like to claim that we were clever and anticipated the collapse of the house of cards, but we weren’t, we were simply unprepared, and being simply unprepared, we told the truth. We were banking on the fact that there would never be a transition to an online way of life. People need people need people. Sure, this new-fangled webby thing would help people find information and organise themselves and communicate – but there’d never be any substitute for meeting up over an intoxicating beverage. And, as history tells us, we were right.

Fast forward to 2007. I have been reincarnated into the exhibition industry – luckily as a corporate communicator and not a small stone which is probably what the Buddhists would have preferred. I learn very quickly that the exhibitions – or rather the ‘events’ – industry is way behind any other 21st century industry sector to the point that it is almost as if the 21st century hadn’t actually happened. I land in this frightening landscape just as the industry notices t’interweb and freezes like a resident of Norfolk caught in headlights – it’s the end of events as we know them, they shriek (eventually) – everyone’s going to be doing everything online! Quick, quick – reinvent ourselves as online communities and virtual exhibitions! Cue an all-too-familiar scramble to invest in technologies that no-one fully understands and no-one can fully leverage or exploit.

Long story short – it didn’t happen. The events industry is still going strong and, the last time I looked, it was in growth. Why? Because people need people need people. They need to interact in real time, to see, to hear, to touch, to smell – to experience. Real business does not get done on-line. Real business is done over a handshake, when you’ve seen the whites of the eyes, or the cut of the jib or whatever cliched metaphor tickles your fancy.

And here we are in 2009. Many would have us believe that social media is the next big thing. That without it, as communicators, as businesses, as brands, we’re missing out and – in the future – we’ll lose ground. And it is with a disorienting and rather queasy-making sense of deja-vu that I see otherwise sane companies running around throwing money at social media strategists, buying technology and expertise that they don’t fully understand and can’t fully leverage or exploit.

In the meantime – because people need people need people, because the internet is a lonely place, because you cannot guarantee that anyone is listening – the social media gurus themselves are organising live events (‘Tweetups’ – a term coined by Scott Monty, a man with either too much time on his hands, or no need for sleep) so that they can meet, interact with, see, touch and smell (not too much smell, please) their followers and the people they follow.

This is, of course, an activity that’s facilitated by social media. No issues with that. On a social/personal basis, it makes sense. For a brand, corporation or organisation however – it doesn’t.

Cut out the middleman – in this case social media – and use the budget, time and resource that you’ve liberated against experiential activity. Meet with your audiences. Let them touch and feel and taste your products.

Or, at the very least, take them down the pub.

Social Media – The ‘Meatloaf Equation’

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Sorry. It’s very easy to poke fun and, as I’m the sort of guy who likes ‘easy’, if I get the opportunity, then I will seize it with both hands.

Today I’d like to draw your attention to mashable.com and an article that was published in January this year entitled ’40 of the best Twitter brands and the people behind them’. You can read it if you like – never say I don’t give you anything.

To cut a long story short because, for some reason, I’m just not that into it today, it doesn’t make edifying reading. In fact, if you look behind the breathless and rather candyfloss tone of the article and examine the numbers, you’ll see that the quantity of followers for each of these brands (the 40 best Twitter brands, mind) is minute. And undoubtedly, there’s quite a lot of effort (even if it’s by one person, in their spare time) going into serving this audience – effort which, simply by the laws of math, isn’t making much in the way of a difference.

Anyway, I recognise that eight months is a long time in social media and there’s been a lot of growth, so – and it’s all my inherent laziness would allow – I picked on one of the 40 best Twitterers (Scott Monty at Ford) and compared followers now, with followers then. Mr Monty is now up to over 25,000 followers, compared to 8,500 in January. Which is roughly a three-fold increase and – on that basis – pretty impressive.

However – and anyone who’s been here before will know that there is always an ‘however’.  Current data says there are 45 million registered Twitter users globally. 10% of that would be 4.5 million. 1% would be 450,000. 0.1% would be 45,000. Ford – and a fair number of the other 40 best – have approximately 0.05% of the available audience. Factor in the statistics for Twitter account usage and attrition and it’s a very, very small number indeed.

It’s an example of the ‘Meatloaf Equation’, which goes something like “Two outta three ain’t bad.” “Yes it is. It’s 66%. It’s crap. A ‘B’ grade at best. Must try harder, boy.”

What’s my point? All that effort put into social media strategies for a possible audience of 25,000. Most of whom are untraceable and leave you with no information about themselves. Many of whom don’t actually exist (in that their accounts lapse as soon as they start them up – the average account, total number of tweets from which is one). And very, very few of whom are going to repay you – for these are brands after all – with a purchase.

’40 of the best Twitter brands and the people behind them’? Self-congratulatory back-slapping for those in the gang. Otherwise – vapid and meaningless.

That’s the way to do it, that’s the way to do it

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .

This is just a bit of a shout out to my homies at Morrisons (the UK supermarket chain, purveyors of splendid vittles to the masses). It’s not often that I come over all enthusiastic about things, but in this case, my hat is off and there’s a fair amount of awe in the air.

It’s simply that these people have got it so, so right. Everything working in perfect harmony. Branding, marketing (national and local), external communication, store design and layout, staff training (and therefore, I presume, staff communication). As an example, I will cite the chappie who pushed a leaflet through my letterbox recently (after having struggled up my five-mile driveway, obviously, and having avoided the guard lions). I get lots of gnolls pushing leaflets through my letterbox. This bloke was smart, energetic and he was wearing a branded t-shirt. Do you know – I actually EMPATHISED with him.

It is brilliant. I know that all of this is not, strictly, communications. This is strategic development and ops, commercial and supply, HR and finance. But the undoubtedly correct decisions that they have made have been rolled out and presented to their customer base in – as far as I’m concerned – an almost perfect manner.

I could wax even more lyrical – about their choice of brand spokescelebrity, for example, and how they’ve been used, about the idea of food poetry in store – but I won’t. This is best practice and we should all be able to learn from it.

What I would, however, like to flag up – and it’s not my field of expertise, so I’m being presumptuous – the issue of Morrison’s timing. It couldn’t have been better. Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda – is it me, or are they all a bit – well – tired at the moment? My suspicion is that they’ve been back-footed by a small player, given a lesson in reinvention, and they may, just may, be having a little panic right about now.

And all of this has translated into a really shiny results announcement yesterday – yes, the management recognised that these are interesting times for the economy, which may, interestingly, have favoured their performance, and therefore it might not be wholly sustainable, but still – a genuine result from a glow-in-the-dark performance.

And – ooooh – and (as far as I can see) not a Twitter feed in sight.

Anyway – there we are. Normal service (me complaining about stuff) will be resumed shortly.

Social Media – Sadly, Doing Nothing is Not an Option

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Internal Communications, Internal Communications and Engagement, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

It’s one of those horrible moments of dawning realisation, the sinking feeling of impending doom, the painful awareness that the buggers have, in fact, in some way, succeeded.

Yes, ladies and gents, fellow sceptics, I’m afraid that, like it or not, as communicators we are all going to have to embrace social media and actively do something about it. As you may know, this is a bit of a shift for me. I’ve always been of the opinion that there are far better ways of promoting your brand, company or organisation and – while you should not ignore it – social media is one of those things that you keep an eye on (watching for significant change or potential threat) with an 85% certainty that it’s a passing fad and it will go away.

(This opinion is not just something I made up in the bath, mind, it’s the result of having read all sorts of different points of view and assimilated a reasonable amount of data. Some of the latest stuff says that there are now 44.5m Twitterators globally and that, in the UK, the fastest growing age range for Twitter is the over 50s (this from Nielsen). Search the web – there’s loads of stuff – but it all (in a roundabout way) points to two things. That no-one really understands where social media is going or how to harness it and that, unless someone develops that understanding, it is (and will remain) little more than a passing fad.)

Of course, as with any new shiny object, there are those who are terrified that they’re missing out on the next big thing and there are those who feed on that terror to further their own ends. So we’ve seen the rise and rise of the ‘social media strategist’ and we’ve seen more amd more companies embracing social media strategy – some sensible, some less so. At best, you have companies creating networks of highly, trained, carefully controlled brand spokespeople (which they probably already had anyway) with a specific remit to comment on their areas of expertise through social media. At worse, you have an unseemly and dangerous free-for-all, propagated by the cyber-hippies and cyber-socialists, who believe that vox populi, vox dei and that social media is going to change the face of capitalism as we know it.

Still – and so I thought – there’s no need to have – unless you’ve got some spare people, time and budget just sloshing around – a social media strategy. Be aware of what social media is, keep up to date – but as long as your company or brand has a good corporate reputation, is reasonably ethical, fair and honest, and has a decent corporate culture (am I asking too much here?) then you’ve very little to fear and very little to gain.

Of course, there’s always going to be the odd blip, isn’t there? Damage done to corporate reputation by misguided or malicious use of social media? People (employees who are either not enrolled enough in corporate culture, or who are simply not clever enough) using social media without thought for the consequences. Dominos Pizza. Then, earlier this week, Currys and PC World (UK high street retailers). And I’m certain that there are plenty of other examples that simply haven’t attracted as much attention.

Clearly, this is nothing new. There have always been idiots who, given an opportunity to write in a comments book, or give answers to a survey, or email to a suggestion box, are suddenly overtaken by a severe case of Tourette’s. The difference is that, in the past, inappropriate behaviour was generally confined to small audiences of colleagues, or the employee’s friends and family. If it came to light, then suitable disciplinary action was taken. Now however, the Tourette’s-afflicted staff member has instant access to an on-line audience that can number tens of thousands.

So, social media has forced our hand. Doing nothing is not an option. Every company that has a reputation it wishes to protect should now be working on, and implementing , a social media policy which outlines, very clearly, what is and what is not acceptable in the workplace and when/if discussing the brand. As social media use (especially content) cannot be monitored or regulated, it should really be banned altogether in the workplace and the penalties for failng to abide by the policy should be draconian.

All well and good – but imposing a policy like this will inevitably be seen as removing the employee’s right to freedom of speech. (Mind – since when did employees have a right to freedom of speech? They turn up, they work, they get paid for it. Nothing about freedom of speech.) Social media and its soya-sandalled, hessian-draped, patchouli-doused acolytes are creating/have created an expectation of utopia – where everyone is an individual, where everyone has a voice, where the relationship is not between consumer and brand, it’s between consumer and brand employee.

Thus, for the sake of your corporate culture, for the sake of employee relations, it’s not going to be enough just to have a policy on social media usage. No, you’ll also have to have an identification and training programme for social media spokespeople, and a communication programme in place to explain to general population why they can’t post to social media sites and why the accredited spokespeople can.

In fact, you’ll have to develop a social media strategy. Luckily there are simply zillions of social media strategists out there who’ll be delighted to help you work this one out. For a simply stupefying amount of money.

On second thoughts, forget you ever read this.

As you were. Carry on.

Social Media – Careful What You Twit For

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

There was an article by Duncan Bannantyne (one of those TV entrepreneurs) in the Telegraph recently, dealing with Twitter and how it had got him into trouble. The article started thus:

“Does Gordon Ramsay always eat in one of his restaurants? Does Tiger Woods only wear Nike clothing?

 I suspect not.

 Yet when I had the audacity to spend some time at my French villa in between filming for a forthcoming TV show on great British seaside towns, I was called a “hypocrite” by sections of the national media.”

(You can read the whole thing by doing clickety-doos here.)

Unfortunately, Mr Bannantyne is labouring under the impression that the media hate him because he was filming a programme on British seaside towns, and spending time at his villa in France. I’d hazard a guess that really, that’s not the problem. The problem is that he’s got a villa in France and he’s Twittering about it. And about having glasses of wine. At his villa in France.

It’s a very fine line, obviously. He’s a successful man (I believe) and therefore he has the trappings of success. And quite right too. Thing is, people don’t really want to know about it. What they want to know from Mr Bannantyne is how to ape his success – they want from him pearls of wisdom in terms of entrepreneurship, growing businesses – making cash.

So, three things. (And, in fairness, Mr Bannantyne asks the questions and recognises the issues.)

The hubris of Twitter – why would you post from an airport terminal when you’ve time to spare? No-one – apart from your close friends and family (and not many of them) – cares whether you’ve got time on your hands in an airport terminal.

The content you post to Twitter – if you’re a celebrity, if people expect stuff from you, if you’re an expert on something, then recognise your responsibility. There’s things people want to know and things they don’t.

The ubiquity and immediacy of Twitter – once it’s posted, assume it’s everywhere.

Anyone who follows this blog (the blog that nobody reads) will know how I feel about social media and the dangers to corporate reputation that it represents. I think this is a great case in point – Mr Bannatyne is his own body corporate. He has a reputation to uphold – a reputation that he trades on. His off-the-cuff Tweets did some damage.

He’s a serious businessman. He probably understands the ins and outs of communication. Imagine the damage that could be done by someone posting to social media, on behalf of a brand or organisation, that doesn’t have an understanding of communication.

Social Media and the Unbearable Smugness of Tweeting

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Internal Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Anyway, by some horrible mischance, someone stumbled upon this blog and that someone was responsible for the content of a US website, Ragan, which is a resource for the PR and coporate communications industries. Cutting a long story short, this person asked whether I’d mind if she published one of my blog posts – this one – and of course I said ‘no’, because, well, the internet, it’s a free-for-all, isn’t it. So she did – perform clickety here – and, my, well – read the commentary for yourself.

I took a number of things out of this experience, and I think one or two of them are worth having a look at in a bit more detail.

My original post was, in part, prompted by an article in the Wall Street Journal, which talked about big firms – such as Ford and Coke – adopting a policy (or considering doing so) which would allow their employees to post to social media sites, on behalf of the company, without going through the communications department first. For one reason or another – you can read it for yourself – I felt this was a bad idea, and I said so.

Plenty of people disagreed with me – plenty of people felt that the age of the employee is upon us, that vox populi, vox dei and that taking away an employee’s unfettered access to social media was like taking away their telephone or email account. This is such a trite piece of bollocks that I won’t even bother to get into it here, as was the idea that by recommending that staff access to social media should be controlled, I was in some way denying the fact that employees have a life outside of work. (Of course they do. Of course they talk to other people about their work, Just not – normally – to hundreds, maybe thousands, of strangers in a virtual environment.)

In addition to the cyber-hippies and the foaming new media evangelists there was, however, comment from both Ford and Coke – authored by the very people mentioned in the original Wall Street Journal article. This was fascinating and I was genuinely delighted that a) they’d found my article and b) they’d taken the time to respond.

On the back of their responses I learned that the WSJ had over-egged the cake slightly. What both firms are doing is less about giving employees free rein to post whatever, whenever and more about creating a network of hand-picked, well-trained social media ambassadors, with the ability to talk about the areas in which they specialise and the understanding to know when to refer an enquiry to someone else (this last is Coke-specific). This is great and sounds very wise – but is very different to what is being preached/recommended by those in the grip of social media fever.

I then went on to consider Ford and Coke’s responses further – and the fact that their reactions had been very rapid – and the fact that their reactions were both posted by the senior social media guy. I’ll leave it with you to decide, but did I detect a slight overreaction? I mean, who am I – and what do my opinions matter? Is it possible that – somewhere – these guys are worried about the substance of social media and its true value to big corporate? Might it just be that they don’t want too many questions asked? Are they the guardians of the horrid secret? That the Emperor is in the buff? As I say – it’s for you to decide.

So, having accepted the brickbats, I conducted a personal brand health check (and if you don’t do this already, you should be doing it). I googled myself. Specifically, I googled ‘jeremy probert social media’. And, there I was. My point of view was being roundly condemned on – ooooooh – at least three online fora.

But most interestingly – for me, anyway (I know, I know – don’t get out much) – was that Scott Monty (the Social Media type at Ford) had tweeted to the effect that he couldn’t find me on Twitter. The implication being (and picked up by one of his fellow twats) that if I didn’t have a Twitter account, then I was in no position to criticise social media.

Again, this is such trite bollocks that I won’t even dignify it. But I will share an opinion. I do wander around social media sites a lot and I do find myself on Twitter on a regular basis. Sometimes I enjoy it – there are some interesting people, sharing interesting stuff – always, however, individual, always unbranded, very often comedy. And then there’s what appears to be quite a large majority, using Twitter as an unconscious ego trip, basking in the delusion that someone actually cares who they are, where they are or what they do.

The research into Twitter usage – and the use of other social media outlets – is well-documented. I don’t have to tell you what it says.