A first for Australian television, Channel 7’s live coverage of Cyclone Yasi via Skype kept the station ahead of the pack. Whilst other networks were travelling with the customary camera crew, Grant Denyer (Sunrise) lightened his load, by reporting live with an iPhone, Skype and a handheld camera.

In the information age, breaking news has fallen into the hands of bloggers, tweeters and basically anyone with a social media account.  Journalists have to compete as much with ‘citizen journalists’ as those in their own profession. Our thirst for immediacy has gravitated us towards digital news consumption and many are predicting the death of the newspaper.

Nevertheless, Channel 7’s approach illustrates how an industry can adapt with the new to continue delivering to their audiences.  A game changer, it won’t be surprising if we see a lot more of this on our screens in future.

As a man I’ve been told that I am unable to simultaneously undertake a number of tasks at the same time. This is the domain of the female, who thanks to some clever wiring in the brain, which men do not possess, is able to have 3 conversations, shop, text, check email and read the latest copy of Women’s Health all at the same time. OK, maybe that is a little over the top, or is it?

Technology these days allows us the freedom and the ability to undertake tasks simultaneously. Ever since mobile phones were released, it was not enough for us just to make a phone call. We’ve always wanted more. From giving us the ability to text and take a grainy picture while playing a game of ‘Snake’ through to today’s smartphones which allow us to do so much more at the one time. Take the recently released Windows Phone for instance. The home screen alone allows you to see your calls, emails, text messages, social network updates, photos and even more all at the same time. Think about the level of information available to you and this is even before you look up and take in your actual physical surrounds.

The question then stands, with all this information coming at us at once, how much of it are we actually taking in? Can we actually soak up everything we are bombarded with?

In the work place, studies have found that this information overload is a serious issue, with a study of 1,700 people by LexisNexis indicating that 49% of respondents couldn’t deal with the amount of information that they were being presented with each day. This is work related information of course but then put on top a personal life and the need to be connected with this each day, makes this statistic a little frightening.

With the seemingly unending pursuit of having our lives at our fingertips added to the responsibilities that we have in the workplace, something has got to give. Of the 49% studied by LexisNexis, 51% of them said that they were on the verge of giving up. Not a good sign.

Given that the ability to connect with the outside world is likely to continue increasing in complexity as time goes by, I think it is time that us males learn how to multi task better!

Author’s Note: Whilst writing this blog, I was not on Facebook, texting or reading Women’s Health.

With the buzz that surrounds social media unlikely to lose any of its momentum any time soon, more and more companies are seeing a social media strategy as the ‘must have’ item for their brands in order to deliver their message to the world. Plenty has been written about the pitfalls of creating a strategy without enough background research, so are companies learning from the mistakes of those who have gone before them?

With so many ways in which your brand’s message can be transmitted to the marketplace using social media, it has become so important to ensure that that the content of the message is consistent in order to get the maximum cut through for the brand alongside traditional marketing plans.

Social media has given brands a ‘voice’; an ability to talk and listen to the marketplace. By utilising tools such as Twitter or Facebook you can ‘talk’ to your market and deliver your message straight to those who want to connect with you. Therefore it’s imperative that what you say via these conduits is what you want them to be hearing.
Since its launch in 2004, Jetstar’s branding has positioned the company as a low cost provider of air travel in Australia across all media platforms and since their move to utilise social media have embraced Twitter to continue to deliver their message of low fares and great deals to its followers. The methods may have changed but the message is still the same. Below is Jetstar’s latest tweets integrating their core branding message but with reference to their ‘amazing deals’ and ‘hot fares’ as well.

In the last month, ING Direct has introduced us to an Orang-utan. Billy Connolly with his distinctive Scottish accent has been replaced by an Orang-utan called Charles. Brands change tactics all the time and replace figureheads but why is the approach taken by ING Direct so different?

According to a statement released by ING Direct’s head of Branding and Communications, Christian Bohlke, “Charles’ role will be to show Australians there is a better way to bank. He is an independent thinker who doesn’t want to deal with the practices of the mainstream banks.” A reasonable approach and something which you’d expect to be delivered by Charles as the new ‘spokesperson’ for the brand.

A social media campaign has been launched to increase awareness of Charles as the new face of ING Direct, complete with his own YouTube channel in addition to the now almost obligatory Facebook and Twitter pages. This is where the message that Christian Bohlke wants us to digest is lost. Below is an example of Charles’ Twitter feed (replicated also in his Facebook feed).

What message is Charles delivering to us? Certainly not ‘showing Australians there is a different way to bank’ as far as I can make out. His messages need be more closely aligned with the objectives of ING Direct to draw any real benefit from the social strategy. What reason do I have to follow Charles? My response to this feed is a simple ‘so what?’. As impressive as a talking Orang-utan is,  I’d be much more inclined to follow Charles if he was to give me savings tips or provide answers to any questions which I might have around banking. Give me a reason to follow you Charles. You won’t hear Jetstar telling you about the price of fish in China but you will hear them telling you of their ‘Everyday Low Fares’, the brand’s core message and in the deals that they offer, this being the reason to follow them.

At last count, Jetstar was followed by 10,718 people and Charles, 103. Although a relative newcomer to the Twitterverse, it’s hardly an impressive start by ING. I know success can’t be determine on the number of followers you have but it does go a long way to getting your message to the market.

Although the means of delivering your brand’s message may have become more flexible and numerous with the social media revolution, if you fail to align the core message that you are trying to deliver to current and potential customers, then you are failing to take advantage of what potentially are the strongest marketing tools at your disposal. If ING Direct are to be successful with Charles as the voice of their brand, then what he has to say will need to change otherwise he’ll be heading for extinction like the rest of his species. Charles talks, but do we want to listen?

This is a terrific presentation about social media I came across. Check it out, it is informative, insightful and laugh out loud funny!

One of those funny emails came around the other day about ‘you know you’re living in 2010 when…’ and one of the answers was ‘when you email the person sitting at the desk next to you’.

I laughed, having definitely done that. And without wanting to kill the joke too much by overanalysing it, I think the reason it’s funny is because on the face of it, it seems like such a strange, disconnected thing to do. The joke suggests that instead of talking or relating ‘face to face’ the use of technology is so entrenched now that we do everything electronically – even when someone is sitting a metre away.

You hear comments that people don’t talk anymore, that family and personal relationships are suffering because people spend all their time in front of the TV or the computer. But I don’t think heavy use of technology is to blame.

And, upon reflection, I also don’t think that emailing the person at the desk next to you is necessarily an antisocial choice.

I think my argument is best served by a couple of real life examples.

My husband is in IT, I work with online communities, my parents are in IT, so you can probably guess that we have a lot of gadgetry in our house. At last count it was three laptops and one desktop computer.

At various times of the day, evening, weekend, etc. it is not uncommon for my husband and I to both be using our laptops.

One fine Saturday I was using mine at the dining room table and my husband Skyped me while surfing the internet in the back garden: ‘come outside, it’s lovely!’ To which I replied ‘I’m on my way!’

Last Tuesday evening we were both using our laptops sitting together on the couch. I started an online chat with a friend in another city, arranging the details of her visit to our place. Part way through this chat I realise that my husband had been looking over my shoulder and had then started his own online chat with the same person to play a joke on me. Bantering messages went back and forth between the three of us for about 10 minutes, and we all had a great laugh.

If I were just to say ‘my husband Skyped me from the backyard’ or ‘we had an online chat while sitting next to each other on the couch’, at first you might think that was weird and evidence of a possible reluctance to talk face to face.

But in actuality it was as connected and intimate as a face to face interaction.

So what’s my point? Technology does not mean disconnection and using it is not being antisocial. It just means the ability to connect, socialize, play and interact with people in other ways. Building and maintaining relationships is about the content of communication, not the delivery medium.

Approaching the Federal election, there’s no doubt that the two biggest brands at the moment are the Australian Labor and Liberal Parties.
Examining the online presence surrounding the election, here are some key outtakes about how social media can be used to encourage consumers to act…

Getting people inspired

A couple of weeks ago, GetUP– an independent campaigning group launched an anti-Liberal video online (titled Tony Abbott’s Archaic Views), calling for donations from the public to put the ad on TV. Within a week of the launch the call raised over $300,000 and the clip has indeed been aired on television.

The viral element of this strategy is what made it successful. The ability for consumers to connect to other platforms such as Facebook and Twitter directly from GetUp’s website, saw the rapid spread of the video, and encouraged consumers to donate to the cause – seeing the direct result of their participation on TV.

Getting people involved

“Democracy is not a spectator sport,” reads the catch line on Oursay.org. This is an independent site that facilitates interaction between the public and politicians. Once you set up an account log in, you can post and vote for questions you would like to ask the politicians in the “hot seat”.

This platform directly engages with the audience, and places control into the hands of the users. Content is negotiated amongst consumers, and the most popular topics drive the conversation.

Getting people to interact (but don’t waste potential!)

The ALP has invented its own social media platform – Labor Connect – to act as a networking tool. The network currently possesses 20,000 community members, however falls short in a few areas.

From a new user’s perspective its lack of content and moderation, coupled with the inability to connect with the user’s existing social networks leaves the consumer directionless upon joining.  Nonetheless, this is an interesting example of what could be improved when establishing a social media platform.

Without examining Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and websites, these examples are only a small fraction of the use of social media in this year’s election. However, each tool illustrates how consumers can organise themselves on social media – driving the outcomes that they choose.

As part of last months State of Design Festival, Dan Hill, Senior Consultant with Arup ,was discussing some of the design innovations occurring around the world, and the potential they have to fundamentally change the way we interact with the physical environment.

One area he touched on that I found of particular interest was a traffic experiment in the city of Drachten, The Netherlands.

In 2002, all traffic signals were removed from a busy inner-city intersection that handles around 17,000 vehicles per day. The results can be viewed below…

I watched this short clip with a mixture of both fascination and horror as I waited to witness the imminent disastrous collision. However it never occurred, and Dan assured us that this intersection has proven to be essentially accident free!

The notion that a somewhat chaotic approach to traffic control, where anything goes and motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are left to sort out the rules amongst themselves initially seemed absurd. Yet upon further consideration this relaxation of the rules began to make more and more sense.

Perhaps, in many ways, it is actually the rigid rules and regulations of some activities that can lead participants to ‘switch off’. When expected to follow the prompts and directions prescribed to us by others, could it be the case that our level of engagement diminishes simultaneously?

When left to our own devices, armed solely with the desire to avoid smashing into something or someone else, we are suddenly required to pay attention, to increase our awareness and to apply a further level of consideration to our thoughts and actions.

Rolling this idea around in my head got me thinking about some of the unmoderated activity that happens everyday in our online research communities. The common assumption is that all of the real ‘nuggets’ of insight are derived purely from the research discussions we as moderators initiate.

However, when left to their own devices, our members not only initiate a great deal of their own discussions, but also show a great commitment toward ensuring the community runs smoothly; in many ways, they moderate each other. By practicing tolerance and embracing the different ideas and opinions of others, members prove to be very effective at creating a safe and harmonious place to interact.

Observing these interactions between community members is essentially very similar to observing Drachten’s traffic experiment. By removing the formal rules and regulations, and allowing individuals to navigate and negotiate themselves, we have the opportunity to gain a powerful insight into what they observe, what they pay attention to and how they respond.

Latitude Insight’s case study of iPhone users uncovered just what consumers find so fascinating about the iPhone, why they use that four-letter word – LOVE, and how brands can become part of this ‘affair’.

The study revealed that Smartphones change user’s lives. Initially thinking they are getting a new phone, with email and web capabilities, they find iPhone gives them so much more.

It helps them communicate. It makes them more connected because of its web capabilities. But going even further, the real benefits are about being more entertained, more efficient in what they do, having more freedom because they are not stuck to a computer, and having more ability do things away from home and work. It’s a whole new world where users can do things anywhere, anytime.

Smartphone users also admit to relying less on their computer now they have a mobile device. With predictions that by 2011, 85% of handsets will have some sort of browser, it’s important brands recognise the opportunity mobile devices gives them in terms of another distribution channel to engage with their customers.

Furthermore, with over 100,000 apps available, many free, it’s important apps have lasting traction. They need to ‘do’ something and have a tangible impact on time or convenience to be worthwhile and valued by users.