While I may not agree with it entirely, Mikearauz has come up with a useful way to look at the way casual interest can turn into advocacy online.
Since I don’t agree with it – I decided to have a crack at my own version. This is my take on “Blogging Engagement” – written from my perspective as both a blogger but more importantly as a reader of blogs (or columnists or news websites or authors).
I am immensely proud to live in a country where, when faced with a well trained and armed guy fortressed in a house, the police acted in a responsible manner.
Even after the provocation of seeing one of their number shot and lie dead in the street for the duration of the siege, police fired only two shots throughout the entire event. Well done.
So if you happen to have your own stash of guns and explosives in your fortressed home, then remember this simple thing. No matter how much you provoke the police, or how much they provoke you, they will not shoot you.
This isn’t America, it isn’t the movies – it is New Zealand, and I am happy to live here.
So I fervently hope we do not over-react to this outlier incident by arming police – with either guns or tasers. Neither would have helped, but more importantly if our criminals know they won’t get shot then they are far less likely to shoot first.
Now that the debacle is over, let’s check the winners and losers tally.
Winners – in order Vodafone, for a well-timed legal action which created a major PR win and delay of a rival network
NBR – and Chris Keall for two excellent articles – one head and shoulders over the rest in summarising the court proceedings, and the other tipping that a settlement was likely today. Even their reporting of the final result is excellent.
Telecom – for capitulating in the end and continuing the journey on the long road back from purgatory
The Lawyers – they always win
Losers – in order
For not doing the right thing from the start, and installing the filters to prevent interference with Vodafone’s network
For not understanding how this was going to play out early enough and letting it get to court
For the resulting major PR loss, the delay of the new network and the wasted marketing spend
and bonus for all this happening so soon after releasing a video that says how wonderful they are
All of us customers – To have to watch two giants playing silly buggers with each other while we cope with inadequate mobile and broadband infrastructure
Vodafone – for having released into the public domain information that makes us thing you are stretching your network’s capabilities, making us realise why our call and 3G connections are so lousy.
<update: Reynolds is unrepentant, and says that Vodafone will share the costs of Filters. He also says that there are already 1000 filters in place. Courtesy of the NBR – yet again.
Although Dr Reynolds sees his company in the right, Telecom settled the case, seeing a two-week delay in XT’s launch as a price worth paying to rid it of Vodafone’s High Court action, and to answer a request from the Justice, in Dr Reynolds’ words, for both sides “to sort it out”.
“there will be some circumstances in which we share costs”.
which has the ring of Telecom paying almost all of the time.
“Give me a break. The first I heard of it was late last week,” says Dr Reynolds, of Vodafone’s threat to go legal. “They finally came to the table two days ago”.
I would be looking searchingly at the strategy and engineering folk in Telecom if I were Dr. Reynolds. How the heck could this threat have been missed?>
And for your enjoyment after the fold are some tweets from this morning: Continue reading →
And there I was praising Telecom the other day – praise it seems that was all too soon. I am concerned that recent behavior is indicating that Telecom is back to its old monopolist ways.
I write of course of the XT network interference with the Vodafone network. The facts laid out in Vodafone’s submission and the court case – ably reported by the NBR – are on the surface pretty simple:
Telecom’s new XT network interferes with the Vodafone network
Telecom has known about this for a while
Telecom could have removed this interference by spending $900,000 to install filters
There is a bit more nuance in the court case, but as a customer I am mad enough as it stands.
Yes Vodafone could spend some money to maintain their own service quality, yes Vodafone coverage is not close to perfect anyway, and yes Vodafone could have formally engaged with Telecom earlier.
But one the thing that has changed is Telecom’s new network.
The absolutely crazy thing is that the $900,000 to update all Telecom cells is chump-change in this context, and by not spending it Telecom is not only risking a lot, they making us all suffer:
Telecom suffers as they suffer PR damage, just as they launch a new network
Telecom suffers if their launch date is delayed
Telecom and Vodafone suffer financial costs of the court cases
Vodafone suffers as their network quality drops precipitously
We all suffer as we all have even more lousy phone services
The lawyers win – they always do
It’s positively juvenile, and the sort of behavior I would have expected from the old Telecom administration.
So please wake up Telecom – and behave in a way that shows you care about all New Zealanders. Demonstrate some of the values that you are trying to show in the video you produced.
Fess up, say you will install the filters as quickly as possible
Install those filters within a week. Nothing is impossible
Settle with Vodafone so that their lawyers don’t run your business.
In the meantime those in the executive suites please ask yourselves How did this happen? Was this a decision made at the top or were you as blindsided as much as we were? If you were blindsided then how could your culture let that happen?
Until you fess up and move on we are back to the old promote one way and behave in an entirely differnt way – it doesn’t work for children and it certainly doesn’t work on us adults.
We’ll find out tomorrow at midday whether Vodafone is vindicated, but in the meantime I just want my phone to work properly.
An interesting survey by eMarketer, via WebProNews:
Stop. Don’t look too hard at the table. This survey is fundamentally flawed.
The flaw is simple, and it reflects an old mode of thinking: These days the media is not the message.
For example there are over 200 million blogs (they have stopped counting), and to rate them all together is patently unfair. You cannot compare, say, Bernard Hickey’s Interest.co.nz/blog with The Bad Blog (which is what I found when I googled “bad blog”, and which is actually not that bad).
To put it another way, on interest rate matters the interest.co.nz blog is more trusted than, say, TV1 Business News. However on general business or current events news, TV1 would be better.
Meanwhile Bernard and the rest of the team’s blog is less trusted, by me, than the Wall Street Journal – a publication that is a newspaper, has a online news site, offers video, does product comparisons and has blogging.
How do we measure all of this that? How do we compare the WSJ video with their print edition? How do we compare Fox TV news with their internet site with their internet delivered video?
The answer is that we don’t, as we know that increasingly the media type irrelevant and the publisher’s brand is everything. We seek our trusted providers, and we are getting pretty agnostic about where we find them:
If we are watching TV then we know that the BBC has a better global perspective than Fox News – unless we are right wing and living in the USA.
If we are online then the NYTimes is better than the Waikato Times – unless we live in Waikato and want the latest Hamilton news.
If we are reading about something esoteric then we know to search the internet, and that Wikiedia or a blog is probably going to have the best answer.
We assess credibility very quickly. We look for the publisher (e.g. Bloggers that write for newspapers have more credibility), we assess the credibility of the writer by looking at the production or site design, checking the publisher or writer background (about 2.2% of the traffic here checks my bio), see who refers to the that source, then look for well-crafted writing and video solid references and so on. We are often not really aware of how we do it, but we can do all of this in less than, say, 5 seconds.
It used to be that we looked for beautiful people to deliver news that we trust, but Fox news in particular has made this increasingly irrelevant – as we have come to realise that beauty is not correlated with intelligence or trustworthiness.*
We have already made decisions for older media – The Dominion Post and TVNZ news have a rich heritage, and so we tend to trust them, while a new magazine like Idealog will need to earn our trust through excellent writing, distribution and product design. However the older media can lose our trust, and when it goes, as it has for me and most TV news, it is very hard to earn back.
So how should the survey have been written? Here is one possibility. It’s not ideal but I feel it is a better way to ask the question. The audience is of course biased – and it will be interesting to see how biased.
Lingopal translates between 42 languages – and can be operated in any of those languages as well. That means it is of use to people shopping on all of the Apple iTunes stores.
So it was always going to be interesting which countries picked us up first. Would backpackers from Australia and UK find us more useful, or would we be big in the USA?
Turns out we are biggest in Japan. We have done no marketing there – it is all organic growth as our google ad writing and PR ability is not so good in Japanese.
To see how different this is versus the normal distribution of sales by country, here are out sales compared to Flight Control sales figures:
I guess it isn’t surprising that we are not big in the USA, as the average person travels there a bit less, and it really is early days for every country. I’d expect us to be bigger in the UK and Germany though – but this is just a matter of when.
At least the Japan numbers are telling us that Lingopal is useful and that when it gets popular it stays popular.