Foreign Perspectives

Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

Although you might not think there was a whole lot of scope for advertising in a medium that only gives you 140 characters to play with, there are a growing number of ways to advertise through Twitter although whether or not they’re actually effective is an entirely different question.

The means for handling the advertising varies quite a bit as you’d expect for a fairly new type of media. For instance, since the tweets themselves are rather fleeting affairs on the tweet streams of the more prolific twitterers, Twittad takes the approach of using the background image to place the main advert and uses the tweet stream to announce that the twitter account is sponsored. The system works in a similar way to blog sponsorship platforms which is to say that you write up a little profile of your twitter account and advertisers can choose you based on that or alternatively you can choose some advertisers. Payout seems to be around the $2.50 a week level which is OK in that you don’t need to do much for that.

Another service that’s possibly more interesting to the advertisers than the twitterers is Twtad which works on the pay per click model. The problem with this one is that the payment is typically 5 cents or less which would be alright for a system that was entirely automated but this system isn’t. Since click-through is typically quite low this system isn’t really worthwhile unless you have LOT of followers (10,000 or more perhaps) and if you have then you should be able to pick up more money elsewhere.

A more comprehensive version of this is Be a Magpie which is an automated service offering pay per view, pay per click, pay per lead and pay per sale. You can set it so that you have to pre-approve tweets but leaving it on automatic seems best and will put a Magpie tweet every 5 ot 10 (you set the interval) of your tweets. All else being equal this one seems by far the best bet for the twitterers in that once it’s set up it can be fully automated. It’s good from the advertisers point of view too in that it offers the four different payment methods.

The latest entrant seems to be Betweeted which I gather operates on the basis of the twitterer choosing advertisers to tweet about so is quite similar to the usual blog sponsorship services. So far it’s only for US bloggers and nobody else can even register to look at how it works.

So, you can advertise via Twitter, but the question is: should you? If you followed the original principles of Twitter ie that it’s a service for “friends, family members and co-workers to stay connected” then the answer is probably not. After all, you wouldn’t hand out advertising leaflets to these people, would you? However, the service has moved a long way from that and most people have followers who are complete strangers and lots of others are tweeting to promote themselves or their business, in which case the answer is: why not? Aside from advertising third parties, more and more companies are moving on to Twitter to promote their products and, of course, there’s always been the self-promotion of bloggers tweeting their posts (some cross-promote their tweets on their blog) so advertising is very much a feature of Twitter that seems here to stay.

Finally, there’s the question of effectiveness of Twitter advertising ie does it actually work? Well, I’ve been tweeting my own blog posts for a while now and it would appear that it’s quite an effective way of gathering new readers for the blog so presumably it would be equally effective for advertising tweets, or at least those that fit in with the general interest of the followers.

One of the great things about the introduction of the chip & PIN technology was that it greatly increased security in the sense that you were no longer relying on the shop assistants comparing your signature against that on the back of the card.

If you’d been carrying the card around for a year or two chances are that the signature was barely visible but that rarely mattered anyway given the cursory glance of most shop assistants. Once the novelty value of the photo cards had dwindled it mattered little what photo was on the card although the current rarity of those cards does offer a measure of additional security to those who have them.

However, the problem is that your PIN is required EVERYWHERE. Fair enough when you’re buying something in a shop although it’s a little too easy to watch someone entering their PIN in a lot of locations and there’s a tendency for the person behind you in the queue to get so close that they can easily see your PIN. However, why the need to enter the PIN when you make a deposit in the post office? Not only are post office keypads more visible than most but why the need to identify yourself when making a deposit at all?
After all, the Halifax are able to take machine deposits without a PIN. Why can’t the post office?

This seems to have been one of the most widely discussed trials around the world to date and it seems certain that the discussion has a ways to go with an appeal seeming quite likely if not yet certain.

The grounds for the appeal seem to be coming from two basic angles namely that the child’s evidence was unreliable because she was so young and that the defendant didn’t get a fair trial because of all the discussion that’s been going on by way of the Internet around the world and particularly because said discussion could hardly be missed in the UK by the jurors. I’m calling him “the defendant” to avoid legal issues but if you want to know his name, it takes a few seconds to find it courtesy of google as he’s named on loads of non-UK sites.

The “fair trial” argument will likely hinge on article 6 of the Human Rights Convention of which entitles everyone to a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. The problem being that had the jurors seen some of the discussion knocking around the Internet over the last few months then it would be quite possible that they would not meet the requirement that they be impartial. That’s a particular problem in the British court system as it starts from the premise that the jurors know nothing about the case that they are concerned with other than the information which they acquire in the course of the trial itself. Were the appeal for this case to be upheld for this reason it seems certain that the presumption of ignorance would need to be changed; doing so wouldn’t mean jail time for this defendant but would at least sort out what is becoming a serious problem for high profile cases that will come up in the years to come.

The age of the child is an interesting argument from a psychological perspective. Can a 4 year old be relied on to accurately recount events that occurred when they were 2? Early childhood memories are quite a big issue in psychology and it’s very, very difficult to avoid implanting memories in young children of events that just didn’t happen. At the trivial level this can be as simple as asking leading questions rather than open questions but even open questions need to be carefully phrased with young children. It is fortunate that her recollection came from a time when she could speak as few people can recall anything before that and little in any detail. Quite why that should be so is something of a mystery but suggests that memory is either dependent on speech or requires developments in the brain that happen to coincide with occur at the same time as speech development. Actually implanting false memories was one of the assignments set by a Yale psychology course so it’s surprisingly easy to do even for those of university age never mind young children.

Although this is one guy who needs the key thrown away, if his appeal does succeed on the article 6 grounds, let’s hope that the British legal system learns from the experience and abandons the presumption of ignorance on the part of the jury. Should it succeed on the grounds of the competence of a child to testify then that’s potentially a very serious problem for any children in similar circumstances in the future.

Freedom of expression is one of those things that we kind of just assume we have in western societies but in reality there are generally limits to it.

For example, the issue of Madeline McCann is freely spoken about in Portugal yet in the UK a range of comments are censored. Joana on her own blogspot blog clearly is none too impressed about the British media on this one. After all, in Portugal the law states that

1. Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
2. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.

Seems clear, doesn’t it? Well, the problem is that what that particular law doesn’t allow for is how individual publishers operate. After all, it is up to the publisher to decide whether or not to publish stuff on their site. What that law is saying that anyone can publish anything; it doesn’t say that an individual publisher is required to publish everything. After all, Joana moderates comments on her site: is that not the very same censorship that she accuses the British media of?

In America, the first amendment is similarly clear on freedom of expression in that it states

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, that’s been modified somewhat over the centuries and notably does NOT apply to commercial speech so, for example, it doesn’t allow all and sundry to send out junk mail to everyone. Having said that, the freedom of expression is taken very seriously and other laws and administrative procedures have had to change to allow for us, for example, full details of ongoing trials are published as they happen.

In theory Europe as a whole has a similar freedom of expression courtesy of the Human Rights Convention which states in Article 10:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In many respects this is an updating of the American first amendment, or at least the freedom of expression bits are. As always, lawmakers tack on seemingly unrelated clauses thus whilst we would see freedom of religion as being separate from freedom of expression, clearly in the 1700s the Americans didn’t. Likewise, the business about not restricting the licensing of broadcasting enterprises isn’t altogether appropriate these days with the likes of Youtube.

Interestingly though the second paragraph in clarifying this freedom does not list the prohibition of publication of current court proceedings as being one of those things that isn’t allowed as this does not appear to affect the “authority and impartiality” of the judiciary as shown by the American example. However, yet again that doesn’t mean that publishers are required to publish everything that comes their way, merely that they are allowed to do so if they wish to.

So where does that place our freedom of expression in the UK? Well, the Human Rights Convention is enacted in UK law. So, the publisher would be permitted to publish those comments of Joana but would not be required to do so. However, it does suggest that the action in taking down our own sites last week was NOT legal as our right of freedom of expression as per Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention would override the reporting restriction ie the contempt of court action was itself illegal.

Although our sites collect a whole bunch of statistics about the people who drop by, most of the time we pay next to no attention to it other than keeping a vague eye on what’s most popular.

However, in light of our recent contempt of court action we’ve been a little more paranoid about things and were wondering if the hits from Manchester were a prelude to something similar in the same way as all the hits from London turned out to be. So we thought we’d do a little digging…

First off, the Feedjit widget showed up the series of hits from Manchester using a variety of searches but all related to the topic of the above court action. Was that a fan or something else?

Next step was to look at our StatCounter records for one of those searches.We picked a recent one from Feedjit so it was towards the top of the searches recorded. One click on the drill-down icon which brings up the IP address, their ISP, that they’d made 127 visits to our site amounting to over 2 hours of viewing.

Popping the IP address into one of the reverse IP lookup sites which gave us the specific entry for their server. In this case it turned out to be someone’s Sky router so ’tis unlikely to be related to the court action.

Now, whilst we can’t track down the actual physical address of our fan, it is more than enough information to allow that person to be found by the authorities which is probably worth bearing mind….