Archive for August, 2010

Checking in? Think about it first

August 25th, 2010 by Melanie

Facebook Places

I’m going to come right out and say it: I have always thought Foursquare as kind of creepy, and with the introduction of Facebook Places in the States last week, I’m a tad worried LBS (or, Location-based Shouting, as I’m going to start to call it) is going to get out of hand.  It’s not that I don’t care if you’re at Kew Gardens or Polpo or All Star Lanes, it’s just that I’m sure everyone in the world doesn’t have to be privy to that information as well. I consider myself to be trustworthy – others… I’m not so sure.

You may remember the Please Rob Me campaign started earlier this year by Netherlands-based creatives Frank Groeneveld, Barry Borsboom and Boy van Amstel. It brought to the attention the fact that if you are checking in and announcing publically all the places in the world you are, it leaves wide open, the one place you aren’t…home, which could potentially leave you vulnerable to burglaries. The campaign gained moderate success, but I think it didn’t touch enough on one point – even telling people where you are currently can be dangerous.

I would hope those with stalkers and evil exes wouldn’t use the location-based services, but you never know.  If you’re posting your current whereabouts, is that not an invitation itself to be mugged?

While brands are using LBS to an advantage, I worry about consumers’ eagerness to share, and for what purpose?  Someone tweeting that they’re working late from the Starbucks on Tottenham Court Road may get a free coffee every once in a while, but they could also be leaving themselves open to having their laptop, Blackberry and iPad pinched on the way out.

Or perhaps, I’m over reacting?  What are your thoughts on ‘checking in’?

[top]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Location Based Services, Onlinefire, Social media | 2 Comments »

The Beeb attacked again – why, we ask?

August 16th, 2010 by Rik

Another week, another debate over the BBC’s role in the commercial marketplace.  This time the row has returned to Project Canvas, the BBC’s internet-meets-television venture. It’s currently being developed in partnership with ITV, Channel 4, Talk Talk and broadcast transmission group Arqiva. This time it was the turn of Virgin Media to take the BBC to task, calling on Ofcom to investigate the venture on the grounds that it will “significantly and irreparably harm competition“. Once again, we find ourselves on well trodden ground.

Last year James Murdoch launched a really quite amazing attack on the BBC, claiming that “the scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling”. It’s worth reading that back and reminding yourself that this is from the man set to inherit the reigns to one of the world’s most powerful media conglomerates. And now that BSkyB has purchased Virgin Media, we can surely expect to see plenty more anti-BBC rhetoric coming from both camps. BSkyB itself is no stranger itself to concerns over market dominance, so just how much credibility should we, as consumers and license fee payers, attach to these concerns?

As far as BSkyB and Virgin Media are concerned, the BBC is harming competition across several of its platforms. The BBC was arguably the first to realise the huge potential in video-on-demand services, for example, and stole a march on its rivals with the launch of the iPlayer back in 2007. James Murdoch was again quick to voice his concerns, claiming that the iPlayer was launched as a “pre-emptive intervention” aimed at “squashing competitors” in the broadband TV market. Just a few months ago, the BBC came under fresh criticism (again, from James Murdoch) for looking to strike a deal with ITV and Channel 4, amongst others, to share content on the iPlayer platform.

Presumably Mark Thompson hasn’t been holding a gun to anybody’s head during these negotiations, which would theoretically result in more people accessing ITV’s and Channel 4’s content. It’s easy to understand why BSkyB would be concerned over the potential success of such a deal, but isn’t that just the nature of business?

The fact that the BBC is answerable to the BBC Trust gives its competitors the opportunity to play this same debate out in the newspapers which, with their vested interest, are happy to peddle the issue. If it is the job of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the BBC Trust to protect the interests of consumers and citizens and to promote competition, surely they should be encouraging the fact that the license fee contributes towards such innovation. And if that makes the wider industry up its game, all the better.

[top]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in TV | 1 Comment »

Government tries crowdsourcing: gets burned

August 5th, 2010 by Andrew

You may have read this week about the Coalition Government’s failed attempts at crowdsourcing.

Through its various departments online, the Coalition Government had issued a call to action to the general public, to give its policy suggestions on areas such as the NHS, pensions and capital gains tax.

Following 9,500 responses, the Government decided to act on none of them, and issued their policy unchanged. On paper it doesn’t look good and, if we’re honest, a bit pointless.

Simon Burall, director of Involve, a group advising bodies on consultation, told The Guardian: “You have to give the government some credit for trying to do this, but badly designed consultations like this are worse than no consultations at all.

“They diminish trust and reduce the prospect that people will engage again.”

In many respects, he’s got a point. It’s both exciting and commendable that the Government is even considering crowdsourcing as a form of policy formation and surely takes the forays into social media for politics in the UK a step further. In addition to the participation and conversation online around politics, this is a clear sign that the Government is considering the Internet as a legitimate avenue for ideas.

However, as Simon says, it also seems hollow that the Government has failed to act on even just one of the 9,500 suggestions. I know we’re not well versed in the bureaucratic notions of policy making in Westminster, but surely one of 9,500, clearly politically-interested people (hell, if they’re participating in policy crowdsourcing, they must be) suggested a goodun’?!

I don’t believe though, like Simon says, that this episode will diminish trust in the Government, nor that it will reduce the prospect that people will engage again. Not significantly, anyway. Let’s face it – as it stands, the Government and indeed politics in general isn’t held in the highest esteem and considering we have a say effectively one every five years and see little change off the back of it, we’ve become quite accustomed to not being heard.

So let’s see the positives in this. The Government has not just acknowledged the presence of, but indulged in (albeit half-heartedly) crowdsourcing. Who’da thunk it? And not just indulged in it, but indulged in it as a prospective avenue for policy creation.

That, my friends, is progress. Not quite change, but progress nonetheless.

[top]

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Social media | No Comments »