The Social Network - Review

NB: I hate spoilers, so this blog won't give away plot, but will talk about themes in the film.

Aaron Sorkin? I didn't even know he was the screenplay writer until it popped up on the opening credits, and as a HUGE West Wing fan (I have to watch an episode before I go to sleep every night - no kidding. Get lost!) I figured I'd be into Social Network. (It's him and David Mamet that are so seriously wicked.)

And Sorkin hits you with a first scene that is masterful in its integration into a face to face conversation of the crap cliches and meaningless, trite content of social media messages and comments that belie true feelings and honesty.

Seriously, it's worth going purely to experience the first scene's cynical regard for the changes in human communication that social media has impacted upon us.

You can read about the anti-hero claptrap from other reviews, but instead consider the contemporary portrayal of geeks in films recently, of which this film is a prime example. Whatever happened to Hollywood's loveable poindexters? Y'know like Lucas, the guys from Weird Science, and Revenge of The Nerds? (Jesus, the temptation to summise that we're in "Generation G" for "geek" is incredible. Cliched device duly avoided.)

Executive producer Kevin Spacey follows-up the vibe of his film 21 - which explores the corruption of geekdom - with an even stronger and darker assertion that successful nerdity leads to megalomania.

But of all things, almost counter-intuitively until you reflect on it, this film is about superficial friendship and insincere communication. But then it's about Facebook, so of course it is.

The only entity in the film that retains integrity is The Social Network. (I don't want to spoil it, but I'm dying to make a point about a character which you might also argue retains integrity - but the very last scene proves that not to be the case.)

Fiction or not, it's a tragic depiction of the loneliness of the man at the centre of the world's largest social network, the man who commoditised friendship.

But regardless of whether the sense of affirmation for my cynicism towards social network "relationships" was from my own imposition on the film or whether it was an intentional reflection of my views, it was the most powerful thing I took away.

Lots of other things were just lessons I'd already learnt. Never blog when you're hammered. But great ideas come to you when you're pissed - in both the UK and US sense. Defamation is defamation, on the 'net or not. Pretty girls on websites drive traffic. A "the" is great for bands, not for brands. People you think are "cool" will disappoint you when you realise their reality.

Questions I asked myself after the film:

Whatever happened to Faceparty.com?

Why was my university only on the second round of UK invites?

Why the hell would people put photos of themselves drunk on the internet? Looking in the mirror when I'm drunk is frightening enough, why the hell would I want to relive that?

Lessons I think are intended by the film:

If you've got a true friend who's become simply a facebook friend, go hook up with them, have a real chat about real stuff.

Also ask yourself, how many of your Facebook friends you would give $25mn to?

And if you really think that social network friendships are real friendships, take your social media face out of your social media arse, go down the pub, and talk to someone you don't know about something real. And if you like them, learn something from them and think you can add to each other's lives, stay in touch with them. Ask them if they're on Facebook.

Outrage For The X Factor Machine

It’s official. The nation is obsessed with the media monstrosity that is The X Factor. Auto-tuning auditions, exploiting the mentally ill, the innocent and the deluded hopefuls, and the production team’s decisions to drop anyone with real talent but no emotional back-story. Not despite, but because of, the continuous negative coverage related to the show, the public are tuning in and ratings seem to be at an all time high. The publicity strategy for this year’s X Factor campaign (cue back drop fireworks, stings and rapturous audience applause please)…causing, and sustaining, public outrage.

When Cheryl Cole chose not to let eighteen-year-old Gamu Nhengu through to the live shows after a flawless performance at Cole’s million-pound pad in Ascot, the public were furious. They blamed Ms Cole’s decision to end the young girls dream on her immigration status, as Miss Nhengu and her family have recently been refused permission to stay in the UK and face deportation back to their violent and unstable home country, Zimbabwe. Although cleared of racism after Cole punched a black toilet attendant in 2003, her decision not to let Miss Nhengu through to the live shows sparked a huge race row. Seeing the usually obsessed-by-everything-Cheryl-Cole-says-and-everything-Cheryl-Cole-does nation turn against her was fairly man-bites-dog, so great publicity for the show.

Call us cynical but at the back of X Factor publicists’ minds, the toilet attendant fiasco is something that has been forgiven but not forgotten from Ms Cole’s past. Faced with a black African contestant, the publicists were able to turn a controversial event in Ms Cole’s past into a valuable media asset to publicise the show through outrage.

We’re not the only minds that this possibility has popped into, Mark Borkowski commented in a recent article, on his website Mark My Words that: “I strongly suspect that they may be deliberately leaking info and then claiming to be upset, thus generating more stories. All of this boosts the show, the ability to make money, and more often than not it is at the expense of the ‘talent’.”

Social networking sites are undoubtedly one of the best ways for people to express their personal feelings, vent some anger and generate debate. And the vehemence in which people portray their opinions through these sites is a hell of a lot more aggressive than what is portrayed in print or broadcast media. With 17,000 people joining a Facebook page ‘Gamu should have got through’ in a matter of hours after the show was aired, and a ‘Hate Cheryl Cole’ trend emerging on Twitter, these two social networking sites were clearly a great method of supporting the media strategy. And The X Factor is clearly aware of this. If they want to create hype, using social networking sites is probably the best way to go about it and they’re certainly not going to generate the same amount of fuss about the show if they put through the public’s favourite, maintain Cheryl Cole’s ‘the nation’s sweetheart’ title and simply let the overall winner get that expected Christmas number one spot they’ve always dreamed of.

However, one’s fall is another’s rise. The “Mr Nasty” music mogul and fellow X Factor judge Simon Cowell is coming off looking like the good guy. Again. Granted it is his show, so why wouldn’t he want some positive PR. Using Miss Nhengu’s uncertain future, BBC News reported Mr Cowell “has thrown his weight behind the campaign to save X Factor singer Gamu Nhengu from being sent back to Zimbabwe.” Simon Cowell commented: “We have lawyers working with her lawyers – not because we have to – but because I really feel for their situation, and that’s outside of the show.” How good of him. Although I’m sure the price he’s paying for his lawyers will be like a drop in the ocean compared to the money gleaned from sustaining viewers to the ad breaks during The X Factor, whether or not Miss Nhengu’s potential deportation is “outside of the show”, the media coverage of the threat is a boon to the programme’s view figures.

Nick Ede, Creative Director of Eden Cancan, comments that: “The controversy surrounding the judges’ choices is always of interest and there will always be media stories to fuel the public’s interest in the build-up to the first live shows. It’s a win for The X Factor but a loss for Cole.”

So with Cole getting the negative coverage this time round, the tables really have turned as Cowell has managed to go from Mr Bad Guy, to Mr Nice Guy – at least for now. On the contrary, the incredibly powerful entrepreneur is never going to come out of the show any worse off from any negative publicity the show receives. This is, after all, the man who attacked last years Rage Against the Machine campaign to sabotage the Christmas number one spot from winner Joe McElderry, telling The Daily Star: “It’s all very Scrooge.” Of course, he probably wasn’t that bothered by it at all as he does after all own rights in Sony BMG’s catalogue – who Rage Against the Machine are signed to. So for Simon Cowell, it was always a win-win situation. He’d earn money from sales of “Klling in the name” and “The Climb”.

Profiting from the positive and the negative – what a genius.

It wouldn’t be unfair to suspect that the previous 2008 campaign to get Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah to the number one spot and deprive winner Alexandra Burke of the Christmas number one with her version of the song, was a test run for the Rage Against the Machine campaign. Social networking sites went lunatic, and although Alexandra Burke still managed to win the top spot, fans were angered on either side of the debate. This perhaps resulted in the show realising just how much benefit they can gain from pissing people off.

So when Ms Cole kicked off Gamu-gate, social networking sites were swamped by X Factor viewers’ campaigns demanding the reinstatement of Miss Nhengu and hundreds of fans lined the streets outside the eighteen-year-old’s house to show their support for her.

How on earth did they get her address? Has the show no consideration of public safety?

Well, actually they probably do. It’s quite easy to come to the conclusion that the X Factor publicity team may’ve organised such an event. Cheryl Cole on the other hand reportedly received death threats over her controversial decision.

So we could finish this all off by saying the same trite stuff that “people are clearly forgetting that this is just another reality TV show. It’s a competition. It’s just a bit of fun…”
But no – what people are clearly forgetting is that the X Factor is a masterful media product, a powerful publicity machine and a genius money-making, ad-unit selling device. Question and criticise the ethics, but be amazed and aware of its raison d’être.

All the so-called ‘leaking’ of stories about the show and about its contestants seems like an inexcusable way for a huge corporation to exploit innocent contestants who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for. Miss Nhengu recently told The News of the World that: “If I hadn’t been on X Factor everything would have been fine. Someone else would have been the scapegoat instead of me.” All these hopefuls want is a chance to live their dream of becoming the next Leona Lewis, but if the show actually treated them with any respect, they wouldn’t receive the publicity the show craves so badly.

So this years PR campaign of causing public outrage is doing pretty damn well so far, but what those who are so outraged need to see is that while it’s all very well campaigning against decisions made by the show, bitching about it by the water cooler and criticising the ethics of the show, if you really want to make the point, stop watching the show.

Try it. See if you can. We challenge you.

Remember the Cluetrain Manifesto?

Someone kindly sent me a link to the Cluetrain Manifesto this week as a "really interesting article" regarding online communications. I read it back in 2000, so someone finding it useful 10 years later, and with the emergence of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, is really telling that maybe social media has given us new tools for online PR, but the strategies aren't that different.

She prompted me to look back at some of my own research from then to see if and how it might apply today, and it's pretty critical, I think. (Of course I would say that.)

The important point is incorporating the internet and its channels and communities into communications programmes strategically. Lots of research seems to be focused on the new things we can do with social media, but it's very tactical, and often enamoured with the tech and what it can do, instead of asking the important questions - how can we make it work best for us? how can we make it work with our other communications activicies? is there an appropriate RoI?

If you're not doing much this weekend have a look at what it's still right - and what was a little naive - back in 2001 when I wrote this research document

News of The World gate is no Watergate - how odd!

A lack of definitive evidence of complicity seems to be sole reason that Andy Coulson has managed to cling on to his job as Director of Communications in Downing Street. In damaging headlines that have been prevalent throughout September, the former News of the World editor is not only alleged to have been complicit in, but ‘actively encouraged’ the phone-hacking of several high-profile individuals during his time at the tabloid. The re-emergence of this story, first carried by the Guardian in the summer of 2009, has not only led to questions of judgement in the British Government, but clearly demands a wider inquiry into media morals and the power possessed by the media in society.

Despite the accusations directed at Mr Coulson, he can count on the support of both Nick Clegg and David Cameron who have both stood by him in the face of anxiety throughout the coalition. In Parliament, it was claimed that when Coulson originally resigned from his editorial position at the News of the World, the first person to offer commiserations was then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. So political support from all sides, it seems – at least publicly. However, whether Cameron still feels as ‘relaxed’ about Coulson’s appointment, as he claimed when the story originally broke, is unlikely as clamours for his departure reign down from the backbenches. In many ways, it could be suggested that it’s only for a lack of cohesion and sense of direction in Labour’s PR department that Coulson has been able to remain in his job to date. A clear opportunity for the opposition to launch damaging blows in Cameron’s direction has nearly passed without the former editor having to use any of his media skills.

The emergence of the phone-tapping scandal has also evoked a need for further investigation into the role that Rupert Murdoch, owner of ‘News of the World’ parent company ‘News International’, has in the decision making process at the heart of British government. News International, in 2009, seemingly paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists using criminal methods to acquire stories. Controversially, it would seem that the intimate relationship enjoyed by Cameron and Murdoch was hugely significant in Coulson’s original political appointment back in 2007. Cameron, with Coulson in his current position, may soon experience a rebuttal of his government’s integrity, particularly with a number of MP’s, and high profile celebrities alleging their phones have been hacked, and many would argue he’d be prudent to quietly show Coulson the door before the police question Coulson following new allegations.

In any democracy one must ask if a person can remain in an authoritative position when they are under investigation for using Stasi-like tactics. Let’s not forget that it was bugging and secret tape-recordings – an offence not dissimilar to that of voicemail hacking – that was at the heart of President Richard Nixon’s impeachment.

In a coalition that has endeavoured to distance itself from previous scandal and make ‘government accountable to the people’, the Coulson predicament has the potential to be even more damaging. The fact that Coulson denies that he knew anything about the phone-tapping suggests a disregard for duty in the first place; either way, his position as ‘Head of Communications’ seems difficult to defend. It is essential that any media editor should check the strengths of his journalists sources, if Coulson was not mindful of the investigations his journalists were conducting, there should be questions as to why this was not the case, and his general competence.

Clearly, this is a scandal that Cameron would be wise to try and distance himself from, sooner rather than later, as there appears to be almost no redeeming aspects to the quandary in which he now finds himself. The sacking of Coulson, alongside an attempt to make government changes to tighten the checks and balances involved within media investigations, could help to limit the potential damage.

Divisions between private and public information have become increasingly blurred post 9/11. Electronic eavesdropping is a serious crime, and should be treated as such, yet, in certain cases, also has the ability to uncover vital information that may help to keep the public safe. Nevertheless, what is inexcusable is the tapping of phones for entertainment purposes. As more people come forward to speak about the ‘News of the World’ case, the Westminster village is full of rumours about how widespread the practice really is. Clearly tighter controls on the methods used by journalists are essential to avoid repeat questions of the invasion of privacy, alleged to be practiced throughout the News of the World under Coulson’s tenure. The culture that had emerged, with allegedly nearly 3,000 people targeted, further demonstrates the extent of the problem and the need for change. This is just the latest case of journalists sacrificing professional ethics for commercial benefit.

At present, there seems to be little power or desire of holding the media to account by anyone. At present, Coulson’s close relationship to News International may have limited the backlash to issue to just a handful of publications, unsurprisingly none of them belonging to News International. The BBC also took their time in reporting a follow-up story from the New York Times which introduced a “former reporter” who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking.

Murdoch’s dominant publications remain The Sun and the News of the World. As Britain’s best read paper, and a daily readership of over 3 million, The Sun is consequently well placed to influence many of the British public’s perceptions. An illustration of the power The Sun wields is the “elephant in the room” treatment of what one can easily argue amounts to porn on its third page. However, critics of Page 3, although many, remain noticeably quiet, perhaps fearful of the backlash that The Sun, with its unmatched ability to influence public perception, will almost certainly embark on.

Those who have castigated this national treasure have often performed a startling u-turn on their original statements. One recent example of this is the apparent softening of Government Minister Lynne Featherstone’s desire to ban page 3 claiming that her original comments went “against liberal principles”. If such retractions have been made because of the threat of reaction from a News International publication, then it further indicates a sense of fear that The Sun and News of the World have created, and a subsequent imbalance of power in society.

The ability for a media institution to exploit the privacy of some, whilst limiting the freedom of speech of others is something that should never happen in a modern democracy. Regardless of what happens in the instant case of Mr Coulson, the coalition has a duty under international law to protect the privacy and free speech of its citizens – including its politicians. It has promised in its programme of government to protect civil liberties. If it is proved that there is a reckless senior advisor in Downing Street who’s shown few qualms about overstepping these boundaries, it will raise questions about the integrity of the UK’s new Government.

Spam Headlines and Headline Spam

An article from ISP Grub.

"...say "marketing emails" and the man in the street would be forgiven for thinking "spam". But anyone working in the ISP industry, particularly a committed analyst of the ISP industry, such as ISP focused journalists and bloggers, would know the difference. Should know the difference. In fact, MUST know the difference."


http://www.ispgrub.org/2010/10/spam-headlines-are-headline-spam.html

Showgirls and iPads are prize-less entertainment

The exchange of a business card for the possibility of winning an iPad; the latest in tablet computing for a trivial portion of paper. A tempting offer, with the potential gain far exceeding the insignificant loss.

To anybody who has recently attended a business conference or networking event, the sight of two attractive showgirls further subsidised by the offer of a technology prize is familiar. Two fit girls gagging for your phone number, it seems too good to be true and how often it is. To the few who have ever triumphed in one of these raffles, the remainder of this blog may seem an excessive tirade. To the thousands of executives who never win with iPads or pretty trade show girls; immerse yourself in this rant.

There are several changes to the current format of prize raffles at corporate events required, if the respect of executives is to be retained. The Sirens that are the permi-grin execs, part-time models and iPads can seemingly go far in luring potential clients to give up their contact details. However, those experienced in attending such networking events may be growing immune, or just plain cynical, to their shallow charms.

The quest for greater clarity and fair treatment in prize promotions is now essential if the current format is to retain the industry’s respect and get results. Perhaps most importantly the mythical prize has to be visible; a realistic target. At present, nobody is sure who wins the prize leading to confusion and a greater sense of disappointment for those who entered. Imagine if the same occurred at a sporting event, with the champion hidden under a cloud of anonymity. Not only would it represent a severe lack of drama, but would also soon lead to a lack of interest.

The likelihood of someone giving away their personal contact details and winning a prize should not be overstated. Exactly where the all-conquering victor should collect his modern day laurels should be clearly established and this must happen on the same day. The re-occurring explanation that the raffle will be inconveniently drawn in several weeks time helps nobody. Who has the time these days to chase up a potential prize? By this point, many people have probably forgotten they entered the prize in the first place. That is until they receive their first email marketing message from the competition holders. It now becomes desperately apparent that the cute showgirl will never call back, a large, ungainly bloke almost certainly will and a pang of regret creeps in.

Marketing and PR, have long used the incentive of a prize to lure people to sacrifice their personal details. It offers a chance to formulate a huge database of particular clients and people with whom future business may be done. This can often benefit both sides of the deal, so why the need for the sideshow, that is a potential iPad and the chance to talk, without fear, to a pretty girl? For the majority of people, the result of such an encounter is not hours of fun playing with said iPad, or the love of a pretty girl, but just the odd email from time-to-time for products and services they may or may not want.

A much simpler system, and the one adopted by Parker, Wayne and Kent, is to offer, on receipt of a business card, a chance to win numerous cash prizes on demand, immediately. This offers immediate gratification to winners of the draw, and helps to prevent obvious logistical difficulties in trying to forward the prize to a winner weeks later. Not only do competition champions experience the quick but memorable elation of receiving a tenner on the spot, but it also remains cost effective. With an iPad retailing at close to £500, using the Parker, Wayne and Kent tactic gives more gratification to more people for less money. Using this procedure also helps entrants as they are not required to chase up a mythical prize they secretly know they have not won, reducing the likely disappointment. Instead, they can gleefully accept their cash prize, dash to the nearest bar and congratulate themselves over a few pints.

Rooney pays privacy price for profitable publicity

If Wayne Rooney’s PR team had had some sense they would have known that one tell-all interview about prostitutes was quite enough personal information. But instead of then requesting privacy they advised him to splash his wedding photos across the covers of the nation’s glossy magazines. And then helped his wife to build an empire of fashion lines and reality TV shows on the back of his fame. Of course, they received a handsome fee for all this.

It should have come as no shock then when they were forced to advise him not to even try and keep the press quiet about recent allegations surrounding his infidelity. After all, he was happy to ‘bare all’ about similar stories in the past; the only difference was this time it wouldn’t be him and his advisors making money out of it. Rooney’s PR men have turned the idea of his ‘celebrity private life’ into a laughable oxymoron. It appears they’re not the only ones to have done so.

Celebrities, like Rooney and his wife Coleen, promote themselves, with the help of PR teams and advisors, as a brand and make a lot of money from telling the media about their private lives. Any celebrity worth their salt will now have accounts on many of the various social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allowing them to promote themselves directly to their fans and across the Internet.

Frequently celebrities will use social networking as a covert PR tactic. They tweet personal information and then, just when we’re hooked, ask for the press to ‘respect their privacy’. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is a prime example of this. He tweeted that he and his partner were planning to adopt twins but also expected complete privacy. As every good celebrity advisor knows, by asking for privacy a celebrity will, more often than not, generate more press coverage – just take a look at the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding photo scandal if you need proof. It’s all just a little like reverse psychology for the media world. After all, the word privacy just screams ‘scoop’ to journalists.

Despite this, it should not be forgotten that some celebrities are famous simply for being very good at their job. Fame is a price rather than a perk to these celebrities and they have no choice but to hire PR advisors simply because of who they are. These celebrities are usually able to have social networking accounts and handle publicity without causing too much scandal. They are after all just people living their lives. They are not elected officials or members of government necessarily deserving scrutiny for immoral behaviour. Which profession celebrities choose to work in should give the media no more right into their personal lives than they have into anyone else’s.

It is the celebrities who exploit their fame, through extensively revealing interviews, ‘too-much-information’ tweets and publicity stunts, who give up their privacy. Agents and PR teams must take responsibility for this though. Most celebrities have their actions dictated by advisors whose main aim is to make as much money from their 15 minutes of fame as possible. Although everyone is accountable for their personal actions, the way celebrities handle the media, particularly in times of crisis, is often not their decision.

As such, many celebrities are advised to plea for privacy on emotional grounds and there is no doubt that stories such as this do have a devastating impact on the individuals involved. However, it seems that much of the time the wish for privacy actually has nothing to do with protecting them. It is simply a PR team’s way of trying to save brand value and keep hold of lucrative sponsorships and contracts.

Rooney’s case draws unsurprising parallels with that of John Terry whose gagging order was over-turned because it appeared he was more concerned with protecting his financial interests than his family’s feelings. Rumours of Rooney’s infidelity were already rife in football circles. With the certainty that they would soon reach the Internet, it seems his advisors motivations may have been no different. The Rooney brand is fronted by a ‘happy family’ image and the suggestion is that it was this they were trying to salvage, not Coleen’s feelings.

Celebrities, despite what the media says, are not always aware of what they are letting themselves in for by becoming famous. The media argues that celebrities should expect privacy invasion simply because they’re famous and journalists often claim ‘the public’s right to know’. Whilst celebrities undoubtedly have a right to privacy what they have lost is the expectation of it. Rooney’s failure to obtain an injunction suggests that when it comes to celebrity PR clearly there is such a thing as ‘too-much-information’. Agents must make celebrities very aware that there’s only six inches between a pat on the back and a kick in the arse. Unlimited or uncontrolled promotion of private lives naturally compromises claims for personal privacy.