Bloggers and journalists needed for annual Glide survey

For the last few years, Glide Technologies (purveyors of the well known Online Press Centre product) have conducted an annual journalist survey to delve into the nitty gritty of what kind of information journalists want and how they want to receive it.  The Glide surveys have tended to stand out from other similar, run of the mill research efforts in this area – they actually do seem to come up with some valuable insights.

The 2009 survey is now getting underway – the key difference this year is that Glide is looking for input from both journalists and bloggers (sorry, no PR folk required).  I realise most hacks would rather poke their own eyes out rather than spend time on yet another bloody survey – but if the thorough approach of recent years is replicated again this time around, I’d say it is 15 mins well spent.

As an added incentive, everyone who helps by completing a survey will be entitled to enter a prize draw and a chance to win 2 bottles of Champagne –  3 sets up for grabs – and of course, everyone who takes part will receive a full copy of the results (naturally).

So if you are a journalist or blogger, feel free to go here to complete the Glide Technologies 2009 Media Survey. Go on. You know you want to.

Filed under: Digital marketing, Media, Web/Tech, digital pr, online pr , Gilde Journalists Survey

Jackenhack Awards 2009:The (unofficial) video

What do you get when you cram around 170 UK tech PR people into a small bar in London, ply them with booze and offer up the prospect of some cheeky mickey taking? Answer: The Jackenhack Awards 2009 which took place last Wednesday evening at The Dust Bar in Clerkenwell Road, London.  If the PR Week Awards are “the equivalent of the film industry’s Oscars”, the Jackenhacks are the Razzies. Due to the current economic climate, there was no official video record of the evening. So I took it upon myself to create an unofficial one.

Armed with a Flip HD video camera, a copy of iMovie and a spare 30 mins for some (very) rough editing, this is what I came up with. I’m sure with more time I could have come up with a very polished video – but that would probably be “off-message” for the Jackenhacks. Suffice to say there is plenty of footage that didn’t make it into this version. If people were really that interested, I might be motivated to create an extended documentary.

Parental advisory warning: normally smooth talking PR people can be heard to be swearing in a way which makes Malcolm Tucker look like a recently ordained vicar. Those of sensitive dispositions should watch with the sound turned off.

Filed under: Technology PR, Web/Tech, digital pr, tech pr , jackenhacks

How do you distribute and monitor social media guidelines?

More and more organisations are looking to draw up social media guidelines. As I’ve previously pointed out, many larger companies have already put in place policies relating to blogging and social network participation. However, it occurred to me there is not much discussion around the subject of distributing, monitoring and enforcing social media guidelines. Having a written social media usage policy is clearly a necessary first step. But how do you make sure people have seen these guidelines? More importantly, how do you know that they have actually read and understood them? And are aware of the consequences of failing to abide by them? (Take Cisco for example: “Please be aware that violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.”)

Perhaps social media might be able to learn something from the world of IT security. There are already tools that allow businesses to readily distribute and monitor IT security policy, as well as educate employees. So why not for social media guidelines?

What do people think?

Filed under: Digital marketing, IT security, Technology PR, digital pr, online pr, tech pr , social media policy

Does your PR agency really understand Page Rank? A client checklist.

Talking to various people over the last weeks, it is clear that a small but growing number of PR firms are attempting to use Page Rank as a metric for measuring the value of online media coverage.  However, it seems that some either don’t really understand what Page Rank is – or are misleading clients over the real Page Rank (and value) that their coverage has delivered.

For example, I’ve been told of a few firms who if they gain a piece of client coverage on, say, Computing’s web site, will claim that the value of the coverage is Page Rank 6.  However, what they really mean is that the Computing home page has a Page Rank of 6 – the actual page where the coverage appeared will almost certainly have a Page Rank of 0. That’s a mighty big difference.

In fact, almost all press coverage (or indeed any new web page) will have a Page Rank of 0 to begin with. Any new page added to a site will first have to be indexed by Google. And it takes Google time to take account of factors that will determine what Page Rank should be assigned. It is certainly possible to get Page Rank up to 1 0r 2 relatively quickly if people begin linking to the coverage  - but unless you get some very high Page Ranked backlinks rapidly, the chances that a piece of coverage will have gained a Page Rank of 5 or higher in the space of a few days is highly unlikely.

Traditionally, gaining a piece of coverage on a major site like the BBC would be cause for celebration. And I’m not saying it shouldn’t still be. However, we need to be honest about what value that might really deliver. And why we need to be careful about using Page Rank as a PR metric.

For example, the Guardian has a massive 3.8 million unique visitors and 130 million page views per month in the UK alone. Some PR firms might be tempted to say that getting coverage on The Guardian site provides an OTS (opportunity to see) of 3.8 Million. Of course, this is not exactly the case. The Guardian has roughly 20.3 million indexed pages – not of all of these are going to be editorial pages, but most will be. Fact is, not all pages are equal. Only the publishers themselves know the real data, but I’d hazard a guess that a smaller percentage of the total number of indexed pages gain the majority of site traffic. That’s the same for any website.  The challenge with using Page Rank as a PR metric is that it is an indirect measure of traffic. If you think about it, if Google determines that a page has a higher relative importance than another then it is likely to have more traffic. In which case, try randomly sampling some pages from the BBC and other major sites and you’ll probably find that the Page Rank is o.

Here is another example. This story was one of the Most Popular on the BBC site a few days ago. However, it has a Page Rank of 0. In spite of 49 backlinks, including backlinks from pages with rankings of 7. Now the Page Rank may change over time, but again, this is unlikely unless further interest is generated via additional backlinks.

That’s not to say that over time, an article might not be able to build a higher Page Rank. But how many PR firms do you know that would recommend and implement an ongoing “merchandising” strategy to try and generate more backlinks and comments to a piece of coverage in order to improve Page Rank? Or would be able to track changes in Page Rank over time and demonstrate what factors may have caused that change in Page Rank? And have a plan for using that change in Page Rank to generate further traffic to the client’s website? (Disclosure: this is a standard approach at escherman)

The traditional PR mindset is one that says once a piece of coverage has appeared, the job is pretty much done (other than to prepare a clippings book and invoice the client). Part of the opportunity with online PR is that generating the initial coverage can in fact be the start rather than the end of the process.

So beware of PR firms touting Page Rank as a metric. Here’s a handy quick checklist of things to ask them:

1. Explain what Page Rank is and why it is important. Hint: go here to find out for yourself.

2. If a PR firm claims a high Page Rank for a piece of coverage that has appeared in the last 2 days, ask them to explain what factors have caused this to be the case.

3. Ask them if they have a plan for potentially improving the Page Rank of a piece of coverage – and how they would track that over time

Filed under: Digital marketing, Technology PR, Web/Tech, digital pr, online pr, tech pr , Page Rank

How to Give a Lousy Presentation: BusinessWeek

9. Don’t bother with a backup plan. If you need a live Internet connection to demo a site, don’t bother making a screen shot of the site in case the connection doesn’t work. That way, you’ll be at a complete loss for words when the connection fails.

10. Don’t practice. At all. Practicing a presentation out loud takes work and will make you look far too polished. Just wing it.

via businessweek.com

Good check list – points 9 and 10 in this BusinessWeek piece struck a chord

Filed under: Uncategorized

For Teens, Has Texting Replaced Talking? – The Juggle – WSJ

via blogs.wsj.com

“My son had racked up nearly 2,000 incoming text messages, and had sent nearly as many. That means he was having more than 60 two-way communications via text message every day.” Sue Shellenbarger

Filed under: Uncategorized

The Top 100 UK tech folk to follow on Twitter: Pocket-lint

UPDATE ON UPDATE: To make even more clear I’m not simply reposting and attempting to claim all the glory, you’ll have to go to the Pocket-lint site for the full list.

UPDATE: Just so everyone is clear, this is NOT my list, I’m simply reposting – this is the list from the original Pocket-lint post here.  As Richard (see comments below) pointed out, there was no link to the original article – my apologies – it’s there now.

3 September 2009 10:00 GMT / By Dan Sung

Twitter’s a pretty big yard these days. So, with no time to go chasing wild geese around, your friendly neighbourhood Pocket-lint has compiled a list of the finest geek minds and microblogging wordsmiths in the UK that you should follow for all things tech.

Without further ado, in no particular order and by their own bios, here are the top 100 tweeters you should be following.

A

@AlmostZara – Zara Rabinowicz writes about technology and beauty and likes gadgets, gaming and frozen yogurt. She is Staff Writer for Stuff Magazine.
@alexfarber – i like news and booze.
@andylim – Half Chinese, half Spanish Londoner. Editorial director @recombu – I love mobile phones like I love air. Founder UKTJPR.com and @UKTJPR.
@adamhleach – tech analyst, photographer and londoner
@asimqureshi – Consumer Technology PR – anything that makes life that bit more simple and pleasurable!!
@alanburkittgray – Editor of Global Telecoms Business magazine. See burkitt-gray.com for other links

Filed under: Uncategorized

Newspaper people on Twitter – Media UK

Newspaper people on Twitter

We list the “top of the twits” for newspaper titles (a-z) and people (a-z). Media UK runs a variety of services on Twitter too – not least, @mediauk – follow us!

	Followers	Following	Ratio
1. Jemima Kiss: Journalist, The Guardian	13,604	298	2.2%
2. Charles Arthur: Journalist, The Guardian	8,684	496	5.7%
3. Jack Schofield: Journalist, The Guardian	6,618	876	13.2%
4. Emily Bell: Journalist, The Guardian	4,642	304	6.5%
5. Bobbie Johnson: Journalist, The Guardian	4,411	895	20.3%
6. Tim Bradshaw: Journalist, Financial Times	4,106	1,350	32.9%
7. Shane Richmond: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	3,464	1,177	34.0%
8. Joanna Geary: Journalist, The Times	2,611	760	29.1%
9. Ian Douglas: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	2,237	1,958	87.5%
10. Ruth Gledhill: Journalist, The Times	2,034	1,965	96.6%
11. Chris Nuttall: Journalist, Financial Times	2,022	128	6.3%
12. Toby Harnden: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	1,825	425	23.3%
13. Steve Wollaston: Digital Editor, Sunday Mercury	1,727	1,902	110.1%
14. Harry Wallop: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	1,690	207	12.2%
15. Jo Wadsworth: Journalist, The Argus	1,562	1,920	122.9%
16. Sarah Hartley: Journalist, Manchester Evening News	1,502	348	23.2%
17. Gideon Rachman: Journalist, Financial Times	1,465	30	2.0%
18. Alison Gow: Journalist, Liverpool Daily Post	1,440	493	34.2%
19. Marc Reeves: Editor, The Birmingham Post	1,407	942	67.0%
20. Claudine Beaumont: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	1,298	277	21.3%
21. Justin Williams: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	1,202	476	39.6%
22. Will Lewis: Editor, The Daily Telegraph	1,078	52	4.8%
23. Sarah Ebner: Digital Editor, The Times	892	830	93.0%
24. Michael Bailey: Journalist, Norwich Evening News	809	1,511	186.8%
25. Samantha Shepherd: Journalist, Daily Echo	753	390	51.8%
26. Anna Arco: Journalist, The Catholic Herald	750	738	98.4%
27. Tom Scotney: Journalist, The Birmingham Post	736	470	63.9%
28. Luke Coppen: Editor, The Catholic Herald	707	597	84.4%
29. Sarah Booker: Digital Editor, Worthing Herald	689	847	122.9%
30. Paul Cockerton: Digital Editor, Lancashire Telegraph	597	586	98.2%
31. Jon Swaine: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	508	112	22.0%
32. David Ottewell: Journalist, Manchester Evening News	466	215	46.1%
33. Martin Beckford: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	463	139	30.0%
34. David Maclean: Journalist, The Shields Gazette	445	119	26.7%
35. Simon Donohue: Journalist, Manchester Evening News	417	376	90.2%
36. Jane Perrone: Journalist, The Guardian	386	164	42.5%
37. Edward Roussel: Journalist, The Daily Telegraph	382	53	13.9%
38. Ian Wylie: Journalist, Manchester Evening News	370	102	27.6%
39. Kat Brown: Journalist, thelondonpaper	287	182	63.4%
40. Jon Welch: Journalist, Eastern Daily Press	265	241	90.9%
41. Matt Cornish: Editor, St Neots News & Crier	238	306	128.6%
42. Sam Blackledge: Journalist, Surrey Advertiser	223	332	148.9%
43. Iain Hepburn: Digital Editor, Daily Record	222	317	142.8%
44. Dan Kerins: Journalist, Southern Daily Echo	192	158	82.3%
45. Amar Singh: Journalist, London Evening Standard	185	235	127.0%
46. Jonny Fordham: Journalist, Reading Evening Post	178	77	43.3%
47. Martin Smith: Journalist, Coventry Telegraph	174	71	40.8%
48. Steve Dyson: Editor, Birmingham Mail	166	7	4.2%
49. Jonathan Barnes: Journalist, Ipswich Evening Star	135	146	108.1%
50. Murray Kelso: Digital Editor, Worcester News	119	62	52.1%
51. Kevin Ward: Editor, Worcester News	118	64	54.2%
52. Tony Larner: Editor, Sunday Mercury	116	94	81.0%
53. Carolyn McCall: Editor, The Guardian	116	38	32.8%
54. Vicki Kellaway: Journalist, Liverpool Echo	95	181	190.5%
55. John McKie: Columnist, Daily Record	93	111	119.4%
56. David Brookes: Editor, Coventry Telegraph	92	18	19.6%
57. Maria Breslin: Station Manager, Liverpool Echo	81	11	13.6%
58. Tristan Harris: Editor, Bromsgrove Standard	65	61	93.8%
59. Miriam Phillips: Journalist, Dorset Echo	64	107	167.2%
60. Chine Mbubaegbu: Journalist, Reading Evening Post	60	69	115.0%
61. Martin Hamer: Digital Editor, Lancashire Evening Post	55	47	85.5%
62. Steve Carley: Journalist, Worcester News	50	9	18.0%
63. Tim Nixon: Journalist, Lancashire Telegraph	26	34	130.8%
64. Rob George: Journalist, Bromsgrove Standard	19	43	226.3%
65. Kate Whiteside: Digital Editor, The Westmorland Gazette	6	14	233.3%

via mediauk.com

Interesting to note that The Guardian occupies the top 5 slots!

Filed under: Uncategorized

Social Media Guidelines: MIchael Gerrard – IDC

I’ve posted a couple of blogs recently about the rise of the social media function and how BtoB companies can best leverage social media. A common theme has been the need for marketing to provide guidance, guidelines and infrastructure without stifling the power of this new channel to reach customers, prospects and influencers. To help with your journey, I’ve included below a list of social media guidelines that several companies have published:

• Adobe Acrobat Users: http://www.acrobatusers.com/blog_guidelines

Cisco: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/ciscos_internet_postings_policy/

Dell: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/policy/en/policy?c=us&1=en&s+corp&~section=019

Mayo Clinic: http://sharing.mayoclinic.org/guidelines/for-mayo-clinic-employees/

BT: http://richarddennison.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bt-social-media-guidelines-mar09.pdf

eBay: http://ebayinkblog.com/2009/03/06/new-social-media-guidelines-for-reporting-company-information/

HP: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/blogs/codeofconduct.html

IBM: http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

Intel: http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_US/social-media.htm

SAP: http://www.sapweb20.com/blog/2009/07/sap-social-media-guidelines-2009/#

Sun: http://www.sun.com/communities/guidelines.jsp

Have any others to share?. . . Please comment below.

via techmarketingblog.blogspot.com

Filed under: Uncategorized

8 email statistics to use at parties

If email was a country, its 1.4 billion users would make it the largest in the world. Bigger than China, bigger than the populations of the USA and European Union combined.

247 billion emails are sent each day. That’s one email every 0.00000035 seconds.

In the time it takes you to read this sentence, some 20 million emails entered cyberspace.

Every second, the world’s email users produce messages equivalent in size to over 16,000 copies of the Complete Works of Shakespeare (assuming a 30KB average email size).

13.4 billion: the number of direct marketing dollars forecast to go on email in the US in 2009.

$583 billion: the return from that investment if you use DMA figures on email marketing ROI. That’s four times the market value of Microsoft.

181: the number of marketing emails it would take to produce enough revenue to buy one share in Microsoft.

83,689,738,832,367: the number of marketing emails it would take to produce enough revenue to pay the US National Debt.

[Aside 1: When you see email stats like the above, you gain a new appreciation for the work of those companies and organizations managing email.]

[Aside 2: And when you consider that many of these emails are spam, you can understand why ISPs and others have bigger problems to worry about than whether legitimate marketing email is reaching the right destinat

via email-marketing-reports.com

Filed under: Uncategorized