Friday, 28 November 2014

Marketers 1: Gullible People 0

Black Friday. It's American. And it isn't even named for retailers being in the black. Read this article and you'll see history has been rewritten.

Here it is in 2014 foisted upon us in the UK. You might get some bargains. I've got good deals on software on Amazon. On the other hand I could have bought paint Shop Pro X7 - which arrived today - cheaper from the manufacturers. Silly me. What you might get instead of bargains is an old version of that TV/Camera/tablet and then kick yourself when a new one comes out in a few weeks' time. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Is it a good idea for the shops? Not necessarily. What happens next year when people wait for Black Friday and sales fall in the early part of November? Cash flow is king when you're a retailer, not profit.

We're stuck with it now. It's part of our culture like all the Halloween junk and, as with the alleged Halloween "traditions" (sorry, kids, if I don't remember it as a child then it's not tradition ...), the great British public is conned into thinking we've had it for years. We haven't. Even Amazon only started it a couple of years ago and they were the forerunners in the UK. No doubt those people believe Father Christmas has always been called Santa too.

There will always be daft gullible people and the marketers laugh at them. I mean that literally. I've been in marketing meetings where ad executives have laughed at the prospect of "They'll go for that, no problem" "They can't touch us, we'll convince them it's about the charity" They're laughing at those people who think Sainsbury's aren't selling anything in their tacky disrespectful Christmas ad. All the Christmas ads are about brand recognition and all want you in the stores. Obviously. Why do you think someone at John Lewis is in trouble for not ordering another half a million toy penguins? I'll hold my hand up and say I love that ad, by the way.

Any TV ad, any marketing email, anything convincing you subliminally that Black Friday is a traditional fun shopping day - it's SELLING to you. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Caveat emptor.

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Justice v. Revenge

Or, as Judge Masipa put it in her sentencing of Oscar Pistorius,

“Society cannot always get what they want. Courts do not exist for a popularity contest but only to dispense justice … The general public may not even know the difference between punishment and vengeance.”

They most certainly don't. They want revenge and revenge is not justice. It worries me that "public opinion" would like to turn the legal clock back 500 years to get what they want.

The rent-a-mob will never be satisfied. Those who believe the only good man is a dead one will never be satisfied. There is "outrage on social media". Ah, yes, that bastion of legal knowledge and common sense. Personally I really couldn't care less what those on "social media" have to say. They are mostly ignorant people who haven't even followed the case and just want a few quick likes and retweets. I always knew the internet was the realm of the ignorant and stupid but the last few months of following this trial have brought that home to me. I followed it on Twitter at first but had to close my account due to abuse and threats. The voice of reason is not allowed, apparently you can only be part of the mob.

Much has been said about Oscar being made a special case because of his wealth and fame. I believe that has gone against him. Would the case have been televised if he hadn't been famous? Would the media have thrown (unfounded) accusations around for months? Would the prosecution have brought in their heavy hitters forcing the defence to do the same and ensuring an inordinate amount of time was spent on the case? Would every blonde bimbo and her dog be writing a book? Would Oscar be in danger while in prison?

No, of course not.

Now every bit player will be cashing in. I hope the family have enough money and the gumption to sue for libel.

Monday, 10 March 2014

Male Tweeters Rule, Lady Bloggers Not Allowed

I was going to use the title "Watching the Watchers" or "Twitter on trial, trial on Twitter" or something else that would have them rolling in the aisles but I need to explain to you that lady bloggers like myself are a Bad Thing and you should turn away from your screen immediately lest you are contaminated.

I'm not fond of Twitter. I would rather watch paint dry. I find it useful for news about cruises and local travel and events. I follow a few interesting people including journalists who are personal friends of mine. It has also been invaluable during  the Oscar Pistorius trial as I can follow what's going on when the sound drops out. I've made a few friends and we've enjoyed discussing some legal aspects.  Enjoyed is no doubt the wrong word but you know what I mean. Intelligent conversation is a treasure wherever you find it.

Here's what journalists and other commentators do during the trial:

1) They report what's being said by all parties. Some type very fast and it's verbatim - a bit weird when there's a time delay in the sound -  some paraphrase slightly. Some report everything, some do summaries. Some retweet other commentators, some don't.

2) Some engage in conversations with other tweeters replying to their posts. Some don't, either because everything is happening very fast or they don't choose to. It's their choice.

Liezl Thom is a great example of how it should be done. She gives you reliable information, she answers questions and even takes time to clarify what the question is when it's not clear. OK, that was me not phrasing the question very well...  She's polite, she's experienced, she's very professional, she thinks and reacts quickly but accurately and she understands how social media works. I expect there are many, many journalists doing the same thing in the same professional manner, it's impossible to see what they're all doing.

You have to use social media properly or not at all. You need to engage with your followers. They will, after all, answer each other's questions a lot of the time and who knows when they will give you an insight into something you missed when it's all happening very fast.  It should be pretty obvious that you shouldn't be rude to people!

Today I was told to "**** off" by a professional journalist in a conversation that his thousands of followers could read. My asterisks, he didn't give me or anyone else reading it the courtesy of asterisks!

What?? What did I say? The discussion was about allowing a live stream of the pathologist's evidence. I remarked that only by hearing it will we know the media reports are correct. Now, I might well have phrased this badly. It was meant to be objective, it wasn't an accusation that the media make it up. Maybe I should have said "One might consider that ..." in front of it. He could easily have ignored me.

As this conversation went on my comment was deemed casual and tedious and another delightful tweeter called me a "blogging misguided bimbo". Misguided blogging bimbo would surely have been neater? Misguided bimbo-esque blogger?

Did I get it wrong about Blogger? Is it only available to men? Only available to journalists? Do we need a Venn diagram? Is there a form I was supposed to fill it to qualify to be a blogger? Maybe I should look behind the bread bin.

I was asked "How much money have you made from journalism then?" What?? My Twitter header clearly says I'm an accountant so what does that mean? A good man jumped in to defend me and sensibly suggested I block a couple of idiots. A few journalist friends sent swift "Get him, Sharon!" messages with helpful hints on how to complain. Oh, yes, I do make money in a secondary way from journalism as my practice specialises in media clients...

I was a bit cross with myself for selecting good people to follow on Twitter then clearly getting it wrong but mostly I was shocked that someone making one comment can be attacked by an alleged professional.

Bimbo is the mot du jour. OK, I'm going to confess that I might have used that word about a witness reapplying lipstick on the witness stand but who does that? A filler piece in the "Let's not give them any more publicity" newspaper, written in the time-honoured "Let's grab our homework essay from the internet" style derided the "Pistorians". I've never been quite sure of the definition but apparently these are a Bad Thing. Then it had a go at the Support For Oscar Pistorius website and Facebook page. I have every admiration for the people running this but I'm not actually part of it so I'm not sure why my name was thrown in there, along with incorrect hometown (relevance?) which is what happens when you grab your information from Facebook, whose hometown deal does not allow for peeps who move about.

The comments all declared us to be bimbos. Of course they did. How come every woman who believes Oscar is entitled to a fair trial is a bimbo? What, pray, is the male equivalent  - or is it assumed that all men think he's guilty? Who writes all this junk?

I'll get back to cleaning the kitchen. Blogging might give me the vapours.

Sunday, 2 March 2014

Trial By Media

Oscar Pistorius' trial for the alleged premeditated murder of Reeva Steenkamp begins tomorrow.

I'm among his many supporters but, like them, I'm not allowed a voice. He has been tried and found guilty by the media. Comment anywhere - Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, on articles etc - and we're shouted down. Any Facebook page has a bunch of trolls on it, no matter how carefully it's moderated.  One idiot hijacked my thread the other day with a diatribe which ended "whatever you say you won't change my mind". Well, guess what, we don't need to change your mind. Justice is not about collecting votes in a country thousands of miles away.

I'm so sick of all the nonsense being spouted.

"We saw him out shopping". Bail, you silly people, not house arrest.

"He shouldn't have got bail, he did it." Please read up on the purpose of bail.

"Someone said he said ...." OK, let me stop you there. Go and read up on hearsay.

"We know he's guilty so we don't need a trial" Ah, a time traveller ...welcome to the 15th century. We've struggled for hundreds of years to create a justice system and you'd like to throw it away.

"New facts have emerged". No, actually that was a journalist making something up to sell papers.

Here's a sinister one: "Innocent until proven guilty is just a legal fiction. No-one believes it" Really? I studied law for four years and worked with lawyers for most of my professional life  and never met anyone who didn't believe it.

Were you there?

Do you know Oscar personally?

Are you familiar with South African Law?

Have you read up on crime statistics in South Africa?

No? So basically you gleaned your opinion from the Daily Mail, Facebook, your mates down the pub? Just what do you think a trial is for?

Yes, Oscar does have the advantage of money to pay for expensive lawyers and poor people don't. That is the same the world over and that particular injustice is not something that can be laid at his door.

I'm not a blind lovestruck Oscar fan. I loved watching him run, who didn't? I admire his massive achievements - and know more about them than most folk do - but actually I believe he's been rather stupid in how he's reacted to his fame and fortune. No more stupid than any other person would be with that level of fame and fortune at that age but nonetheless stupid. Hanging out with the so called friends who only want him because he's famous, spending ridiculous amounts of money on racehorses and fast cars, saying utterly stupid things on Twitter that you just knew (and told him ...) would come back to bite him, his acknowledged love of guns. I won't bore you with what I think about guns (again). You can read what I said about it further down this blog in regards to America and multiply that several times for South Africa.

I don't think he has been well served by the professional people he's been paying over the years. His PR team have been dreadful. They allowed outrageously offensive and libellous - and not just against Oscar - Facebook pages to run for months on end. It did rather look like someone had lost the password ...

Basically I don't believe he had any reason to kill Reeva. If he had wanted to kill her, he wouldn't have shot at her through a locked door. That could mean your victim doesn't die and you leave a living witness to testify against you. As for the reasonableness or otherwise of shooting someone you believe to be an intruder, I presume there is case law to cover that. I wouldn't know.

Supporting Oscar is hard to do. Not because my belief in him wavers but because of the constant attacks from the pitchfork-wielding angry mob. Last year I got loads of abuse and threats because I joined in a campaign to get people to buy chocolate rabbits at Easter instead of real ones. When people hate and despise you because you love rabbits you can imagine what they do when you support Oscar. It's driving my husband barmy. The favourite phrases are "You can't do anything to help Oscar and he wouldn't expect you to get stressed like this" and "Discussing anything on Facebook is like arguing with a drunk".

No, I can't do anything to help him other than pray for him but it's time to stand up and be counted. I will lose Facebook friends but then I don't want the angry mob amongst my friends. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just some throwaway phrase to me. It's a basic tenet of civilised society. If you can't respect it I really don't want to be your friend.

For anyone who wants to follow the trial without all the sensationalist drivel I suggest you follow David Smith on Twitter @smithinafrica and/or read his summaries in the Guardian. I followed every word of the bail hearing and he reports fairly and succinctly without making it up. Sky News were an absolute disgrace. If the judge had said it was raining the reporter would have tweeted "the judge remarked on what a lovely sunny day it is today". Perverse is the only way I can describe it.

I won't be following every word. My lawyer friends will alert me to what I need to follow in detail otherwise internet and TV will remain switched off.  I'm tempted to tune in to the audio of cross-examination of the aggrieved ex-girlfriend but then we know how that will go, even if she hasn't worked it out yet.

It will be a ludicrous media circus. Whatever happens, the angry mob will stick to their "verdict". Whatever happens, Oscar's life is over. Whatever happens, nothing brings Reeva back and her parents spend the rest of their lives in the Hell only experienced by parents who have lost a child.

I wish we could all turn the clock back.

God bless you and keep you strong, Oscar. Time to publish and be damned ...

Monday, 23 December 2013

Adventures in Time and Space

I love Doctor Who but I'm pretty fussy about the bits I love. I'm old enough to remember the first episode and the first few series of "kids' stuff". It was different and exciting and we had to watch it from behind a cushion. Looking back, though, those early years do nothing for me despite the best efforts of the "50 years but with huge gaps" marketing army.

The "Nu Who" is a different kettle of fish with fantastic acting, the money to spend on sets and effects that was lacking in the early days, and mostly good writing. I say mostly because there are far too many unresolved story arcs and  Dei Ex McGuffin for my liking. I wasn't keen on Ecclestone. I'm afraid I think "miserable so-and-so" every time I see him in anything and that has been reinforced seeing him as John Aspinall in Lucan recently. That was a depressing programme if ever there was one.

David Tennant was cheeky chappie with tragic background. I loved the jibe about him being Dick Van Dyke in Day Of The Doctor. The acting was first class and he was very very good BUT ...

Enter Matt Smith. After almost a year of the mean viewing public - and even meaner critics - saying he was too young he knocked it out of the ball park with his debut episode. Search Eleventh Hour on You Tube to remind yourself of it. It was an amazing mix of young and old, playful and extremely powerful, and it worked.  It's worked ever since despite some ropey story telling so I'll be sad to see him go. Women my age could be in love with him because he was over 900 years old and not in his late 20s. Don't think that didn't escape the attention of the marketing gurus. Not that I'd kick Capaldi out of bed on a cold night. Oh, I don't believe I just typed that. Now it's going to be embarrassing if I ever meet him...

I think I might just cry during the Christmas Day special. I watched "Adventures in Time and Space" the other day (had it recorded ...) and I was shocked at how moved I was by the last scene, which I won't describe in case anyone is reading who hasn't watched it yet. Spoilers .... Hubby says I actually went pale!

Thank you Matt Smith, David Tennant and Christopher Ecclestone and everyone who broke the ground before them. Break a leg, Mr Capaldi ;-)

Tuesday, 9 April 2013

We're on Bloglovin

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

I have to confess I never really understood the whole Google Reader/Friends/Connect whatever thing. I'd just about got a handle on it when they  announced they'd got bored with one or all of those. So I didn't mourn for it...

However, it's nice to have the blogs you read collated neatly for you so I joined (free) Bloglovin and it seems easy to use and fine so far. Give it a  try! To follow this blog and/or add your own  you can click on the link above or on the button to the right.

Friday, 15 February 2013

Fair Weather Friends

Last night I was idly composing a blog post about Twitter in my head and glanced at Oscar Pistorius' Twitter feed. It's usually entertaining apart from the times when I want teach him how to work the flash on his phone. He had about 450,000 followers. Today after being charged with the alleged murder of Reeva Steenkamp he had about 250,000.

What happened to those 200,000? Did they unfollow him because they think he's guilty? Because they think his career is over whatever the outcome and they therefore have no use for him? Or maybe a few are just depressed about it.

I'm appalled at the muck-raking journalism going on, and I use the word journalism loosely. Many assume he's guilty and that's something I always find offensive. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial no matter what they're accused of. No-one was there at the time so how come all these commentators think they know what happened?

People who didn't know Oscar before somehow think they know him now and engage in character assassination. I must admit that when I read about a house full of weapons and late night sessions at a shooting range - at the time they were originally written - I thought "You need to let your PR company handle your Twitter account, Sonny, and watch what you say to journalists." It didn't make me think he was a potential murderer, it just made me think South Africa must be a dreadful place to live and it wasn't a good idea for an athlete representing his country to give that impression, albeit inadvertently.

The Channel 4 TV report was hopeless. They couldn't even pronounce Reeva's last name properly. How hard is it to call a local news agency and check that? They talked about Oscar in the past tense the whole time which I found rather surreal. Danny Crates had some wise words, just as he did during the Paralympics. He looked sad and said (I'm paraphrasing as I can't stand watching the report again). "There are no winners here. A young lady is dead and if he murdered her his life is over. If he didn't his life is still over and a young lady is dead." Both families are going through a terrible time and they're in my prayers.

The number of Twitter followers will go down and down but friends remain and will support Oscar. He is innocent until proved guilty. In the meantime it's time to give the "hang 'em high" idiots on the internet a wide berth.

Added 17 February

I was beginning to think there were no libel laws in South Africa, there is so much ridiculous junk going around. But of course there are, and a whole lot of people will - I hope - get sued. It's explained well here.