News on Twitter: What I learned from the Topshop protest

Yesterday, 30 or so protesters flash-mobbed the Topshop store in the Arndale centre to demonstrate against alleged tax avoidance by the company.

The protest happened to descend on the shop as I was walking past. This isn't an event which normally happens everyday, so naturally, I snapped a picture and posted it on Twitter. Blame my brief tenure in the magazine industry for that.

Within three hours, the photograph had been viewed over 1,000 times. The Twitter update which included the picture had been retweeted over 40 times (most significantly by the Granada Reports and Channel 4 News Twitter feeds) and the photograph had been published alongside the news story on the Manchester Evening News and, later, the BBC website.

The incident (while hyperlocal and incredibly small-scale; this wasn't Watergate being broken on Twitter) did provide an interesting insight into how the social network is being used as a news channel. It also highlighted a few disturbing things about the site which I hadn't considered before. As ever, please drop a comment below if you feel the desire to...

Twitter as a news-sourcing channel

I'm told that journalists aren't using Twitter in the correct way. In this instance, I will disagree.

The BBC were ridiculously quick to get in touch and their Have Your Say account had @ mentioned me 30 minutes after posting the photograph (their Twitter feed suggests a similar level of efficiency for other breaking stories on the site)

Ten minutes after their @ mention, I was talking to a researcher from BBC News.

Ten minutes after that, I was giving a quote to a staff writer for a news article.

So, within 50 minutes, the organisation had obtained all the material they needed for the story. That's impressive work. Furthermore, after the story was posted, the same account sent me a DM which included a link to the report and a thank you. That's good customer service.

A similar hat tip goes to the Manchester Evening News (although they didn't get in touch), which had posted the photograph within an hour of the protest. Someone must have been paying attention.

Would a bit of context kill you?

But, why was I in the Arndale Centre when the flash mob descended?

I was Christmas shopping. I had met up with a few mates for lunch and, while they went into Selfridges, I nipped into the Arndale Centre to have a look for a present for a friend.

Of course, no one knew any of this when I posted the photograph. All they knew was that I was taking photographs of a demonstration. For all anyone knew, I could have been a protester myself.

As many of the photographs and videos from the recent student demonstrations in London were taken by their attendees, it wouldn't have been a massive leap to assume that I was there for the demonstration itself.

And this lack of context causes problems.

Say you were one of the people outside my social circles who saw that tweet. All you know about me is my Twitter username and that I posted a photograph of a demonstration.

It's easy to jump to conclusions, so now I'm an activist (I'm not), I have an issue with Topshop (I don't), I associate myself with the four people who got arrested after this particular demonstration (I don't) and, even worse, I have anarchist tendencies (I don't).

Extreme examples? Probably, but you can see my point. What you post online affects how people perceive you. I upload a photograph of a demonstration and all of a sudden, I'm the 'kind of person who protests' (I'm not).

Without context, we fill in the blanks. Blanks become opinions. And opinions can affect your employability, your friends and your future.

Extreme examples? Of course. But tell that to the five self-proclaimed activists who started following me yesterday on Twitter. They think I'm one of them.

Subjectivity

We all use language differently and we each have variety of ways to express feelings and situations. In face-to-face conversation, this gap in lexical emphasis isn't usually a problem. However, when people read something online, they apply their own semantic guidelines.

Take my tweet on Saturday. Of course, Topshop wasn't getting 'trashed' in the conventional sense; that suggest people damaging the store and its stock. I was using a colloquialism.

But, because there wasn't the space on the tweet to elaborate, that's what people assumed. So much so, that the Manchester Evening News initially reported the store as 'being trashed', which distorts the truth of the incident.

As people are unlikely to revisit a news story for clarifications or amendments, readers come away thinking certain things. 'Trashed' suggests that the protesters were vandals. 'Trashed' suggests that Topshop must have done something terribly wrong to deserve such actions.

Language shapes opinions and Twitter doesn't offer the opportunity for detail.

Relevance

The incident served as a reminder that Twitter is a service which is fuelled by interest. Despite the increased coverage of my account through the channel, the number of additional followers gained was minimal.

Many of my tweets are SEO or social media based. And many of the people who retweeted my photograph just weren't that interested in social media or SEO news and views. More fool them.

Users follow accounts which post relevant content to them. Regardless of how many retweets a message get, it doesn't automatically mean a drastic increase of new followers if the content as a whole isn't aimed towards a specific audience. It's not just about metrics...

Factual accuracy

The photograph was taken from a good few feet away from the protest. I didn't have a particularly good view and occasionally my line of sight was blocked by the crowd in front of me. I was, to all intents and purposes, an unreliable narrator.

Still, because I highlighted the story on Twitter, I was considered the leading source of information. I'm sure there were those better placed in the crowd to explain what had happened, but they weren't posting the information on a social network.

And I think this is a major problem. When I spoke to the researcher at the BBC, I was very careful to say what I saw, rather than what I thought I saw. But, I'll go out on a limb and say that some people might not have the same approach in a newsworthy situation.

I'd imagine that these eye-witness reports shape how news is reported; who is the victim and who is the villain. If you're more than liberal with the facts, it's kind of worrying.

Working from home - how your personal tweets have professional implications

Last year, a study by an American firm found that 40 per cent of updates on Twitter were 'pointless babble'; tweets about visiting the dentist or what someone had for breakfast - those updates with no 'substantial' worth (Although good dental hygiene and a healthy balanced diet are both very important).

As you'd expect, some proportion of this 40 per cent feature some sort of personal opinion: judgements, sentiments, thoughts.

Indeed, companies spend millions each year in order protect their brand reputation from these sorts of opinions. Tweet about a bad dining experience and you'll likely get a grovelling message from the establishment in question. Pass judgement on a new fashion line and the store account will usually get back to you. You get the picture.

We all have opinions and we all like to share them. Particularly if they're opinions about your job.

Had a bad day at work? Co-worker smells funny? Hungover?

Share it on Twitter. These people did:

"Dude, I'm not going to work with a hangover."
"I'm home. Went to work. Did no work. Got paid."
"Stupid bored at work.. only an hr & 30 min left though."

Suppose for a moment that these people had previously identified themselves as employees of a particular company (via a tweet or personal biography).

You can see the complication...

Obviously, companies don't want customers finding out that the staff is uninspired, unmotivated or still drunk from the evening before. It reflects badly on their brand, their customer service and the ability of the HR department to hire well-rounded individuals.

And even if the staff aren't slagging their company off after-hours, would firms still need to be concerned about their social media activity? If an employee has 'outed themselves' as a staff member, would their (ill-informed) opinions, (negative) sentiments or (lewd) comments be connected to the brand?

And crucially, would someone be less inclined to hire an agency based on their staff's personal opinions?

Apparently, yes.

Take this from the Yahoo! guide to the personal use of social media (blog guidelines in this instance):

"All Yahoo! employees can be viewed (correctly or incorrectly) as representative of the company, which can add significance to your public reflections on the organization (whether you intend to or not). Yahoos who identify themselves as Yahoo! employees in their blogs and comment on the company at any time, should notify their manager of the existence of their blog just to avoid any surprises."

The BBC take a similar stance in their social media policy:

"When someone clearly identifies their association with the BBC and/or discusses their work, they are expected to behave appropriately when on the Internet, and in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies."

In a nutshell, if you're 'outed', you've got a responsibility to the company to act responsibly.

Amber Naslund, the director of community for Radian6, wrote an interesting piece for Brass Tack Thinking which highlighted the problem for 'outed' employees on social media. In her blog post, she wrote:

"You’re now a representative of that brand, publicly. The lines start to blur between what’s personal and what’s professional, and all the disclaimers in the world won’t always mean that you can or should post whatever’son your mind. The personal and professional profiles you keep might be and feel physically separate, but Google doesn’t know the difference, and sometimes, neither do your customers."

If you're prone to swearing, this is not an insignificant problem.

Amy Dutton runs the social campaigns for Thames Water and, as an active social media user herself, she says she is aware of the crossover between her professional and personal Twitter account.

"I am very careful not to comment negatively on issues/news that are associated with the water industry. I state in my bio that my tweets are my views and not Thames Water's...We don't have a formal social media policy but we all know not to be too negative or outraged about things on personal accounts."

"Most of my followers know who I work for...some of my followers I actually gained through my association with work and will now often tweet good things on our behalf."

This benefit is reflected by Dominic Conlon from Manchester advertising agency Head First.

"We do that [personal promotion] for some of our clients - even pushing campaigns that we didn't do because we like/believe in the product," says Dom.

"We believe in courtesy and respect. Each of us who tweet [as employees] are just nice :)," he adds.

Still, what happens if you or your colleagues are too naïve (or simply don't want) to stick to the same noble philosophy?

There have been a number of high-profile cases of employees losing their jobs because of their personal Twitter content; objections, criticisms and opinions have been the downfall of many. In most documented cases, the aggrieved employer releases the same statement. Here are two recent examples:

"We simply cannot risk any possible link between our mission and the sort of photos and material that you openly share with the online public. While I know you are a good worker and an intelligent person, I hope you try to understand that our employees are held to a different standard."

"The views she has expressed recently on Twitter are not in keeping with the standards we set."

It would appear that personal comments from staff require a brand-management solution...

The issue becomes even more complicated if your personal account also acts as your professional one. If you're the clear representative (and I'm thinking of freelancers or managing directors, here) for your own company, how do you balance your output to satisfy friends and social-savvy clients? How much self-censorship should be employed to keep both audiences interested?

Larner Caleb, freelance copywriter and regular contributor to The Drum, takes a strong view on the subject.

"If I had to be my own compliance officer in terms of making sure I kept every single tweet 'client safe' well, I for one wouldn't follow me," he says.

"If you can't be yourself on Twitter, then you don't really have a real presence on Twitter. I can't say I've really lost any clients through any of my tweets (I've certainly lost followers, but that definitely wouldn't stop me being myself) but the value I've had out of being myself on Twitter has been enormous."

I'd be interested to hear more thoughts on this. Drop me a comment or get in touch on Twitter.

Until then, you can read a whole batch of internal a social media guidelines from a number of different companies here.

Football on the BBC - creating an online experience

Today marks the return of the UK football league and I, like most fans, will be monitoring the action online.

While The Guardian and Sky Sports offer great live feeds from the day's matches, I've found the BBC provides the most complete coverage - not just in regards to news and reports, but in terms of user experience. The Beeb offers a dedicated online section for match days which combines a number of useful features. The end result is a comprehensive and engaging online experience for football fans across the UK.



Media integration

I've always been a fan of the BBC's use of visual media – placing video news on the homepage during major stories, for example. (the death of Michael Jackson being the most recent.)

During match days, the BBC provides a live feed of their television or radio coverage on this mini site.

Today we get radio coverage, although normally Ray Stubbs' mug – on the digital Final Score programme - is available for all to admire online. But we're only celebrating the start of the lower league competition and the BBC doesn't wake up its gameday players for anything less than a Premiership clash. Still, we're left in the capable hands of the Five Live radio team and their expert analysis of every goal and tackle.

There's also a live text feed under the video which combines comments from users and a moderator – more about this later. The BBC introduced this live function during the Beijing Olympics (previously users had to smash F5 to refresh the coverage).

For more on this story...

The BBC duly provides a wealth of background information. Links across the page offer users the chance to read more expert analysis- predictions, club previews and the like. There's a mine of extra info for anyone wanting to know the stories behind the scores. Annoyingly though, these links don't open in a new window and you'll find the live coverage brutally cut short if you venture away from the page.

Elsewhere, an application on the left of the screen allows users to keep up to date with current scores. Handily, these are automatically updated. This tab also gives fans the option to monitor results in other leagues if they maintain an unhealthy interest in the lower divisions or indeed, are exceptionally pessimistic about their team's fortunes this season.

User content

One of the site's greatest facets is the integration of user input.

The BBC 606 message board – for football aficionados across the country - has established itself as one of the most reputable and lively user groups on the interwebs. During match days, comments and opinions from 606 users are regularly posted onto the live feed below the video. It's a great way to actively inspire an audience and produce user-generated content.



Man in black

Of course, the whole package wouldn't be complete without a referee to keep the whole thing in order. Thankfully, Alan Hanson isn't let anywhere near a keyboard.

The afternoon's entertainment is provided by a roving moderator – Caroline Cheese in this instance – who interacts with user comments, reports on developments and generally keeps the whole ship afloat. It's all very entertaining fare and she injects a nice slice of personality into the coverage. Judging by the frequency of her updates, one can only hope that the BBC provide a finger bath of ice water at half time.

Fans can also use Twitter to chat to Ms. Cheese and she duly responds to comments from supporters at the grounds. Like the 606 message board, it's a nice way to keep fans engaged and also allows the BBC to get their mitts on any breaking stories.