2013-05-24T05:47:41-04:00 Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=emily-jenkinson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Emily Jenkinson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1309830 2012-02-29T08:53:26-05:00 2012-04-30T05:12:01-04:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/
Last week, for example, it was National Chip Week. This week, it is National Marmalade Week. National Donut Week is held on 12-19 May and National Bread Week takes place between 16-22 April. In an outrageous and quite uncalled-for date grab, noodles (of all things) have claimed a whole month (March) as their own and, if you can believe it, a National Noodle Day (6 October), which, for what are essentially thin strips of pasta, seems more than a little excessive.

Now, while I can quite understand the point of Marmalade Week, which falls at the end of a short Seville orange season, encourages people to make their own and celebrates something that is a particularly British obsession (despite it being invented in Portugal), and am on friendly terms with British Cheese Week (30 September-6 October) because, well, we don't want the French taking all the glory, I do question the need to celebrate chips, or, for that matter, raise awareness of donuts. Indeed, I thought the obesity problem in the UK was such that we might try and steer folk away from the deep fat fryer, perhaps even introduce a No Chip Week? Now that would be something.

Or maybe it's enough that, hot on the heels of Chip Week, comes National Watercress Week (16-23 May) when those bloated and slothful from seven days down their local chippy can mournfully atone for their deep-fried carb-fest with a strict regimen of peppery leafage? I'll admit, it doesn't sound like much fun, but then nor does National Salad Week, though this does fall in the midst of bikini season (7 -13 July) when a spot of salad eating doesn't goes amiss, so maybe we'll keep that one.

One of the most tenuous weeks I've come across is National Mango Week (24-30 May), which, launched by Rubicon Exotic Fruit Juice Drinks in 2008, is one of the most wantonly commercial and self-publicising PR exercises I've come across, based upon - get this - that "mangoes are thought to be the most popular exotic fruit sold in the UK." Really, if you're going to launch an entire week in honour of something, you might at least base it upon a solid fact.

But I don't want to diss all the food weeks. Chocolate Week (8-14 September), for example, is wonderful - a genuine celebration and well-organised series of events that champion real chocolate and involve some of Britain's finest chocolate shops, companies, restaurants and organisations - though, it has to be said, when it comes to eating chocolate, I really don't need the encouragement.

For more food musings from Emily, visit her blog www.theladybites.co.uk]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1138931 2011-12-09T10:48:05-05:00 2012-02-08T05:12:01-05:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/ Mark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook saw presenter, Emily Maitlis granted access to Facebook's headquarters in California and given one-to-one interviews with Zuckerberg himself, plus a number of his top executives. But, following the programme's airing on Sunday night, there was a storm of complaints from viewers, who criticised the documentary as being like "an hour-long advert for Facebook" and there being "more shots of Emily Maitlis in sunglasses than interview time with Mark Zuckerberg."

During the course of the programme, it is true that Maitlis changes her outfit - each more fashionable than the last - at least five times and that this is quite distracting, a fact not helped by the many lingering shots of her, which seem contrived and a bit unnecessary. But the complaint that the show lacked substance seems a little unfair. Yes, the story of Facebook and how it came about - something most of us are familiar with - was re-told, but there was plenty material there to keep me interested too.

For starters, it was great to see what Facebook headquarters actually look like. Despite the fact that Facebook now has 800 million users worldwide, the offices still seem to retain the style and atmosphere of a start-up with lots of casually-dressed young people lounging around working on lap tops, the company's unofficial motto 'Move Fast and Break Things' emblazoned on the walls and Zuckerberg's desk set in amongst everyone else's (trademark hoodie slung over the back of his chair) on the open-plan floor.

Zuckerberg, says Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg (whom Zuckerberg poached from Google back in 2008) is completely unmaterialistic and he does come across as the same nerdy 'code' geek he was back in Facebook's early days. That said, there have always been questions marks as to whether sharing more about ourselves - something Zuckerberg says is a good and positive thing - is better for us or better for Facebook and this is something Maitlis tackles well in the programme.

One of the primary problems with Facebook - the thing that could turn its users against it long-term and ultimately destroy its position as the most visited site in the world - is advertising and the way in which Facebook is increasingly used by businesses to tap into their core demographic. As Sandberg says, Facebook is "the most valuable market research tool that has ever existed" and it is all achieved by utilising what users have willingly revealed about themselves.

Today, people signed up to Facebook can 'like' brands and, in doing this, give their permission for that brand to give them information and, to an extent, 'advertise' on their wall, which many clearly don't have a problem with - there are currently 36,316,683 people, for example, who 'like' Coca-Cola. What I didn't know was that if you 'like' a brand, that brand can then pay Facebook to display a little box in the right hand box of your friends' pages saying that you've liked it alongside your profile picture - and you can't opt out.

One of the highlights of the programme is when Maitlis tackles Elliot Shrage, Vice President of Publicity Policy at Facebook, on this, expressing the concern, which no doubt a lot of us feel, that this is using people in adverts without asking their permission. When I say I 'like' something on Facebook, says Maitlis, I'm not saying I 'advertise' this. Shrage flounders. "So let's pause," he says. "That's an interesting..." Long silence. "You're asking a profound question - what's advertising?" He goes on, but fails to truly justify this practice and Maitlis' point is made effectively: mixing social activity with commercial messages is a sticky issue.

Of course, what we might feel uncomfortable sharing about ourselves now may be different to how we feel in three years' time and it was interesting to hear Jessie Hempel, Technology Writer for Fortune magazine's comment, "If you look at the products which caused the most tension say three or four years ago, all of those products exist in various facets of Facebook today and nobody's talking about them, because, at this point, culturally, we're all comfortable with them."

How far can Facebook go in using personal information without its users feeling exploited? To what extent can commercial messages be incorporated in our social activity? And is it normal to share so much or would Facebook have us believe this to suit its own ends? For anyone interested in Facebook (and that's half of us here in the UK) and the balance it must strike between growing as a business while retaining users' trust - then this programme is well worth watching. Just consider Maitlis' stylish wardrobe a visual bonus.

To 'Like' The Good Web Guide on Facebook, visit www.facebook.com/thegoodwebguide]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1034498 2011-10-27T06:08:50-04:00 2012-01-18T09:24:00-05:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/ Website of the Year Award recently, it was gratifying to see an overall improvement in the quality of website entering our award and intriguing to note an increased number of sites entered that are using crowdsourcing as their model.

Defined by Wikipedia - the crowdsourced encyclopaedia - as "sourcing tasks traditionally performed by specific individuals to an undefined large group of people or community (crowd) through an open call," crowdsourcing uses the web to invite small contributions from multiple people and, in doing so, fund projects, build content, create ideas, solve problems or perform tasks that traditionally would have been completed by one person or organisation, or, in some cases, may not have been achieved at all.

Driven by the rise in and uptake of Web 2.0, crowdsourcing embraces social media as a way of directing communication and encouraging collaboration that can be advantageous when applied to many different scenarios. This has been particularly true for the consumer, who - via sites such as Groupon and Crowdity - can now enjoy much larger discounts on events, products and services than they could before by simply spreading the word amongst their friends and using the power of the group or crowd to drive down prices.

In Australia, an interesting development of this idea is currently being applied to energy companies via a new crowdsourcing business, One Big Switch, which uses "the power of group switching" to help consumers get the best possible deals on their energy bills. As British energy companies continue to hike prices in the UK, despite increases in their profit margins and many people facing fuel poverty this winter, this is something that is clearly needed in the UK.

But crowdsourcing is not just a positive thing for consumers. It can also help entrepreneurs, inventors and other creative people get ideas off the ground that might not otherwise have seen the light of day. This is evident in sites such as WeFund, which helps new creative projects gain funding by swapping perks for pledges; Unbound, which invites readers to pledge their support for book ideas submitted to the site, the most popular of which it publishes; and American site, Quirky, which invites people to submit ideas for products and collaborate on how they could be improved before putting the best ones into production, selling them on the site, and paying out 30¢ of every dollar made to those who have co-operated along the way.

The potential of crowdsourcing is increasingly being seen by politicians, who, in the midst of more financial turmoil and an increasing lack of public faith in their judgement, are turning to the public themselves to help make decisions and have their say. Last year, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg embarked on an exercise in crowdsourcing politics when he invited the British public to help decide which laws should be repealed via the government sponsored website 'Your Freedom.' Meanwhile, in April this year, Iceland chose to rewrite its constitution by crowdsourcing ideas and suggestions from its citizens via social media. Thorvaldur Gylfason, a member of Iceland's constitutional council, told the BBC: "The public have added much to our debate. Their comments have been quite helpful and they have had a positive effect on the outcome."

Science,too, is looking at crowdsourcing as a way to open up possibilities and pool ideas in the name of advancement. This can be seen at the website, Zooniverse, which offers a collection of 'citizen science' projects, aimed at encouraging members of the public to participate in scientific research. By establishing links and collaborating with the general public, crowdsourcing, it suggests, can allow scientists to work at greater speed and increase the scope and reach of their work.

While there are clearly many benefits to crowdsourcing as a means of pooling resources, knowledge, money and/or time as a way of achieving results, there are, of course, certain serious issues to be considered. The first is that those contributing to citizen projects have no proof of expertise and no individual viewpoint, which poses a problem for those seeking solutions or information of a quality that can be relied upon. The second - and this is connected to the first - is that, by using mass collaboration as a way of achieving business goals - be that writing content, doing design work or generating ideas - costs are driven down or eliminated to an extent that the role of individual experts and professionals is threatened. As Florian Schmidt wrote in his article Is the design industry at risk thanks to hordes of Web-savvy amateurs for Eye magazine recently: "From a designer's perspective, crowdsourcing or spec-work is tantamount to slave-driving, a highly unethical way to raid the market."

2011 has seen a large number of crowdsourcing initiatives spring up and, no doubt, 2012 will see many more. For the most part, these are looking to use collaboration and altruism - the key tenets of crowdsourcing - as a way of benefitting all. But attention needs to be paid to quality and those people that can deliver that quality. Without this, what might at first seem like the wisdom of crowds can quickly become mob rule - and the potential of crowdsourcing as a tool for important human advancements is thrown away.

The Good Web Guide Website of the Year 2011 Award Shortlist has been announced. To vote for your favourite site in The People's Choice award, click here. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.994031 2011-10-04T10:40:23-04:00 2011-12-04T05:12:07-05:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/
Recently, an article on the site of Australia's Herald Sun newspaper reported that Grossi Florentino, a smart Melbourne restaurant, had admonished a diner after it spotted her trying to take photographs of her lunch-time tortellini. "If the photographs aren't taken well or aren't taken properly, it can be very misrepresentative," said Guy Grossi, owner of the restaurant, adding, "pictures of half-eaten dishes can be misleading ... and there are other patrons dining, so we are very cautious and sensitive."

He's not the only restaurateur for whom dining photography is a touchy subject. In New York, David Chang of Momofuku Ko in East Village and César Ramirez, chef at Chef's Table at Brooklyn Fare, have both banned photography in their restaurants and several other New York restaurants, while not quite adopting an out-and-out ban, keep a watchful eye on diners who may become too snap-happy.

But are they right to lay down the law in this way? Is taking photos really offensive to other diners? And does it matter if photos, taken by paying customers and shared online, are less than perfect? Not so long ago, I considered starting a food blog, but, not being a particularly keen photographer, was put off by the idea that I'd have to start taking pictures of everything delicious (or not-so-delicious) that came my way. It might, I worried, kill the pleasure of a good dinner or tempting snack if a grapple with my iPhone or camera preceded every first mouthful and I couldn't help but think that there would be something a bit embarrassing, a bit disruptive and, yes, a bit crass about taking pictures at the dinner table anyway.

That said, it seems extreme for restaurants to ban photography outright and, as a paying customer, I do feel that if I want to take a picture of my food and I'm not disturbing anyone else, then it is well within my rights to do so. At the same time, unless someone is actually taking photos of me while I eat, or is using flash photography in a way that is very thoughtless and disruptive to my own dining experience (so far, neither of these things have ever happened), then I have no problem with others taking pictures of their food - it's really their prerogative and my responsibility (not the restaurant's) to decide when it is getting tiresome.

When we posed this question to The Good Web Guide's followers on Facebook, those that responded agreed, with one commenting: "People take photos because they're embracing what they see and if a chef or restaurant owner doesn't like it then, quite frankly, they just don't know how to take a compliment, do they?" Restaurant PR, George Shaw of Avocado Media meanwhile actively encourages restaurant clients to allow photography, which he says are "probably destined for use on social websites and blogs" and "have got to be good publicity, assuming the person taking the pictures has enjoyed their meal."

For restaurants concerned about the quality of pictures being posted online, Shaw suggests that they offer to send professionally taken food and restaurant photos from their own stock, but this, in my view, is a waste of time. The fact is that what we see, do and hear offline is, these days, inexorably connected to that which we have seen, done and heard online and - whether we like it or not - cameras, mobile phones and people who wield them in restaurants are part of this. The likes of Chang, Grossi and Ramirez should stop being such control freaks and remember that - while their customers are quite capable of speaking up for themselves should a neighbouring diner start behaving inappropriately - a badly taken picture tends to reflect more poorly on the blog than it does on the restaurant, whose food, at the end of the day, is what speaks for itself.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.973331 2011-09-21T07:23:57-04:00 2011-11-21T05:12:02-05:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/
Editors and traditional publishing outlets have been trying to harness the power of the blog for a while now - by forcing their writers to step into the limelight, by launching their own blogs and by inviting bloggers to write for them - but brands too are actively courting bloggers in their attempt to extend and add value to their publicity.

Recently, Hunter Wellies invited fashion blogger Liberty London Girl to front its Autumn/Winter 2011 campaign, blogger Bip Ling became the new face of fashion brand Forever 21 and Nicola Clark, Head of Features at Marketing Magazine, wrote a feature on why M&S needs fashion bloggers, whose "accessible looks, modelled on real people" offer "a far more tangible and healthy image to consumers."

Bloggers operate outside of the traditional sphere of publishing, are unencumbered by its traditional ties and demands, but are increasingly party to all the traditional benefits. Front row seats at London Fashion Week shows? Tick. Free press trips and samples? Tick. Story exclusives? Tick. And the fact that they don't feel obliged to be nice about any of it is what makes their opinions so valuable.

"Brands who want to work with bloggers have to accept the rough with the smooth," says Jane Cunningham a.k.a British Beauty Blogger, who comments, "if you produce a poor, over-rated product that isn't worth the money then you can expect a review that reflects that. It's really up to the brand to try harder and realise that they just can't get away with real doozies any more without someone noticing."

With brands and PRs falling over themselves for a favourable word or two in the blogosphere and fashion editors scrambling to copy the hyper-personal, understyled and honest approach of bloggers, it feels like everything has been turned on its head. This has been great for the consumer, who is better informed than ever, but magazines and brands should be careful about embracing the blogger trademark too fully. Reality and authenticity are all very well, but sometimes escapism and aspiration are just fine too.

The Good Web Guide (www.thegoodwebguide.co.uk) has just launched a weekly Guest Blogger spot on its own blog. If you are interested in writing a guest blog for The Good Web Guide, please get in touch.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.943937 2011-08-31T19:00:00-04:00 2011-10-31T05:12:02-04:00

Emily Jenkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emily-jenkinson/
Over the last few years, the written word has taken on an increasingly diminutive position, both in form (think texts, tweets and status updates) and in character as the ability to self-publish via blogs or the comments sections of websites has wrestled power away, not only from the professional writer or opinion-former, but from the editor and the publisher too.

As citizen journalism - where everyone has something to say and a means to say it - has taken hold, so too has the dominance of the crowd, whose ability to share knowledge and communicate with others in bite-sized form has dismantled the autonomy, and the authority, of the individual writer (not to mention his lengthy prose).

In today's world, it is the message, not the manner in which it is expressed nor the person who expresses it which is important, and this has affected us all as readers too, because why would you read a whole article, when you can just skip to the comments and find out what people really think?

Our quest for faster and more effective means of communicating is led, of course, by technology and as this changes and develops so too does the role of the written word, which - if the new capabilities of video are anything to go by - looks set to slink yet further into the shadows of modern exchange.

Whether it's the recent alliance between Facebook and Skype, in which friends on Facebook can video call or message each other; the launch of Google+, in which a video chat feature called Hangout's allows people to chat face-to-face online; or the mind-boggling statistics, released by Google this year, that YouTube now attracts 48 hours of video uploads every minute and a whopping 3 billion views per day (a 50% increase since last year), it seems that video has reached a watershed moment with its value as a tool for communication growing greater each day.

So what has led to this tipping point? Firstly, we have better mobile video technology, which - sophisticated enough to create powerful short films such as those seen at the new Nokia Shorts Competition at this year's Edinburgh International Film Festival - allows everyone (including the rank amateur) to make quality videos. Added to this, we have improved means by which to share our videos with new applications such as SocialCam.com or Bambuser.com allowing users to share live and interactive videos (for free and without having to connect to a computer) to the websites of their choice via their mobiles, webcams or DV-cameras.

While in a social context, videos allow us to talk face-to-face and share moments with one another more effectively than a letter or an email, professionally, businesses, business leaders, politicians and personalities are embracing video as a new and more powerful marketing tool than any centred around the written word. Whether it's David Cameron broadcasting via the WebCameron on the Conservative Party website, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward making a video apology after oil spill in 2010, Finnish broadcasting channel YLE adopting Bambuser as an alternative platform for its online reports and news broadcasts, or actor Jim Carrey's online video diary broadcast from his personal website, video is increasingly deemed as the best way to promote a brand or communicate a message.

As such, PR companies are also using video as a spearhead device for their campaigns. Recently, Response Source, the press release wire, launched a video news release service, "giving PR professionals the ability to get messages across to journalists in a more engaging way." Meanwhile, Steve Thomas, MD of Tribe Media, a specialist in producing video content for businesses, notes that video can help to: build trust in a more effective way than a text quote; create a visually engaging tool around which to centre campaigns; manage a crisis (think Tony Hayward); add content; share events with people around the world; present a call to action; and reach a far wider audience than a simple press release (ie. by 'going viral').

Journalistically, the new capabilities of video once again hand power to the not-so-humble citizen, who can make and share video footage from the heart of a story (just think of the video of the Hackney woman confronting looters during August's London Riots), which, without the power of video, may never have surfaced at all.

If a picture paints a thousand words, then a video must indeed paint ten thousand. As we start to embrace it as the new mode of communication and tool for sharing information, the place of the written word will become ever-more fragile - will there come a day when technology ousts it once and for all?]]>