Matt Burgess

Woolworths Warned High Street Chains to Adapt to Digital Four Years ago

2013-01-16T11:17:08-05:00

The warning for Blockbusters, HMV, Jessops, Comet, and whichever major high-street company will fall into administration next, was issued four years ago.

In early January 2009 the final Woolworths' store of 807 closed after the company started in 1879.

Woolworths was there as a very early example of failing to adapt to the demands of customers and should have served as a wake-up call to other high street chains.

Their failure to embrace the increasingly digital nature and the changing trends of shoppers ultimately led to their demise and the same has happened to the latest groups of shops who have been plunged into administration.

It's easy to place the blame on consumers, and laziness, for the high street's decline but bosses should have been looking to enhance the digital nature of their businesses long before these closures.

The likes of Amazon, Play and other online retailers who do not have to pay rent on stores in prime locations, or as many costs in overheads were always likely to be successful as mobile and tablet shopping has become more popular.

There's no coincidence high-street retailers Argos had a huge advertising push in the build up to Christmas with those annoying aliens showing the ease being able to shop on their handheld devices.

This followed their announcement that during the next five years they are going to close or relocate 75% of their stores. The digital approach has to be the correct way for these businesses to survive.

Although it appears this may not have helped their overall sales growth over the Christmas period it's possible they have hit upon the right strategy for short/medium sustainability.

While these chains of stores are not the only type of business needing to adapt their models alongside the development of technology, the media industry being another prominent example, a digital first approach does seem to be working.

Online sales in December rose by 17.8%.

This growth is all to do with the online customer service and convenience of shopping online, mobile or tablet. When given the option of getting a product delivered to the door at a time you pick there's not going to be a contest with taking time out to visit a shop.

Before the announcement that Blockbuster UK was going into administration 12,000 retail jobs would have disappeared in the last six weeks. With Blockbuster's numbers included there may now be 16,000 people unemployed.

It's difficult to understand where new roles could be created for all these people and the strain on the job market can only increase further.

But more jobs will be lost if traditional companies fail to change their business models at the rate consumers are changing their buying habits.

Freedom of Information Laws Need to be Defended From Scaremongering of Their Costs

2012-11-13T06:25:58-05:00

Public authorities and elected officials are often wary of duties they are obliged to do and the Freedom of Information Act is one of them.

In recent weeks a number of councils have been complaining in the media about the money they have to spend on implementing and responding to requests under each year - in one case an entire council resigned because of the number of requests received.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOI), introduced in 2000, allows anyone to request information from public authorities from local/central government to universities. Authorities have to respond by law within 20 working days and are able to apply a range of exemptions to requests, including if a request will cost more than a certain threshold.

All five members of the rural Suffolk parish council of Walberswich quit after they say they were 'bombarded' with FOI requests. The chairman, now former chairman, said too much time and money was being spent on replying to requests from a small selection of families and that more than 100 requests had been sent. Another local authority has stepped in to temporarily replace the rogue councillorsuntil by-elections can be held.

An even more ridiculous council complaint saw a council claiming businesses were wasting taxpayers' money as the cost of replying to the requests was set to increase by £575 pounds a year.

Firstly, businesses are taxpayers.

Secondly, with a £45,000,000 million budget for 2012/13 Broadland District Council have no reason to be complaining to the media about their projections of FOI rising from £14,425.44p a year to "near £15,000."

The attacking of the current law isn't just subjected to local authorities, even the highest powers in the country have been accused of disliking the act. David Cameron may rightly be worried about his and his ministers' private texts being included under the act after seeing those he sent to former-News International editor Rebekah Brooks.

Tony Blair, who introduced the act, said it was his biggest mistake in government and has claimed it has stopped discussions between ministers and their aides.

All this amounts to is scaremongering as authorities do not want to be seen to be responsible for their actions even though many were elected into positions to be represent and be responsible.

The FOI laws we have are precious, they need to be protected and upheld for the state of this country's democratic wellbeing. They help every person in the country to hold public organisations and officials to account for their actions.

Campaigners can crucially use the FOI act to help their causes and extract information from official sources which they would not otherwise have access to. The National Society For the Protection of Children gathered data from police forces around the country, which was used to highlight the number of convictions of those with indecent pictures of children. A government committee looking into child abuse also used their information.

#FOI responses obtained by @nspcc being used as basis for Home Affairs Select Ctte Qs re child protection online < Shows importance of FOI
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) October 30, 2012

It is no secret that responding to FOI requests is costly, it takes time and resources but this should be a price we are willing to pay to be able to access information from those who work for the public. It should not be seen as a burden on public services. To improve the system and stop cases where councillors are standing down from their jobs authorities need to embrace openness and transparency.

After a story in the media where the Welsh Local Government Association said councils cannot afford to spend money on "unnecessary" requests a local man, Gary Willets summed up how FOI should be thought of.

"I think the more and more open these public bodies are, the less use will be made of the Freedom of Information Act."

Publishing information on a regular basis helps to reduce the time spent on responding to routine FOI requests. In an ideal world once a public body had received a duplicated request they should consider publishing the information on a frequently, a little extra work in the short-term will help to cut down on how much they have to do in total.

Transparency, by public authorities, creates and grows trust in the work they are doing and the sooner they realise this and accept the culture swing to one of democratic openness the better their work will be.

Fake Twitter Followers: To Buy or Not to Buy?

2012-07-26T19:00:00-04:00

On Wednesday Tory MP Louise Mensch took to Twitter to deny she had purchased any fake Twitter followers after the number of those following her jumped by 40,000 in a matter of days.

She says she hasn't purchased any of the new followers and has asked Twitter to remove them, but she isn't the only one who has had the sudden spike in followers.

I have 66k genuine followers and while I've been off Twitter some loser spams 20k fakes onto the acct, then 20k more.
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) July 25, 2012

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney also was accused of buying followers when his account surged by 135,000 followers.

The more followers someone has on Twitter and other social networks means it is more likely real people are going to follow them and the more credible they appear.

But how easy is it to buy Twitter fame?

A Google search for 'buy Twitter followers', brings up 340,000,000 results with one UK website offering 1,000 followers for £19, ranging up to 20,000 followers for £129.

The new followers to be gained are all fake or spam accounts and offer little more than a number to those buying them.

In an attempt to defend buying Twitter followers, to anyone who does not know they are fake, it gives a user the impression of being worth following, of being someone important and someone who is interesting.

If someone has a large amount of people willing to follow them then more real ones are likely to join.

Everyone who uses Twitter wants to have thousands of followers, be retweeted by the masses and see themselves trend. There's very much a competitive nature to having a high number of followers and be popular.

It's all very egotistical.

However, for businesses it could give a fake impression of success and trustworthiness. A company, which has tens, if not hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter, will look more reputable than one, which does not - even though they may be fake. And this could drive business up.

Also, for an individual, it could be an unfair advantage when applying for a job or similar. As the world grows increasingly digital and the importance of our online world grows being seen (on first impression) of having influence may be an advantage.

However, the concept of buying Twitter followers decreases the value of the whole social network. Like inflation if everyone has thousands of followers they won't be worth anything at all and no one will be able to tell who has the real influence online.

Real followers are earned on the website and can only be attainted by being entertaining, informative, passionate, interesting or by having something to say. Everyone started off with the same amount of followers.

Twitter is supposed to be about interacting with other users, so even though follower counts may bolstered it won't make any difference to the amount of retweets and mentions are coming your way.

It's called social media for a reason - and from my experience spam bots and fake accounts aren't that chatty.

Stripping for Tuition Fees: It's Too Easy for Companies to Make Their Own Headlines

2011-10-05T06:10:39-04:00

The UK boss of one of the biggest strip clubs in the country has said that students should strip to help them pay their tuition fees.

The comments were made in an interview with BBC Radio Sheffield where he said: "These girls earn a lot. Some of these girls are on their own and their parents can't help them or are unable to help them.

"With the rising student fees the students know that they can come in and earn the money they need to survive."

In the past 24 hours the story has conveniently been picked up by almost all the UK national media.

The company's name has subsequently been seen by thousands more people that it would have.

He has now come out and told the Huffington Post UK that he upset by the media backlash.

It turns out that he was so upset with his company's name being put into the national media that he has come out to follow up the story - getting the company more free publicity in the meantime.

At the time the representative for the company would have know what he was saying and the implications it would have. He would have known what they story to come out of the situation would be.

After all, he was taking part in an interview with journalists who were looking for an angle on a story that will get people's attention.

There are students in Sheffield who do work at the strip club and there always have been those that will do the job for some extra cash. Around the city it is a commonly known fact, if you speak to the students they know people who work for these strip clubs.

To say that they are stripping to pay their tuition fees is an easy way to write headlines for the media. This is especially so since tuition fees are a hot topic still after last year's riots in London.

The company have managed to control the news agenda for an industry that is constantly under pressure to produce new articles and attention grabbing headlines.

All in all it's a clever marketing strategy for the company even if it is at the expense of journalists.

In some ways they should be congratulated for using their initiative and grabbing some easy publicity for themselves.

However when one set of comments from a company spokesperson can make headlines in national titles it has to be considered a worrying state for journalism.

London riots: Twitter Fuels Rumours and Proves Unreliable for Reporting

2011-08-08T09:37:06-04:00

Twitter has been instrumental in the breaking of updates from the riots happening in London but it has also helped to over hype and over-exaggerate incidents in the capital.

This is only the most recent example of Twitter being unreliable for news coverage, early this year a photo shoot in Oxford Street, central London, was misreported on the social network as a gunman shooting. Within minutes there were hundred of retweets flying around London about the shooting, causing a widespread panic and wasting the time, money and resources of the MET.

The bosses of media organisations need to start taking Twitter seriously as a news platform. When the Guardian ran the story 'News of the World targeted phone of Sarah Payne's mother' one URL shortener website showed the page received over 50,000 hits and 22% of these hits came from Twitter.

The social network caused greater worry riots were spreading and false images appeared across the whole of the website. Reports protests were organised via tweets have been common but finding any has almost been impossible.

Rumours on the website spread incredibly fast with different areas of the city reportedly suffering at the hands of rioters - many of these proved to be untrue with areas quiet when reporters arrived.

Fake images also caused problems with some users posting images of other riots and scenes of devastation, which have happened elsewhere.

Posting these images and rumours about what is happening on the streets makes it very hard for news outlets to verify what is real and what isn't. This only adds to the problems happening on the streets.

Undoubtedly, the police force would have been checking Twitter for updates as the night progressed as well to try and keep up where the most recent incidents were; the inaccuracies on Twitter not only make this harder for them but also put officers in danger.

If officers are being moved from one place to another to check rumours those left in the areas with real danger may not have the resources to deal with what is in front of them.

The media need to keep up with the speed of news breaking on twitter, they can only do this by employing people to specifically man the social media accounts, it shouldn't be up to the individual journalist to be verifying posts, they should be at the scene providing their own eyewitness reports.

Reporters on the streets of London tweeting from their smart-phones were the most credible source of information for those watching from a distance. They provided the clearest picture of the events. Fewer than 10 reporters I follow on Twitter provided more useful information across a few hours than hundreds and thousands of Tweets from other users.

In the last few weeks even experienced broadcaster Jon Snow was fooled into thinking CNN broadcaster Piers Morgan had resigned over alleged phone hacking claims when a spoof account of a journalist posted the rumour.

The whole culture of news on Twitter has to be examined and this can only happen when there are people paid to do this at media organisations. There has to be paid employees to verify the tweets of people on the ground at ongoing incidents.

News organisations should be looking to harness the power of Twitter users and by doing this they'll help to quash any rumours. If a newspaper can verify a tweet to be genuine there should be no hesitation in them retweeting it to their followers, this is the best way to get a clear picture of what is happening.

A balance needs to be struck between getting the news reported the fastest and the accuracy of what is reported. There is nothing easier than pressing a retweet button and sending a message to followers without checking the facts behind it.

Everyone wants to be first with reporting the news but at the end of the day no-one wants to be wrong.

Phone Hacking may Topple Murdoch's Media Empire

2011-07-11T13:11:52-04:00

The phone hacking scandal could be on the verge of taking a much bigger scalp than that of the News of the World - Rupert Murdoch's empire is beginning to crumble around his feet.

There is no doubt his empire has been irrefutably damaged by the whole affair, which unfortunately for him has coincided with his plans to take over BskyB.

Revelations stating the News Corp owned titles, The Sunday Times and The Sun, used evidence illegally gained by journalists has moved the whole affair onto other unsound practices in journalism. The Murdoch regime will be balanced on a knife-edge.

Phone hacking is going to lead to investigations into email hacking and other illegally obtained data, questions are going to be asked of every story published by the News International newspapers. Once the trust has been lost there is no easy way that it will come back. There are going to be more boycotts, more advertising drop-outs for the titles that have their dealings exposed.

If the News of the World can be closed at the drop of a hat by the media tycoon then why would there be any hesitation to cast the same fate to other national institutions.

Renault have been the first to make a stand against the whole organisation saying that while investigations are ongoing they will not be advertising with any of News International. This may spark one of the biggest boycotts in history as anger grows on both sides of the Atlantic.

When the News of the World was closed Rebekah Brooks said there was going to be worse to come, this could be the tip of the iceberg.

The issue may well go global with the reports that victims of the September 11th bombings had their phones hacked by the News of the World. Reports of this in America will cause anger towards Murdoch and the News International brand, especially since they own more media organisations than in the UK.

In America shares in News Corp fell almost 5% on Monday morning, showing the immediate impact phone hacking is having on the organisation.

A YouGov survey showed that 67% of the British public think 'Rupert Murdoch and other News Corporation executives' are not 'fit and proper' to own British media - with only 11% thinking they are. As more information comes out on the foul practices that have occurred this can only drop faster and more broadly.

Over all 72% think Murdoch has 'too much influence' over British politics; and 51% think the Prime Minister is too close to News Corp executives.

There can be no easy way out of this for News International and Murdoch. The hole has been dug, and it is already far too deep to be climbed out of. Like the sacked News of the World journalists, many more innocent heads may roll to save those at the top of the empire.

Plans may already be afoot to end his newspaper dominance in the UK before it is too late. Michael Wolff, the biographer of Rupert Murdoch, told the BBC that he has heard rumours from inside the organisation that there are plans to sell off the remaining Murdoch newspapers.
He did say it is not a fixed "plan or strategy" but "among the many discussions that are going on within News Corporation."

It would be a very bold move to sell all of the newspapers but it would not be a surprising one. Murdoch's ruthlessness is well known and the sale of the newspapers may satisfy the government to allow the takeover of BskyB to happen.

Of course it will not just be News International titles that have committed illegal practices, but the focus of the public's anger will be on the Murdoch owned titles. There isn't a figurehead of another media organisation that is as well known, or despised as Murdoch.

It might be time for him to take the fast and easy way out.

Government Regulation won't Work for UK Press

2011-07-10T13:12:21-04:00

Strong regulations on the press would mutilate originality; prohibit freedom of expression, and kill the British press as we know it.

"Newspapers will never again be solely responsible for policing themselves."

The words of prime minster David Cameron ringing a change in how newspapers will be controlled after the current self-regulatory body failed to stop the phone hacking scandal and the death of the News of the World.

He said there will be a public inquiry to recommend what a new press regulatory body should look like.

Cameron and other MPs agree the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has failed, with Labour MP Alun Michael branding it a 'joke' and calling for "statuatory regulation of the press and media."

The PCC replied to the prime minister in a statement that said: "The work of the PCC, and of a press allowed to have freedom of expression, has been grossly undervalued today."

Unlike the print media, broadcast journalism is heavily regulated by the governmental body, Ofcom, who impose strict rules on broadcasts and fines those who flout the rules.

Could the same system and regulations be applied to the press?

No. It wouldn't work for newspapers without turning them all into a series of clones, each with the same monotonic headlines and text.

Ofcom requires broadcasters to produce news with "due impartiality and due accuracy and undue prominence of views and opinions." This means no editorial stances on issues and no opinions.

Newspapers sell because of their own political stances. Sales will plummet if they are censored from expressing their own opinions on issues - if they are all forced to be the same by impartiality then there is no freedom of expression.

At election times there would be no papers endorsing parties and candidates. Ofcom states that no prominence can be given to any party or individual and all must be given a chance to speak.

In last year's general elections the Guardian wouldn't have been able to support the Lib Dems. The Sun couldn't win an election for anyone.

The quality of journalism produced would be influenced by strong regulations, journalists would be in fear of what they could and could not print, with the threat of fines hanging over their heads.

Could a system of censorship be introduced? Would a 'watershed' of what is suitable be created? Would Page 3 of the Sun be axed because it would offend?

However in a case of history repeating itself this isn't the first time that the self-regulated press has been under threat from the government. The PCC was created in the early 1990s after its predecessor, the Press Council was ruled not to be upholding journalism ethics.

A departmental committee to see whether a body with formal legal powers should be created investigated the Press Council. Thus the PCC was born.

But Cameron, calling for the public inquiry to determine what the new form of regulator should be, said that whatever replaces the PCC should be independent of government. Forcing the question to be asked, like the News of the World closing and potentially being reincarnated as the Sunday Sun, will the PCC just be rebranded and be as ineffective?

I can't see that happening. The phone scandal has been too shocking and memorable to allow a simple rebrand of the PCC. We'll soon have stifled journalists printing plain, un-opinionated stories.

If a system of government statutory regulation would not work for the press then what would? Self-regulation has to remain. The best option may be not allowing members of the PCC to be those that work for newspapers. Outsiders who would not have any party political affiliation or those in the media, and independent panel should be looking into complaints received.

If strict Ofcom style regulations were to control the press all you have to do to find the result is imagine a newspaper created by the BBC.