Here we are in 2010 and, as the #StuartMacLennan stuff has shown, some people still don’t get the basics of social media or being online, so for those in Scotland and the rest of the UK, here’s a very quick guide to using social media for digital engagement…
Read more…

David Cameron is blaming the people who followed Stuart MacLennan for not acting on what he said via Twitter. What was Cameron advocating – a punch in the face? Capital punishment? Vigilante mobs?

But by speaking up like that – and what an asinine comment to make – he’s just highlighted the fact that Labour acted quickly and removed Stuart MacLennan while Chris Grayling still has a job despite anti-gay comments. It also makes Labour look like the party of listening/engaging with popular reaction while the Tories aren’t. *

And he’s being called out on the hypocrisy on Twitter and elsewhere with the hashtag #sackchrisgrayling picking up steam.

Besides, we live in a land of free speech and Stuart was entitled to say what he said. It may have cost him a potential job but he didn’t say anything illegal. He wasn’t advocating any law breaking. As Twitter has shown, some people actually agree with him about ugly people in Stirling and old folk.

(* Though as I just posted on Twitter: #Labour v.shallow if they knew of #StuartMacLennan #ukelection #ge2010 tweets but only sacking him as it’s in mainstream media )

The Scottish Sun ran a story today about a series of tweets by a prospective Parliamentary Candidate (ie wannabe MP) Stuart MacLennan and, as expected, he’s been sacked. While I can’t believe anyone is still being such an idiot in digital engagement and Twitter in 2010, this is a social media win – because it’s let people see what the guy is like. And clearly, they didn’t like a loudmouthed, swearing type of guy.

Read more…

Quite funny looking at some of the feedback from SXSW (Isaak Pinnock’s piece on lazy panels sums it up quite well) and it appears that there’s now a bit of a cry-out for more than love-ins at panels and talks in the US. Now, that won’t come as a surprise to most in Scotland or the rest of the UK where panels normally have people from all points of view going at it (though, even the social media circle here has been a bit of a love-in).

However, yet again, this is something that old media could have told the new kids a long time ago as it has been a staple of the most popular part of journalism for decades…

Read more…

A while ago, I posted (half as a social media type, half as a parent blogger) about what I thought was a bit of a #prfail for The Scottish Baby Show over their  lack of blogger engagement and a press day at the SECC venue next month. Now, all fine and fair enough, I have an opinion, I made some suggestions for future events and blogger/digital relations, polite emails were sent back and forth with the organisers and so on (a few exhibitors also got in touch with me). All very civil. No nastiness on either side. Everyone happy.

Now, some other mummy bloggers wrote about it as well and one of the exhibitors, More4Mums, spotted this. They then got in touch with the marketing department for the event and put some comments on the previous post. Again, all fairly standard stuff.

Then this turned up:
Read more…

OK, so there’s been the Nestle Facebook rudeness stuff today, getting YouTube to censor Greenpeace the other day, the big Family Blogger event fight last year but you could write some of it off as being new to social media (dipping toes in and all that) but it turns out Nestle also bought the domain name  mumsonline.com after an online spat with mummy (or mommy) bloggers. (And then did nothing with it.)

Wow. A part of me is impressed with their ongoing social media bastardry, the rest of me isn’t.

But it all paints a bad picture when taken in whole. These guys/gals know how to use online. They just don’t use it in a friendly way to engage and inform in a friendly fashion.

I know everyone’s having a pop at Nestle for their role in the kit-kat / Greenpeace / palm oil social media controversy, but this came to light when YouTube pulled the video (Greenpeace says as much on their front page). YouTube – backed by Google remember – could easily have told Nestle to sod off. But didn’t.

It’s not been the best day for YouTube. The Register points out that Google execs knew they would have to bend the ‘Do No Evil’ mantra to justify buying the company as it was a copyright bandit.

Winner of this one? Vimeo. I’ll bet they make hay from this for a long time. Are they now the ethical video company?

Wowsers. Greenpeace UK post a video highlighting that Nestle apparently buys palm oil from companies that destroy rainforests. Online people go onto Facebook and Twitter (and the other account) and have a go at the company, the company then responds – too aggresively to some – online via Facebook. Row ensues. Talk of social media disaster, crisis PR and so on…

Here’s the question: does any of this rowing make a difference? Are less people going to buy Nestle now? Also, are they stopping the buy because of the palm oil reason or because of some social media perceived ‘slight’?

Read more…

This week will probably see a chunk of blogging here around the themes of blogs and politics (and sometimes combining both) to promote not only the talk I’m giving at the free Nation1 ‘profiting from blogging‘ event on Wednesday, but also the ‘Politics and Social Media‘ theme for the third Scottish Social Media Dinner, also on Wednesday (buy a ticket here).

Read more…

Vodafone UK has been under fire on social media and digital communication channels after an obscene tweet was published: “VodafoneUK is fed up of homos and is going after beaver“. Now there’s a couple of interesting points to come out of this one – for example, Vodafone might not be able to sack the person who sent it (if they even know who it was).

But it also begs the question: does VodafoneUK have a proper social media strategy or does it just hand this work out to the juniors?

Read more…