About PR people dealing with bloggers

Sometime ago, Text 100 (that's the name of the agency I work for...there, it's out) conducted a survey in Asia Pacific amongst bloggers. Today, the survey results are out and if you're interested in reading the results, click on here.

I'm going to cop out, be a bit lazy, and post the below points taken from the Text 100 Social Media Release (click to see videos, pictures etc.) that's going out along with the survey:

• In what is believed to be the first survey of its kind conducted in Asia Pacific, this survey highlights the similarities and differences between bloggers across APAC and their preferences for working with corporations and PR agencies.

• In a positive sign for the communications industry, 84% of respondents welcome contact from public relations practitioners and the corporations they represent.

• Electronic communication is king for APAC bloggers: 58% preferred email, followed by online comments on their blogs, as the preferred means of contacting them.

• Similarly, emailing of press releases and interviews or discussions ranked in the top two as the preferred formats for receiving content (67% and 60% respectively).

• APAC bloggers are not particular about who they engage with, but prefer to talk with active bloggers and whoever is closest to the story – not necessarily the traditional spokespeople.

• Two thirds (67%) of respondents spend less than 8 hours of their working week on blogging.

• Bloggers concerns included receiving unsolicited spam from PR agencies, and were frequently critical of the content they received, feeling it was inappropriate and unusable.

• While most bloggers ignore traditional press releases, 88% were aware of so-called Social Media Releases and indicated they were in favour of using elements such as videos, quotes, pictures and links from these releases in their posts.

• Text 100 surveyed bloggers it knew and those referred by friendly bloggers, not wanting to spam people it didn’t have a relationship with. Text 100 feels the views of the survey’s sample pool are a fair reflection of influential news, technology and bloggers across Asia Pacific.

My personal two cents on the survey and its findings goes like this:

• The survey is not conclusive and it doesn't claim to be. But it provides a useful and interesting perspective on communicating with the blogosphere. Personal experience tells me that personal experience is still king. Different bloggers vary vastly in how they'd like to have you communicate with them - if you're a PR person like me, its your job to figure what's the best way.
  
• There are a lot of the opinions in the survey shared verbatim - they could be from one, two or ten bloggers. You cannot generalise these opinions, but you should make note of them as there will be bloggers you meet who may share or disagree with these opinions. Again, I personally think the fact that the blogosphere is vast, varied and plural means that there's definitely going to be difference of opinion, and often, a very sharp difference.
  
• What Shaolintiger said is useful. Above all, bloggers are human beings and the best way to treat a blogger (like myself and yourself) is to ensure you do so with a good dose of respect.
  

Let's start a conversation about Rakan Cyber.

This bit of today's page two story in the New Straits Times caught my attention:

[Besides that], said Ismail, a new arm called Rakan Cyber, would be added to the seven others in Rakan Muda soon.

One of the main reasons was to reach out to the new generation through cyberspace - a sphere in which the Barisan Nasional government has admitted it was lagging behind.

"A lot of blogs these days paint a negative picture. That's why we are coming up with these positive blogs," he said.

To counter blogs that are "negative" let's bring out some "positive" blogs?

In the age of the conversation, I can't just help but feel that these steps are anchored in the age where "media is propaganda."

Let's have a conversation. Your thoughts please?

Say hello to the new Malay Mail

Were you Malay Mail readers welcomed by this new masthead today?



Just got back from the launch (or re-launch) of the Malay Mail - that well-loved tabloid with a 112-year history.

As background, in case you haven't heard, earlier this year, The Malay Mail was sold to publisher BluInc by the Media Prima Group. Tonight's event is the the second time the paper is reinventing itself in the space of two years, but I'm glad to report that under the hood, it's the same, familiar faces (with new notable additions) pushing the paper along.

The big change: The Malay Mail is going back to becoming that afternoon paper we all know and love. The key operating word being afternoon.

Getting to the venue, I was pretty impressed with the setup - a corridor muraled by previous editions of The Malay Mail. Sort of a mini-history lesson for me.



And the hall was packed with people:



But getting to the content of the evening, the person sitting next to me could not help but mention to me: "Why is Mr. Ibrahim mentioning "bloggers" and "internet" so much in his speech?" Actually, I couldn't help but notice that too. In my humble opinion, that's a good thing.

I sorta picked up that Mr. Ibrahim also talked about how The Malay Mail's heritage as an afternoon paper meant they were delivering people more current news than the rest of the market (remember reading yesterday's World Cup results off The Malay Mail because The Star didn't have any?) According to the man, The Malay Mail's emphasis on its online site to deliver current news was going to mirror this role it used to serve.

Flipping through the actual printed paper, the changes are quite apparent. There are quite a number of new columns - one even covers the blogosphere - from fairly opinionated people (I think I spied Amir Muhammad on the list). My favourite section - the complaints section - is back with two full pages. What's The Malay Mail, after all, without customer complaints?

Overall, I'm going to have to say that I'm slightly disappointed with the lack of lifestyle pages. Still, the focus on commentary and news is certainly welcome - if the paper can deliver on Mr. Ibrahim's promise to give us the "alternative opinion / viewpoint" that Malaysian readers today crave.

On a totally un-related matter, I also realised at the event that if you stick a huge enough logo anywhere, you can get people to camwhore in front of your logo. I'm just wondering if this is an idea that could be turned to a stunt:



On another TOTALLY unrelated matter, did I mention that the SWAG bag was stuffed with goodies. I think it puts some of us PR people to shame the sort of SWAG we give out. Here, have a look -the silver box is a 1GB USB drive:

All my posts are belong to me

There was a mini debate last week discussing blogging ethics following coverage in the Star over the PRCA Malaysia forum last week. Here's my personal viewpoint on the issues raised that have attracted more than a little discussion.

But before I proceed, I'd like to just remind everyone it's just this - a debate. There's no definitive guide to blogger ethics yet published, though I tribute Ed Bott's post on the topic as instrumental to helping me form my own views and approach - especially when relating public relations to bloggers.



Advertorial / Editorial

I was having a discussion with a blogger just last weekened about the issue of placing advertorials in blogs. Like any convention that's inherited from the institutionalised media, the concept of 'advertorial' has a rich history and many, many decades of refinement to reach the state it is today. Still, most print publications will still have varying interpretations as to what constitutes an 'advertorial'.

To save myself space (and not turn this into a lengthy article), I'm going to suggest you read the Wikipedia entry on this if you want to get the long explanation. I'm just going to borrow a couple of excerpts:

An advertorial is an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial, and presented in a printed publication — usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story.

Most publications will not accept advertisements that look exactly like stories from the newspaper or magazine they are appearing in. The differences may be subtle, and disclaimers—such as the word "advertisement"—may or may not appear. Sometimes euphemisms describing the advertorial as a "special promotional feature" or the like is used.

Many newspapers and magazines will assign staff writers or freelancers to write advertorials, usually without a byline credit. A major difference between regular editorial and advertorial is that clients usually have content approval of advertorials, a luxury usually not provided with regular editorial.

I'm going to summarise it this way: advertorials look exactly like editorial pieces except for one point: control over the editorial content is given over to the advertiser in exchange for payment. The advertiser gets to dictate what is said and the words used, and in return, the publication gets fair payment. With this in mind, most (but importantly, not all) publications insert the label 'advertorial', 'special feature' or 'promotion' with paid advertorials being published.

What about bloggers?

My personal conviction is that if I'm going to hand over editorial control of a certain article to an advertiser, I will mark that article as an advertorial. If I was pitched a review and given free rein to write whatever I want, then, even though I'm writing about a product, it won't be labeled advertorial. It really comes down to who has the control over how the article is written.

The case for credibility

Of course, the reason why many publications would place the label 'Advertorial' on an advertorial is to safeguard their credibility.

Back in journalism school, I was taught that the single most important value a journalist needs to adhere to is independence. My lecturer used to say: people read newspapers to get the truth - the unbiased truth.

Naturally, if newspapers or any printed publication start passing off paid-for advertorials as independently generated editorial content, the expected scenario is for that newspaper to lose credibility and readers. Why? Because those readers purchased the newspaper or magazine expecting to read the journalists unbiased report or opinion.

In the same scheme, tabloids don't get the same scrutiny broadsheets do simply because their expectations of independent reporting, source-confirmations etc. are set much lower than the daily broadsheets.

So how does this translate into the blogosphere (or the web 2.0 at large)?

Your own voice, your own space

I believe that credibility is still an important currency in the online world. But, in a peer-to-peer communication world where any consumer can communicate, credibility is going to mean a thousand-and-one things to a thousand-and-one different people.

Take a walk down the world-wide-web. We have on one hand, the institutionalised media - The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal - and they are the bastions of credibility. People expect to be given an unbiased view when they surf over to www.wsj.com.

On another hand, you have topic / product / brand-specific blogs where you can surely expect reporting to mirror to the disposition of the writers. I'll just reference two here: www.thenokiablog.com and http://www.applefanboyz.com/.

Then on your third hand (what? no third hand?), you have personal blogs or social blogs where the bloggers freely express their own views and opinions, unfettered. I think I'll just reference mine. (ed: on second thought, I think I'll just stick Ee May's blog here too.

The point is: all these blogs have a good amount of readers (except mine) but not all of them follow the same conventions of 'credibility' outlined above. Does this mean credibility is no longer consequential?

The short answer is no, it still is. The long answer is that it really depends who you are and what you're blogging about. I know bloggers who couldn't care less whether people think they are credible and I know some who'd pull an article if credibility was suspect.

What's important to you as a blogger becomes measured and balanced against what's important to your readers. If disclosure is a personal conviction for you, like me, then great. But if you have a different set of views and disclosure is really secondary, then that's great too. In the end, readers will read what they want from sources they trust.

Bloggers, on the other hand, will have the freedom to write what they want, disclose as they see fit, and basically own their own posts. Of course, the law of the land applies, and what's illegal offline is surely illegal online. But what I'm saying here is that each blogger as an individual will continue defining his / her own code-of-conduct. Some of these may be close to how journalists would act. Some of these may not.

But in the end: the key message is, all my posts are belong to me.

Twitter today, gone tomorrow

Hello! I've just spent the last eight or so hours sitting in on some really interesting discussions with senior Text 100 leaders and one thing our CEO said really hit me.

When asked about what challenges PR professionals face in today's world, given the advances in technology, she simply responded that technology today is moving really fast and platforms change very quickly. We just have to be on our feet at all times.



Pause and think a little on that, the depth of this simple statement is amazing. Just yesterday, I was debating with Kelvin Lim on the use of Twitter as communications and we both realised that there's obviously a use for it and we're still figuring it out. Even more PR people are figuring out how to use blogging, podcasting, viral videos and social networking as effective components of their PR programmes.

But that's still what we're doing - figuring it out. Some people get it more than others, granted, but in this world of technology, I'm figuring that we'll never truly have the time figure everything out about a new communications platform.

By the time we do, people would have probably moved on to the next.

So what's a poor, beleaguered PR person to do? Get on wit' it, that's what. It's really a challenge to keep in touch with all the latest communication platforms, but understand the fact that you'll always be playing catch up and communications is about making the best of catching up.

You've got to experiment. If the idea is sound, chances are it might work. And who's to say it won't?

Blogs won't wipe out Newspapers

I've just read the Eric Alterman's fantastic treatise on the future of the American newspaper, conspiciously titled "Out of Print", and one particular phrase really piqued my interest.

Alterman writes:

It is a point of ironic injustice, perhaps, that when a reader surfs the Web in search of political news he frequently ends up at a site that is merely aggregating journalistic work that originated in a newspaper...

I thought: "Hey, that's me!"

What Alterman is pointing out is that the very bloggers who are being hailed as the successors to the established media institutions are in fact reliant on the very media they are tipped to succeed. But the gaping, unanswered question is - what happens when print goes?

The assumption is most bloggers (myself included) are not news generators, merely aggregators. The modus operandi is to reference other news sites or articles found in newspapers and add an opinion. But if newspapers were not to exist anymore, where would this primary source of news come from?

"But," you say, "didn't this last elections demonstrate the fact that people trust online media and blogs more than the established institutions?" The answer is yes. But the rebuttal is that political news is not all the news there is in the world.

If I were to stop reading The Star, NST, The Sun, Harian Metro or any of the mainstream papers I read everyday, I'd never hear about the plight of a lorry driver, or reusable rubber gloves, or even the Sufiah Omar story which was broken by Britain's biggest-selling newspaper.

Which blogger is going to have the 1) organisational support structures 2) clout and 3) access to contacts in order to generate these news stories? Not every blogger is going to be invited to press events. Not every blogger is going to be able to wave a press tag and get clearance to check public records (investigative journalism, does it happen here?). Not every blogger is going to have their work checked and edited several times to ensure factual accuracy or quote multiple sources. Not every blogger is / was a journalist.

This is, of course, a generalisation and there are going to be exceptions. But, generally-speaking, if the newspaper disappears, so does the organisation that serves as our primary news source. And I'm predicting that can't happen.

We still need proper reporting (the lead story, quotes from multiple sources, verified numbers and facts). We need wide reporting (coverage from top political news, all the way to those human interest stories you know only a select few will read). We need a news vehicle that will push us news outside our interests (so we are exposed to the reality of the world around us).

This doesn't mean media organisations won't change. They have to, this much is clear. In this age of instantaneous reporting, expect to see the established media institutions using the online medium more and more. Expect to see some blogs (like Gizmodo) become media institutions (e.g. Gawker Media) in their own right.

Don't expect to see newspapers becoming blogs (though some blogging may happen). Blogs won't wipe out newspapers.

Creative: Fixed drivers, broken PR

A post on Wired yesterday brought to public attention a story on Creative Labs (Creative) that had been simmering for about a month on PC Audio enthusiasts forums. Interestingly, it also highlighted for a PR person like me the dynamics of technology PR in the connected age.

First, a summary of the issue:

• The launch of Windows Vista saw many Creative soundcards (and some high-end recent models) having capabilities "reduced" due to driver issues. Creative didn't fix all the issues leaving its customers with essentially worse sound quality from its products than if they had just stuck to on-board audio.
  
• Enter Daniel Kawakami (known as Daniel_K on modder forums), who in his own free time, takes the Creative drivers and modifies them to enable most of the features (like Dolby Surround) for Windows Vista. Many people download his drivers. Daniel_K starts asking for donations.
  
• Creative decides to crack down on this via a post on its own public forum and deleting Daniel_K's post. The main points for the "cease-and-desist" post are that Daniel_K shouldn't be soliciting donations to "profit" from Creative's IP and that he shouldn't be re-packaging the software for use with products it was not originally intended to. The original post was subsequently deleted thanks to public outcry, but can still be found here. Granted, the language seemed carefully thought-out and I think the reaction was a bit harsh on what was essentially a measured response.
  
• This led to Daniel_K's response. He also raises some valid points about the Creative approach which he calls "threatening me on a public forum", "removed everything I posted on the forum" etc. etc.
• Creative apologises and removes Phil O' Shaughnessy's post, with a much friendlier tone from moderator Dale (whom board members have come to love and respect.)
  

Okay, you can probably add up a lot more detail to my summary, but what I'm really interested in pointing out is the way the PR game has changed especially with digitally-connected audiences.

When I first read O' Shaughnessy's response, I found it really acceptable (and forgive me for examining the dude's grammar), I thought it was measured and concise. However, putting it up on a public forum is akin to the old media tactic of faxing statements like this out to every news media there is. And it smacked of arrogance to Daniel_K, and not just Daniel_K, but the rest of the loyal Creative modding community.

Observation#1: Don't talk to customers the same way you'd talk to the media.

I wonder if Creative could have used friendly moderator Dale as the official mouthpiece for this right from the start - perhaps having Dale private message Daniel_K about Creative's concerns. Why Dale? Simple. Dale's built traction, trust and credibility with forum-goers throughout his tenure over at the Creative boards. If you compare his message to Phil's you can see how the difference in tone of voice (from corporate swinger to friendly neighbourhood mod) makes all the difference in how the community talks to you.

Customers like to be addressed personally, by a friend if possible. A mass statement makes you sound like a distant corporation out to make money. A personal contact point through personal communication means gets you closer to the customer's real issues.

Observation #2: Customers talk back - in a BIG way!

Uh, yeah, obviously. Customers have always been talking back to companies - whether it's the silent protest of boycotting products or giving earfuls to customer service reps. But they have perhaps never been as easily mobilised or united as the customers on the internet today.

What this means is companies need to be prepared to have a conversation. And there is no "I win, you lose" outcome. If that's the goal, then the company has already lost. There has to be genuine consideration for the points and issues raised by the customers and not blissful ignorance that they exist.

As a Creative customer (yes I am! Dave's laughing.), I would have loved to get all the nice extras I plonked RM 400 for with my soundcard. Otherwise, I would have saved that RM 400 and stuck to my on-board sound. If that's my issue, how can Creative solve that? Maybe...uh... just leave Daniel_K's mods alone? Wouldn't people actually buy more Creative soundcards now that it would actually work better in Vista?

Observation#3: What's posted on the internet, stays on the internet.

I was having a discussion with Dave on this and we both agreed its practically useless trying to control information on the internet when you've published it (posted on a forum, blog etc.). Why? At the very least, search engines would have indexed your page and kept a cached copy of it. And that's if no one else has copied your content and posted it on his site lock stock and barrel (like how I retrieved Mr. O' Shaughnessy's statement).

Yes, there might be a small window of opportunity to delete offending posts before they get indexed, but we're talking about the 2 - 3 hour window before the feedback starts pouring in.

Lesson? Think very,very carefully before you put what you want to say online. You can't take it back.

That's it, just three short points. Personally, I'm hoping Creative gets back on its feet and that this will spark a series of initiatives to win back the modding community. Full functionality of old products on Vista is surely a good thing for the customers, and in the long run, the company.

Best Swag Ever - world's lightest Thinkpad?

In my four years as a PR consultant, I've seen a lot of different kinds of swag (stuff we give journalists when they attend media events). Thumb drives. T-Shirts. Jackets. Genuine Formula 1 Team shirts. Key Chains. CDs. Mugs. Paper weights. You name it, it's probably been given out.

Today we had a delivery to our office. A huge, huge box of Lenovo swag. But you can't imagine the delight when we started pulling out Thinkpads out of the box.



The photo above shows how much smaller it is in dimensions versus my current T60 Thinkpad. :) Sleek and small, I love it.



Eevon just loves working on it.



Me too.

So what's this mystery Thinkpad? It's a notebook.



Yes, I meant it literally. But isn't it just so cool?

Blogs to Criticise the Government?

There was a rather interesting story in The Star today that quoted former Minister of Energy, Water and Communication Datuk Seri Lim Keng Yaik as saying Gerakan would start blog-monitoring and even perhaps employ "blogging" as a counter-measure.

He (Datuk Seri Lim Keng Yaik) added that Gerakan would set up a team to monitor opinions voiced in blogs and websites on the Internet and maybe even come out with their own blogs to criticise the governments in the five states which fell to the Opposition.

Here's a two-point opinion.

No.1: Blog monitoring does work. Many corporations have blog-monitoring programmes in place. So use it. Know what people are saying and use that information constructively. If you're going to do this, BEST!

No. 2: Forget about setting up your own blogs if the explicit agenda is to criticise the government (By which we assume the "Opposition" governments in Selangor and Penang).

The number one thing a blog has to be -especially a blog coming from a political party - is authentic, real and about issues, not being critical for the sake of criticism. The thing is: you can blog all you want, but who's going to read? The people who read blogs aren't reading it because they support the Opposition (contrary to common perception), they are reading it because they find the person posting makes a fair argument, is worth listening to, and is well-versed in issues surrounding Malaysians.

Oh, and please stay away from setting up a phony-blog by an "independent" blogger. The backlash will be far worse than what these guys got.

When virtual and real collide...

There was a story recently on the BBC news about scientists who predict that computers the size of blood-cells will be here by 2033 leading to "fully immersive virtual realities." Lead inventor Ray Kurzweil predicted "Virtual will compete with reality."

That, Mr. Kurzweil, is already happening in Malaysia. Check out Jeff Ooi's post:

On Page A14 of Guang Ming Daily (Feb 27, evening edition), my opponent whipped all bloggers in a broad sweep by stating that "bloggers hide behind computers and live in a virtual world".

I laughed out loud at this comment.

There are more people than just bloggers who "live in a virtual world." Today, virtual is real.

Many, many, many, people live in the immersive virtual world of emails, websites, blogs and forum. You talk to people you don't know IRL (in real life) who have funny names like "CyborgBoy" or "Haxxergurl." You chat with colleagues from halfway across the world whom you've never met except on Instant Messaging and email.

You make use of this virtual world to share, communicate, transmit, discuss and interact. But you know that this virtual world is just a conduit, because unless you fancy talking to a bot, these are still real people you are interacting with.

The reason why social networks like Facebook and MySpace are so popular is in fact, because you are really connecting and making friends with real, breathing, living people.

Sure, there are bloggers or virtual personalities who prefer to remain anonymous, but there are just as many who prefer to merge their real-world identity with their online presence. Jeff Ooi is a prime example - his mobile number is listed on his blog for goodness sake. I wouldn't call that hiding.

The truth of the matter is, especially for the industry I work in, the virtual and the real are colliding. We don't need to wait for another 25 years and for micro-computers to be injected into our blood. Identities are unifying.

Remember the first time you signed up for a Hotmail account? Then your first Geocities account? If you're like me, you used different sign-in names. In stark contrast, people are now using the same identity again and again online - I'm davidlian on most sites and forums I participate in - and with more and more relevance to their original identities.

Movements like the OpenID initiative are going to unify our identities even more creating a stronger association with our "real-world" alter egoes. You going to need to be authentic online as much as you're authentic offline.

That's what I'd want my MP to be.

EDIT* Nigelsia had a great pic to illustrate this post, stolen shamelessly off someone's Flickr:

Elections Brand Plagiarism

There's a sub-culture in urban states (like the US and even here in Kuala Lumpur) called "Brand Plagiarism or Logo Culture" where you take the logo of a known brand and turn it into your own message.

Some brand-guardians think this is flattery, others are mortified by such butchery of their brands.

I'm just wondering how Celcom is feeling right now:



Was driving past this yesterday night. They even used the bird symbol! LoL!

You Tube Videocracy: The event no press were invited to

... which made them want in even more.

Funny play on the human psyche this - we want the things we can't get even more, but to go cover a press event? Granted it was an excellent event by an excellent brand and some key announcements were made. Some journo even tried to sneak in and was promptly thrown out.

Well, the news didn't stay quiet for more than 24 hours thanks to Ian Schafer who promptly posted his notes up on his blog.

Personally, it wasn't so much the news that excited me (what's active sharing anyway?) but the manner in which YouTube pulled this event of. It's got me thinking, if we organised a big event here in Malaysia, and "neglected" to invite the press, but made sure we invited loads of industry people (marketing folks, handphone dealers etc.), would that make it even more desireable for press to drop by and cover it.

Something tells me it won't. Ah... the mysteries of life.

Here's a quick video I found of what the event looked like:

Obligatory Social Networking Prediction

This post is inspired by this story over at Rolling Stone.

In the past three years or so, there's been a real explosion on the internet by what we now call the Web 2.0 phenomenon or the "social networking" boom. If Web 1.0 was based around email and static home pages, then the introduction of blogs, social networks and content-sharing sites is what characterises Web 2.0. The internet has moved from being centred around information to people.

Let's turn Web 2.0 into a mathematical exercise: have a meagre 200 odd friends on Facebook, just over a hundred on Friendster and an empty Linked-in account I never use much. I have a blog that has ... oh, about 6 or so readers... and a Flickr account with 5 friends. I think there's an old Plaxo login I have somewhere and I'm member to more than a few web-forums around the internet. I've got an MSN list that tells me 32 of my 147 contacts are online now.

That's my imprint on the internet.

I'm sure there's way more people who have a far larger pool of fans (I once surfed a friend's page on Friendster who had actually reached the limit of 1,000 friends, so she had to create two new accounts to store new friends. Maybe coz she's oklah hot).

The point is, all this talk of Web 2.0 means the currency today is people. I hear internet marketing firms talking of calculating "reach" instead of traffic. "Audience" instead of hits. And I'm wondering out loud if in this age of ultra-networkability and -trackability, could we actually measure how influential a person is?

If yes, we could, just by using the internet, then Barack Obama (my candidate of choice, actually) would win hands down this next US election thanks to his more than 500 facebook supporter groups. But it isn't so simple, is it?

Influence is more thant the internet, and definitely more than the number of friends you have on your facebook account. You don't influence people by sending them "Vote for this cause" requests. They'll probably click it without batting an eyelash, or just click delete.

Clickety-click.

I now dread logging into Facebook and it's even spread so far that I dread logging into my Gmail. Because my Facebook thread is now filled with millions (I guess) of requests for inane Facebook apps and my Gmail gets filled too with Superwall messages and Funwall stuff. I have 79 undrunk drinks. t's not that I'm anti-social, mind you, but simply because there's overwhelming interactivity with people. I dread that the first 10 clicks I do when I log into Gmail is to delete BACN (stuff that's not spam (like Facebook auto-messages, but of little use anyway).

How long more can people still be into Social Networks, I wonder?

After some thinking, I think for a long, long, long more time. Whoever said human beings are social creatures was right - we want to feel valued, loved and paid attention. We want to have friends.

But, Social Networks will start to change (and indeed, they already are) simply because no one needs to be weighed down by 1,223 contacts pinging them with Fight Club challenges all the time.

Remember the Rolling Stones link right at the beginning of this post? That's what I think will be social networking in the future. The key word is Purpose.

Why? Because I don't care to be punching some elses zombies all day. I want to find a person because there's some relevance in that person to me: either he's a friend I met somewhere, or he likes the same miniatures I like or we both believe in Barack Obama. I want to connect with somebody for a purpose --> it's email when it's "Hey XXX, can we go for a drink sometime?" or it's a MSN ping when its "Hey, tonight wanna go and play Warhammer?"

Don't get me wrong, sometimes, just making a new friend or enjoying one another's company is purpose enough. That's why Facebook and Friendster are still going to be around. What I do feel though is we can do without the "too-many" - bite me (vampire) requests.

For social marketing and PR peeps: when Social networks grow to become purposeful, then the audience becomes real. Social networks don't just become a click-fest . Shapeable, identifiable, targetable, and logical networks will emerge. The social network will make more sense to marketeers than right now. Your ROI headache will go away.

You don't want THIS at your press event...

This has got to be the nightmare of all PR people - especially the folks handling the invite to the Gizmodo folks!

There's this part in the video where this Motorola