Really like this comment piece from Nick Cohen – Beware the instant online anger of the Hobnob mob – that worries about how easy the web has made it to protest.

Compared to the pre-internet days when staging a protest required serious commitment a couple of books of stamps; these days you can go from a throwaway remark on TV to a Twitter trendning topic and tens of thousands of outraged  Facebook group members in a couple of hours.

The speed and the numbers might combine to make editors and politcians jumpy, but where does this all lead us.

It reminds me of that benighted precursor to campaigning Facebook groups – the email petition.

Remember those? There was a time when I’d a get a couple a week, from people wanting my name against anything from rape to puppy killing (yes, seriously).

Now setting aside the fact that you’d find it hard to find anyone who WOULDN’T oppose those phenomena, what bugged me was the element of electronic consicence-easing that email petitions seemed to epitomise. As if by a few keystrokeds and a rummage through your address book you;’d doen your bit for global warming, poverty or whatever the current cause du’jour.

And while there’s no doubt that the web has had a measurably good impact in campaigning, organising and raising awareness (just ask Barack Obama, for one), I just hope that those in positions of responsibility are able to judge the righteousness in the anger of what sometimes seems like  a critical mass of Social Media outrage.

Because to use the vocabulary of Twitter, they may find that it is just that – a trending topic.

Take a look at this quick video explainer for google’s social search. It’s essentially a way of giving more weight in search results pages to content created by your social media contacts.

Of course it relies on you having a google account and hooking your social profiles up to it, but it does add a nice layer of relevance to certain searches. It might also show just how much help your friends actually are.

When I get a moment to tinker with it, I’ll be interested to see whether it allows you to only search your social circle, and whether it can go one step futher and search tags within profiles – tagged images, maps and more. Now that really could make things interesting

(via DigitalBuzz blog)

Went to a really stimulating presentation on emerging trends last week by The Future Lab. Incredibly thought provoking, and amazing how one or two new insights can trigger all sorts of new connections and ideas for projects you’re currently working on.

One thing that really stood out for me – probably because it’s something I’ve become increasingly aware of – is the emergence of civic responsibility as a growing trend.

The idea that as a society we are moving away from favouring the rights of the individual and towards the rights of the community. We see that right now in the media treatment of binge drinking, littering and anti-social behaviour generally.

And from this, spins out the idea of Prohibition Culture – that as consumers we’re saying “no”, as changing attitudes to health, alcohol, diet and how we view brands make us more conservative and judgmental in our outlook.

From a brand point of view, the winners will be brands that enable people to ‘do the right thing’, but further than that, enable people to make the right choices by making those choices seem fun, desirable and affirmative, rather than prohibitive.

And just as I was thinking that, along comes VW with a perfect example – The Fun Theory.

This little video viral has been bouncing around all the agency forums and groups. As a campaign it’s simple, it’s fun, and it makes you want to do the right thing…

So England’s World Cup qualifier against Ukraine this weekend won’t be broadcast on any TV channel, but rather (oh my!) online via a pay-per-view broadcast.

Such has been the Luddite anguish in certain parts of the media, you’d think someone had suggested broadcasting it as text-only commentary via Twitter feed, (though mental note: a 140 character limit on Motty might be worth investigating).

But it’s not as though pay-per-view is anything new. What’s the difference between charging people to watch a boxing match on Sky Box Office (as has been the norm for years now) and charging people to watch a football game over the internet?

OK, a couple of things.

Firstly, it’s the shape of the box it’s being watched on that seems to be bothering most people.

I’ve lost count of the number of columnists referring to people as having to “cluster around a laptop” to watch the game.

Here was me thinking that since iPlayer and youtube are now accepted parts of the mainstream, the concept of watching tv on a slightly different-shaped screen wouldn’t really be an issue.

But it turns out that the act of watching a game of football requires a TV. One big enough to watch from a couch witha bunch of mates and a large bowl of Doritos.

And that’s quite interesting. Because it’s the ‘live-ness’ of a football game that makes it such compelling viewing. The fact that no-one amongst the millions watching can know the result.

It’s OK as a solo experience. It’s much, much better as a shared experience. And it’s hard to have a shared experience around a screen that has to be balanced on your lap.

So could this mark a step change in convergeance? Is this the moment that people realise “online” doesn’t have to mean “computer”. Will we now see a realisation of the benefits of an internet-enabled TV?

Project Canvas would do the job – turning your TV into an internet-connected device will make pay-per-view internet broadcasts just like any other channel.

The other major issue is connection speed and broadband penetration.

The fact is that the network won’t be able to handle more than a certain number of subscribers for the Ukraine game (I’ve heard the number 1 million bandied about).

And more worrying for football fans outside of the major hubs is the fact that a live game is only great when it’s just that: live. So if your broadband speed is not up to the job of streaming live video, you’re better off opting for the radio commentary.

In the past, arguments around universal broadband access have centred around the obligations of national government and delivery of essential services. Is it too much to expect that if more important games become internet-only broadcasts, we could hasten the tipping point at which national or commercial providers really beef up broadband access and speed?

It used to be that it was either pornography or the miltary that drove innovation. Perhaps now we’re witnessing the start of how the nation’s love affair with the beautiful game could bring us closer to a fully converged digital future.

Great news that the 2016 Olympics are heading to Rio, and if you want a flovour of what it may be like, take a look at the official video for the Rio bid

As destination videos go, I think it’s a real stunner. Apart from the stunning visuals, I just love the use of ambient sound – a great way to showcase the spirit of the place, and to set it apart from your avaergae destination video.

Happy 60th birthday Communist China! And how well timed, the IPA seminar this week on the “Digital Dragons” – a view on the rise and future of digital culture in Japan and China.

While I’ve always looked at Japan as the apotheosis of digital innovation and sometimes just plain digital wierdness, there were a couple of interesting insights into the emergence of China as a major player in the digital space and the development of the Chinese digital consumer.

Firstly is the sheer size of the Chinese internet market – 300m people online, 700m mobile subscribers, 120m with access to the mobile web – by far the largest global

And yet, that still leaves hundreds of millions unconnected, making China a microcosm of the world, encompassing superconnected first world consumers in the big 21st century cities like Shanghai right the way down to peasantry living in much the same way as they have for hundreds of years. It’ll be interesting to see how this digital divide will develop, and whether there will be impetus to change or to maintain the status quo.

Then when you look at how chinese audience engages online, and how society has shaped this this behaviour, things get really interesting.

Amongst broadband users the Chinese now spend more time online than any other country. Hard to believe, but here’s the data to back it up – they outstrip even the supposedly super-connected Japanese.

And how do they spend this time? To a large extent, on social interactions.

In comparison to their Western counterparts, Chinese internet consumers connect with more people, are more likely to contribute to online conversations and are more likely to use the mobile web.

You can see from the graph above that Chinese internet usage is majorly skewed towards social activities like instant messaging, social networking, gaming and sharing video and music. Compare this to US users, who are much more into emailing, searching and buying.

The reason? One very plausible theory points to China’s one child policy, which has resulted in a generation of one child families. And it’s all these only children who are turning to the internet for companionship and social interaction.

And I think it’s reasonable to assume that it’s this hyperconnected, supersocial generation that is shaping the capitalisation of 21st century China.

I wonder what Mao would make of it today – that one the landmark policies of his Communist project could, in the 21st century, be instrumental in reshaping his beloved People’s Republic.

Great viral video from skate company Freebord, the concept: recreate a Tetris game by loading up 36 skaters with funny shaped neon hats and sending them down a straight road.

Can’t wait to see if Freebord riders post responses…

Watching techcrunch’s video summary of Seedcamp, a conference for internet start-ups, there’s a great quote from a Hjalmar Winbladh of Rebtel that sums up the frustrations faced by innovators through the ages:

“When I tried to sell this idea, for the first four years, they said I was stupid. Then there was a very brief flash when they said I was a genius. Then everyone said it was obvious.”

http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/09/21/seedcampweek09-recession-era-startups-emerge-blinking-into-the-light/

It started with the government, now sports bodies are issuing social media guidelines to players. It’s a demonstration of how Twitter in particular is reshaping channels of communications and the traditional media environment.

According to The Telegraph, The Tennis Integrity unit has sent a warning to all players about Twitter use, with particular reference to the fact that in tweeting, players could fall foul of the sports’ anti-corruption rules.

With so much money being wagered on every aspect of big games (not just the final result), any inside information can become valuable. How a player is feeling, how they think the surface is playing, what they think about their opponent – it’s all information that could make someone a packet.

Over in the States, the NFL has also laid out guidelines for teams, officials and players. And for officials it’s particularly punitive: “The use of social media by NFL game officials and officiating department personnel is prohibited at any time.”

Really? Is this legal, or even enforceable? Sounds a bit like banning cellphones or watching TV.

Players and coaches, meanwhile can use only social media or networking sites up to 90 minutes before kickoff and following post-game media interviews.

Of course, with every innovation comes challenges and new regulation, but it’s enough to make you nostalgic for the good old days, when matchfixing invovled such high tech skulduggery as a couple of phone calls and free leather jacket.

Five sports stars who tweet

• Lance Armstrong
• Andy Murray
• Michael Phelps
• Shaquille O’Neal
• Tony Hawk

MIT’s Sociable Media Group is currently showcasing an interactive exhibit titled ‘Personas – how does the internet see you?’ – a search-engine-meets-data-visualisation that takes your first and last name, then scours the internet using ‘sophisticated natural language processing’ to produce a genome-type readout of how you are represented on the Internet.

Here’s mine (click for a full size version):

Trouble is that it only relies on first and last names, which means that in my case, it’s really just an amalgamation of how the internet sees anyone called Tom Gray.

This includes:

Tom Gray is a Mohawk Indian teenager who has moved to a new town with his mother and Tom Gray is widely considered one of the best bass players in bluegrass music.

If only.

So, pretty useless at showing how I’m represented on the web. But what it does showcase is some brilliant semantic searching: filtering words, phrases and concepts into broader categories like Sports, Fame, Fashion, Religious and the like.

The execution may be contrived, but the functionality behind it is an exciting one: search that doesn’t simply trawl through keywords, but rather ‘understands’ the content being searched, and categorises it accordingly.

Or, as one industry expert succintly put it: Find what I mean, not what I type.

Semantic search is the holy grail of search at the moment, and there are plenty of very clever people working on plenty of different ways of executing it at the moment. Pandia has more on five of the best semantic search engines.