This isn’t an original idea. Malcolm Gladwell, writing in the New Yorker last October, brilliantly unpicked the idea that Twitter caused revolutions in countries such as Moldova and Iran. His investigation of revolutionary actions pinpointed a common phenomena: the people who show up to demonstrate do so because their “critical friends” are doing so.

“Friends” on Facebook or followers on Twitter mostly fail the critical friend test, being either people you don’t know or acquaintances you kind of do. “The platforms of social media are built around weak ties”, Gladwell wrote, and “weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism”.

Unquestionably social media allows more people to participate but their participation is characterised as at a distance, low risk and with little personal sacrifice. More explicitly, their activism is joining a Facebook group not facing down a police baton. Those on the streets of Cairo today are mostly not there because of Twitter or Facebook but because of their close friends and family.

There are many reasons why the revolution in Egypt may succeed where other actions haven’t. The absence of social media, broadcasting to the authorities, among other things, the identities of organisers or key lieutenants of the organisers, may be one of them. Social media may be good for many things but toppling dictators isn’t one of them.

Suggested reading:

Joseph Mayton on Biyamasar – “Egyptians doing it old school”

Dave Pell: Egypt, Twitter and the Straw Man Revolution (huffingtonpost.com)

Life for the news industry is grim. The circulations of mainstream newspapers in the UK, and more so in the US, are in what looks like permanent decline. Knives have been taken to editorial headcounts and will, I’m reliably told, be done so with increasing frequency.

But this is not true for all newspapers. A much underreported story has been the boom in newspaper circulation in many developing economies. In Brazil, for example, total circulation of newspapers has grown by 1m over the last ten years. Brazil’s growing middle class is, The Economist reported earlier this year, “hooked on a clutch of inexpensive new papers that are heavy on murders and bikinis”. Tabloids in Brazil are doing splendidly.

I was reminded of The Economist’s analysis by the news today of Gawker having a bigger online circulation than all newspapers with the exception of the New York Times. The lesson appears to be simple, give readers what they want to read rather than what editors think they ought to read. Ignore ideas of civic responsibility and publish more celebrity tittle-tattle. The Daily Mail is growing fat on this formula.

This doesn’t sit easily with many grand newspapers. Bill Keller, the New York Times’ executive editor is sniffy about pandering to readers’ tastes: “We don’t let metrics dictate our assignments and play because we believe readers come to us for our judgment, not the judgment of the crowd.” Keller’s undoubtedly right and to be applauded to protecting serious journalism. But  how long can serious journalism survive with state funding if newspaper ignore readers’ demand for the loew-brow?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Real Journalism Threatened by Knowledge of What People Like [Media] (gawker.com)
• Web analytics: newspaper savior? (econsultancy.com)

In less than three weeks I’ll be lacing up on the start line of the Berlin marathon. The hard training is almost done – five runs and up to fifty miles a week for the past ten weeks – and I’m now looking forward to a few days of carbohydrate indulgence.

This will be my first marathon, despite having been a runner for over ten years, and I’m actually really looking forward to it. But it hasn’t changed, and I don’t think it will change, my life.

It has, however, over the duration of my training, had an effect on those around me. So thank you colleagues and family for not complaining when I’ve been “always out running” and for listening to my stories of dehydration, sickness and injury. And thank you especially to those who’ve very kindly sponsored me. If you haven’t and think you might like to, please visit http://www.justgiving.com/allaboutViolet.

Ad Age’s list is limited to just 30 brands, including many of the names people in the marketing industry would expect to see included: Facebook, Ikea, Nike and BMW for example. That The Economist, a brand with a fraction of the number of consumers of these companies, is considered to be of the same calibre says much about both the quality of the product and the rigour of the publication’s marketing.

In both cases, it’s The Economist’s refusal to compromise that has made it so successful. Editorial is always disinterested – unaffected by background forces – and marketing is always true to the essence of the product. That may sound simple to achieve but to not waver over the course of 167 years deserves great praise.

Caroline Kean, litigation partner at Wiggin

Is free speech alive on the web and are we likely to see more super injunctions broken on the internet?

Free speech is alive on the web though equally that same free speech is open to abuse – the web also hosts plenty of unfair, vitriolic and plainly wrong material, with the writer usually hidden behind a veil of anonymity. It is becoming more common for the identity of such posters to be revealed by their ISPs and cases have been brought in which posters have been sued. If the web is to stay free, it is important that those people are discouraged or yet more regulation is likely to be introduced in an effort to control the few. We already have a situation where material that can’t be published here for reasons of confidence or contempt is routinely leaked over the internet. It is highly likely that super injunctions will go the same way, though given the very small number of people involved in the granting of them there is a much greater risk that the source would be identified – and might find themselves on the receiving end of a prison sentence for contempt of court.

Why was the Trafigura injunction broken when there are reportedly more than 300 injunctions holding tight?

The Trafigura injunction was broken because the Guardian reported the attempt to prevent the reporting of the MPs question. Note, the Guardian did not itself identify Trafigura. Once the attempt to stop the reporting of the question was made public, it was not difficult for other sites based off shore such as Guido Fawkes to speculate – correctly as it turned out – which of the published questions was being referred to. The Report that the injunction was designed to protect seems to have been leaked to wiki, presumably by a whistleblower at their office, some time earlier. Once the whole thing was out in the open, it was almost inevitable the injunction would be discharged, since it was pointless.

What role do lawyers have to play in protecting an organisation’s reputation?

The Lawyer’s role can be anything from quasi – PR, including advising on media strategy and the wording of statements to litigation advice, in appropriate cases issuing proceedings for an injunction/damages for libel and invasion of privacy. A good lawyer is more likely to seek to avoid getting their client involved in litigation than to threaten proceedings, which can frequently backfire and often cause more long term damage than they prevent.

Less bad results from US publishers Gannett, McClatchy and the New York Times company was pointed to by the likes of Roy Greenslade as possible evidence that the future for print might not be completely grim.

Spotting green shoots has become a tedious obsession for all kinds of watchers, not just the media. It’s mostly based on guesswork. But sometimes a bit more than guesswork. Spotting green shoots in the print industry, so heavily dependent on ad revenues and experiencing seismic “structural change”, is probably not even guesswork. With the future shape of the industry so unclear, predicting a return to profitability seems very premature.

But Twitter is important to brands. It has transformed (an exaggeration?) how in real-time consumers learn about, and share information on, companies and their products and services. Live, or still warm, conversations are of course manna from heaven for brand managers. The opportunity to engage and influence, albeit on a near one by one basis, is compelling.

But this looks more like customer relations – social CRM – than public relations. An important difference?