Search results matching tag 'daily mail'

Gordon Brown plays the biscuit game

1704826 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:34:00 GMT

I'm so bored of people talking about the potency of social media sites that I've decided to go on a journey in a helium balloon - I've already tipped off the Berkhamsted and Tring Gazette.

I'd never really considered or cared what sort of biscuit Gordon Brown preferred but the great democratising tool that is social media - in this case parents' website Mumsnet - has forced the PM to stop avoiding this key issue and finally come clean. An excited nation learnt that he prefers chocolate biscuits.

Perhaps we'll find out at some point what his exit strategy is for Afghanistan is or why he sold our gold reserves off in 1997 when if he'd waited until now he might have got a better price from Cash4Gold.

Twitter is also claiming victory over some things that Jan Moir wrote about the sainted Stephen Gately in last week's Daily Mail. I didn't read her column but I expect it was absolutely vile and it is she, and not Leona Lewis, who is deserving of a punch to the head.

The only vaguely amusing thing is that the Mail has to some extent been hoist by its own petard - having led a campaign against Jonathan Ross, it was only a matter of time before a special interest group did the same thing to it.

Is the Mail Online heading for domination with change to moderation policy?

255762 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:01:00 GMT

The news today that the Mail Online is to stop checking user comments before they go live could not only make it the most visited website in the UK, but possibly the one with the largest and most active community. A potentially very powerful combination.

New Media Age is reporting that Associated Newspapers plans to end its long standing policy of pre-moderation. It is, I think, concerns aside, a smart move.

The Mail Online has already stolen the crown of the UK's most visited newspaper website after it boosted traffic in June by 19% and in doing so, attracted over 29m users.

This saw it leapfrogging the Telegraph.co.uk and the Guardian.co.uk to become the most popular UK national newspaper site.

Its stories already attract a large amount of comments (this considering that some - we don't know how many - never get published for various reasons) and it is not uncommon to see articles on its homepage with several hundred comments.

The NMA article looks at some of the problems that ending pre-moderation could pose. There's the issue of what it could do to advertisers who suddenly find themselves next to offensive or legally problematic comments.

It is definitely a cause for concern, but it should be one that a well-funded newspaper website with an active loyal readership should be able to deal with.

One of the problems with pre-moderation is the wait. It can kill debate or the desire to debate. If people don't see their comment go up pretty swiftly they are more likely to be deterred from further interaction. That can hit traffic as well.

The only other title of note out there doing post moderation is the Guardian and it can get many hundreds of comments on its news and blogs posts. The Daily Express and Daily Star also post moderate, but there are so few comments on these sites that it is hardly any kind of comparison. It's lead story had eight comments and a quick look around did not uncover a vast amount of interaction.

A quick tally of this morning's homepages shows, even with moderation still in place, the Mail Online has the most comments. Its lead Baby P story had 113 comments; The Guardian with its jump in unemployment story had 60; the lead story on The Times Online (also unemployment) had one; and the Telegraph doesn't have comments on any of its stories.

Not exactly scientific, and to be fair Times Online has plenty of older stories with a high number of comments (its most commented from yesterday had 106).

All that said it will be very interesting to see what switching to a post moderation system does for the Mail Online. If the number of comments it is receiving with moderation is already high, with post moderation like the Guardian it could rocket. This will have interesting implications for its traffic, which could also receive a boost and perhaps helping to cement its position as the most visited on and commented upon website.

Follow me on Twitter

The worst Daily Mail poll ever

1704826 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Even by the Daily Mail's hateful standards, today's online poll is a corker.

Based on a flimsy 'shock' story that will never actually happen but is guaranteed to get morons across middle-England foaming at the mouth with indignation, the poll asks the question: 'Should the NHS allow gipsies to jump the queue?' To which every 'right-minded person', of which the Mail loves to claim to represent, should vote 'Yes'.

It's a real discovery the Daily Mail online poll - I've also been able to vote for Tony Blair as EU President and express my view that immigrants shouldn't have to respect British values.

Anyway, express your approval here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/poll.html?pollId=1011506

Have a good weekend... that's if the gypsies don't get you.

The Taxpayer's Alliance, 20:20 London and the DCSF are all wrong...and right!

1225254 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:57:00 GMT

The series of 22 weekly videos to mobiles, designed to prevent teenage pregnancy have been severely criticised by The Taxpayer's Alliance. Based on figures from the BBC, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) initiative cost £45 per subscriber as only 5,576 had registered for the free downloads. The DCSF countered by saying it was only a trial and the figures didn't take 83,000 youtube views into account or the 265,000 visits to the website. However, a conversion rate of 2% is disappointing.

The DCSF is right to test new approaches, especially to hard-to-reach audiences. But are Government educational videos really the best thing to send to kids' mobile phones? How hard are they to view on a tiny screen that's been through the washing machine a couple of times? How much would anyone want to follow it after the novelty's worn off? Are kids in deprived inner cities really likely to sign up? Even with the faux teenage txt spk on the homepage? Are the scripts as authentic as The Inbetweeners? Teenagers instantly spot a 'fraud'.

The campaign was produced by leading digital agency 20:20 London. Would a more traditional DM agency steeped in a culture of test, refine and roll out have recommended this campaign? Many digital campaigns are still technique-driven rather than based on sound ROI principles. To only distribute 5,000 of anything free is not a great return, especially if you've spent £250,000 doing it.

For instance, on these figures it would have been cheaper to phone everyone up and have a chat about their sex lives. Or send them loads of free condoms. Surely a sassy viral, along with some deft deployment of social networking and a reality TV celeb to get it off the ground would have reached more teenagers? Even a few witty txt msgs would have done the job better.

But I doubt the Taxpayer's Alliance would buy that either. After all, they oppose all tax rises as a matter of principle, even if they might pay for a better NHS, more people surviving cancer, better educated kids or safer streets. They are they Daily Mail in finance format so anything that upsets them must have merit. And hey, we've all learnt far more from campaigns that bombed than those that worked. So well done DCSF for trying, but next time work harder on the maths. See me after school.

Thanks for teaching me how to blog, Damian McBride

1704826 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:52:00 GMT

As the proud custodian of the least popular blog on this site, and possibly on the whole Brand Republic community (hello loyal readers Oli and Tony by the way), the evidence suggests that any thoughts that I had that I am delivering anything of value to a wider audience are probably deluded.

To be truthful until now I never read blogs either (sorry Dave Trott, Rory et al) consisting, as they usually but not always do, of an ill-thought out stream of consciousness from someone with a half-baked opinion on something about which he knows very little - not much different from getting stuck with the pub bore after he's read the Daily Mail.

But this weekend that all changed. Given the smears emanating from Number 10, I found myself skipping between the self-righteous blog of Guido Fawkes, who is taking credit for claiming Damian McBride's scalp, to the mealy-mouthed LabourList of Derek Draper, who peculiarly blamed everyone else but himself for the appalling campaign.

It was heady stuff, topped only by Kevin Maguire's despicable blog in the Daily Mirror where he attempted to justify the disgusting slurs but was roundly ripped apart by its readers.

Anyway, the point is I'm going to try and liven this blog up to attract more hits by striving - as Derek Draper described McBride's contributions to the planned Red Rag blog - to be 'brilliant', 'funny', 'juvenile' and 'inappropriate' at the same time. I'll try and make them vaguely media-related. I just hope that it doesn't alienate Oli and Tony.

Mail sales teams have been disconnected

2458936 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:40:00 GMT

Belt-tightening times at Derry House, the home of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, which have been hit by the downturn in advertising revenues.
The Mail on Sunday sales executives, once equipped with company mobile phones, have had them revoked, while more senior executives have had to part with their BlackBerrys.
Their counterparts on the Daily Mail were never afforded such luxuries and, in the immediate future, are unlikely to receive them.
The Daily Mail, whose sales operation was last year renamed Daily Mail Connect, is, it appears, to remain disconnected for now.

Famous for five minutes

2419367 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:24:00 GMT

I've been thinking about longevity for some time now. I was finally inspired to write something about it after a tweet earlier today from the Guardian's Jemima Kiss who commented: "It's great that Spotify is doing well, but I'm not interested in hearing music I know. I want to find new music, and Last.fm radio rocks."

I thought this was intriguing for a number of reasons. Yes Last.fm is a great service. I'm also a fan of Spotify though - particularly since they did a deal with Warp Records allowing limited access to some of its back catalogue. But what really grabbed my interest was the focus on the importance of newness in Jemima's tweet.

I am as much a fan of “the new” as anyone else - as a reviewer for a variety of music mags means I am in the fortunate position of being given access to the new before most other people. However I am also interested in “the old”. So is it really wrong to be interested in “hearing music I know”?

There has been much written recently about social networking - especially Twitter - affecting attention spans, relationship building etc – the lifespan of a tweet is supposed to be five minutes after all (unless it is re-tweeted of course).

Not all of this discussion on social networking has been hugely useful. Baroness Greenfield for example made it on to the front page of the Daily Mail with some interesting claims which were then extremely well dealt with by Ben Goldacre on Newsnight.

Getting back to the musical example though, just how are new technologies affecting how we engage with traditional forms of culture? Are they simply feeding an obsession with the new to the extent that we are creating an entirely disposable culture that constantly strives for the new at the expense of the old? Will we forget that “new” piece of music five minutes after we’ve heard it – in the same way that we are supposed to forget a tweet?

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Is the unveiling of Top Gear’s Stig the lamest scoop of the decade?

1641923 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:38:00 GMT

Pssst, have you heard the latest? No, not about Barack Obama becoming the new president of the United States, nor December’s sharp fall in inflation.

No, today’s ‘big news’ comes courtesy of the Daily Mail, where a dogged investigative hack has unmasked the identity of Top Gear’s tame racing driving, known only as the Stig.

He’s the guy in the white helmet and jump suit who, among other things, helps ‘stars in a reasonably priced car’ speed round Top Gear’s race track. The man in the gloves is apparently a James Bond stunt man and has previously driven in Formula Three, Le Mans, GT and NASCAR, as also reported in yesterday’s Telegraph Who is the Stig? The answer - Telegraph

While having no qualms in naming the Beeb’s driving stooge, both the Telegraph and Associated’s mid market paper opted to protect the identity of the tenacious reporters behind the scoops. Perhaps, say those over at Aunty, this is because for lovers of the car series, the Stig’s unmasking is akin to finding out there is no Father Christmas? Maybe, or perhaps it’s because the Stig’s identity has been one the worst kept secrets for years...

The Bristol Evening Post made it clear they knew who the Stig was two weeks ago, but decided not to out him. Similarly, the News of the World ran a story at the start of the month about who he was, where he lives and his marital status, but again chose not to name him. http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/124186/Top-Gears-Stig-unmasked.html

This week’s Daily Star Sunday went a step further and named him, although the article has been removed online. In fact, the Stig’s cover, if it is the man revealed today, was first blown more than two years ago by the News of the World among others (also removed online), although no one really took any notice.

Following Richard Hammond’s crash in September 2006, a Health & Safety Executive report recorded the driver in question had been at the scene as a “high performance driver and consultant”.

A spokesman at the Beeb called the media speculation “interesting" but repeated the mantra "we will never confirm exactly who, or what, the Stig is". However, he did add that any speculation the driver could be axed for revealing his identity were "totally unfounded".

Proximity pays for its TV Licence

1225254 — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:30:00 GMT

Proximity has been sacked from the TV Licensing (TVL) business for which it won so many awards. Why? Because it messed up on the data it quoted regarding the number of fee evaders. The Telegraph, which broke the story, also referred to the use of false pre-printed signatures and the use of intimidatory tactics in letters including threats of home visits from enforcement officers.

There's no doubt that following a series of Daily Mail front pages, the BBC has lost its confidence and is prone to panic in the face of outraged headlines and pompous MPs like John Whittingdale. Proximity is this week's Jonathan Ross.

The agency says it was human error over data that led to incorrect figures being used, Every account handler involved in every direct marketing agency must be thinking "Phew! There for the grace of God...." We've all experienced data ***-ups, many far more serious than quoting an inaccurate figure in a letter. It happens but we rarely get fired for it. The mistake Proximity is supposed to have made is the sort of thing you occasionally see referred to the ASA who ask for it to be fixed. Claiming the figure is 69,838 evaders when it is 33,781 is a sloppy error but it's hardly criminal. Both figures represent 'a lot of people'. I read the ASA reports every week and compared to many claims (e.g. junk food that's 'natural and healthy', misleading small print, hidden charges etc) it hardly registers. But in a febrile moralistic climate I'm afraid Proximity were always likely to be sacked although it is the responsibility of both client and agency to ensure accuracy in statements.

By the way, many marketers use pre-printed signatures and fabricated signatories. Helps prevent stalkers and fraud, apart from anything else.

The TV Licensing business always struck me as rather unusual. Here's a product that has universal awareness coupled to a £1,000 fine if you don't buy it. Compared with trying to sell home insurance TV licence uptake must rank as something of a marketing doddle. Which is probably why only 5% of people evade.

The BBC Trust has already launched a review into TVL's enforcement methods and Proximity would appear to be a premature casualty. Losing the account will hit the agency hard. But it is a casualty of politics, not of poor direct marketing.

Daily Mail and BBC Local conspiracy theory

255762 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:15:00 GMT

It isn't like the Daily Mail needs an excuse to bash the BBC, but was there more at play in the recent "Sachsgate" affair than meets the eye? And did it cost the corporation its much vaunted BBC Local web service?

It was on Popbitch today, but it is I think worth repeating in more detail. The Daily Mail hit the BBC hard over the scandal that saw Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand leaving a regrettable message on the answer phone of the 'Fawlty Towers' actor relating to his grand daughter Georgina Baillie.

In end the Daily Mail managed to get as many as 20,000 people to complain about the Radio 2 prank that went awry. It ran a number of stories, cried foul about falling public standards and called for heads to roll. It scored an equally regrettable victory over the BBC claiming a number of scalps including Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas as well, cost Brand his job at the station and led to Ross being suspended from his chat show.

At the same time as that was going on the BBC Trust was also making up its mind before going on to reject the corporation's plan to invest up to £68m in a web-based local video service across the UK. Apparently the service, which would have employed 400, was of a very high standard with many saying how how good it was.

However, the Trust said it would not improve services enough "to justify either the investment of licence fee funds or the negative impact on commercial media".

The Trust reached its decision after conducting a public value test and regional newspaper groups were some of the biggest critics of the proposed service as they were afraid of being blown out of the water by the BBC leading to a loss of staff and revenues.

The Daily Mail and General Trust, which owns the Daily Mail is also a major UK publisher of regional newspapers via its Northcliffe Media subsidiary, which is behind such titles as Nottingham Post, Bristol Evening Post and the Leicester Mercury. Northcliffe is already struggling and DMGT recently announced "significant" cuts at Northcliffe Media as revenues at the regional outfit tumbled 28% year on year in October.

So did the Daily Mail go for broke on Sachsgate knowing that it would hurt the BBC when it came to a decision on BBC Local?

Or is that simply too much of a reach? Maybe it was just as the Trust put it and that BBC Local could not justify either the investment of licence fee funds or the negative impact on commercial rivals and nothing else, but hey everyone loves a good conspiracy story.

It's worth noting what is happening to local media. It is being hit hard. ITV is cutting regional output and regional newspapers are cutting staff left, right and centre. BBC Local could have been the best thing that happened to local news services in years.