Here’s a brand new, fresh infographic for you – all about Twitter and Twitter usage. There’s usually one or two of these flying about at any given time, but this one has some pretty interesting bits and bytes that show Twitter’s scale isn’t necessary all good:  

·         Rejoice fellow UK tweeters, for our green and pleasant land has the second highest number of users – being pipped to gold by the yanks. Sadly, it is quite a big pip – over 50% of Twitter users are in the US, compared to just over 17% in the UK (which also means English is likely the prominently language of Twitter). Still not bad for a small, overly proud country

·         Over one million new Twitter profiles are created every day, on average 11 every second. Which would be good news except…

·         40% of Twitter users have never tweeted. Not even a little chirp. Seems there’s a lot of spam-bots out there being silly and ruining the stats for everyone

·         The average Twitter user has only 27 followers, and a quarter have none at all –so the likes of Gaga, Obama and other important types ending in A* are seriously propping up the average

·         Good new for PR and marketing folks is over half of active Twitter users follow brand/product pages, and high numbers of US Twitter users are likely to recommend products or buy from brands they follow (79% and 67% respectively)

*other influential twitter users with names not ending in A are available

Source Website Monitoring via The Wall

The British police aren’t doing a great job of adjusting to life with social media. After trying a “common sense approach” to Twitter in the wake of several ludicrous cases, Kent Police have fallen victim, so to speak, to issues surrounding the arrest of a Facebook user.

Said arrest concerns a 19-year-old who, for reasons best known to his own tiny mind, decided to post a photo of a burning poppy on his Facebook page. With an offensive caption. On Remembrance Day. Lovely.

Now, I’m not for such behaviour. Not one iota of me thinks such an image is in the same universal realm as things that are ‘okay’. But extremely offensive images aside, the idea of arresting a person over a Facebook post of this nature sounds insane. The image reportedly falls under section 127 of the Communications Act, which covers sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” on a “public electronic communications network”. Or to the layman in this case, something nasty or threatening posted on the Internet.

This doesn’t sound quite right, and a world away from a ‘common sense approach’. Common sense should dictate if you wouldn’t arrest a person for committing a certain act in public, you shouldn’t arrest them for posting an image of it online. I’m not legal expert, but I suspect you’d be hard-pressed to find a copper who’d arrest someone for burning  a poppy. More likely a stern finger wag and a clip ‘round the ear before being moved on (esp if you’re local police station happens to be in Ashfordly).

Expert legal types tend to agree. David Allen Green, the defence loyal for the Paul Chambers / ‘Joke Twitter Trial’ tweeted “Dear idiots at @kent_police, burning a poppy may be obnoxious, but it is not a criminal offence”. He also seems to be starting the hashtag #PoppyCock – clever clogs.

Social media isn’t going to go away, and neither are idiots who choose to use it to peddle their own brand of offensive nonsense. So, the police and social media sites themselves need to come up with a solution to policing content without restricting freedom of speech, or tying up the judicial system with an increasing number of random cases.

That’s obviously an enormous challenge, and won’t happen overnight. The widespread use of social media could lead to the requirement of dedicated team (or department, branch, bureau or other appropriate term) to work with social media sites to deal with complainants, and lay out new legal precedents to cover online activity and offenses.

This may seem crazy – but it’s far saner than trying to arrest everyone who is offensive on Facebook. 

The ASA has been a little quite in tech matters lately, after a busy period of rulings on Twitter led campaigns earlier in the year. But recent complaints regarding T-Mobile’s mobile top up advertising has meant the regulator has waded in and redefined the word ‘forever’.

According to PC Pro, a ruling on the slogan “unlimited free texts forever” has changed the meaning of forever to “not literally forever”.  The line is used by T-Mobile to advertise a PAYG top up offer; when a user tops up £10 a month or more they get free unlimited texts.  

In response to two complaints brought to light through the ASA, T-Mobile stated the company has “no business plan to remove the offer from customers who had joined during the offer period and who continued to top up by at least £10 a month”. Of course, this doesn’t mean the text offer will literally last forever. Even if T-Mobile is committed to keeping the deal going, you have to imagine it won’t keep going indefinitely. Sadly these kinds of ‘unless of course’ T&Cs aren’t the close friends of those clever advertisers getting paid to write catchy slogans.

But the ASA is cool with it, putting a little more faith in the average consumer than the two complainants did. The regulator stated “We considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim as containing an element of advertising puffery and were unlikely to infer that texts would be available literally forever”. A common sense ruling, even if they did have to get a little dig in at the advertisers. Ouch.

It seems the most efficient way to communicate nowadays is through an infographic, especially if your chosen topic is social media. Still, as The Wall notesthere are a few interesting tidbits in the below.

The information has been compiled by Dan Zarrella, an award-winning social media scientist and author.

Here’s a snapshot, you can scroll through the whole image to get all the stats and inside info on how to get the most attention on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook:

·         1-5 words is the optimum length for ‘B2C’ tweets, whereas the more wordy B2B folks prefer detailed 11-15 word tweets

·         Getting excited isn’t such a good idea on Twitter. Including an explanation mark in tweets means you’ll get 8%-15% fewer ‘clicks’, but on LinkedIn enthusiasm is your friend and the odd ‘!’ will give you 26-27% more clicks

·         Asking a question is even worse than getting excited. Including a question reduces the ‘clicks’ on LinkedIn messages and tweets by anything from 25% - 52%. Not a great stat for social media engagement

·         If you’re willing to not ask questions and keep the excitement to a minimum, you’re best to get tweeting on a Wednesday - and possibly a Monday too if you’re all consumer-like. However, LinkedIn is far better on a Sunday for B2B types (presumably they’re all too busy to network during the week) and Monday if you’re a consumer (that’s the Monday blues for you).

Following last week’s ups and downs for Twitter, or more specifically downs, the micro-blogging / social upheaval platform has resolved the legal cases for the short term.  Twitter’s legal issues seem to have taken on bus-like properties, with three coming along at once. 

Despite the increasing amount of legal questions Twitter users are causing, police chiefs in the UK are rejecting calls for new legislation to deal with online abuse. According to The Guardian, the Association of Chief Police Officers (or Acpo for acronym fans) believes “problems may eventually be resolved by the microblogging website itself.”

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme, chief constable of Cumbria Stuart Hyde reportedly stated a “common sense” approach to Twitter trolls is what the Police should be aiming for. This will avoid officers being “dragged off the streets to deal with frivolous complaints”.

He continues “It is important to look at the whole context. It is not just about one tweet, it is a whole range of tweets. Look at what the individual has done: is this a concerted attempt to have a go at one individual in a way that passes the threshold for offences against the law? If it is, then clearly we should intervene and do something to stop it.”

Despite a few false starts with Twitter arrests, it seems the Police force is now using the right approach when dealing with Twitter. It’s no longer being treated as some large, unknown virtual world that could be harbouring serious criminals – which can only be a good thing for all Twitter users.    

The legal precedents around Twitter continue to be established at a rate of knots this week, driven in part by everyone being uber keen to tweet about the Olympics (although not always in a nice way).

Yesterday we posted on several legal wranglings involving Twitter; those of Guy Adams of The Independent newspaper, the anonymous user behind @UnSteveDorkland and teenager @Rileyy_69. In less than 24 hours, there’s been progress on all three.

Guy Adams

Bit of a bad one for Twitter, this. It turns out Twitter workers originally alerted NBC to Adams’ critical tweets of the news outlet’s coverage of the Olympics. This resulted in his account being suspended. Twitter has now published an apology, admitting “we did mess up”. Adams’ Twitter is back up and running, but the questions around Twitter’s reputation won’t go away overnight. It’s likely this example will be dragged up time and again when a user is accused of something untoward. This leads us to…

@UnSteveDorkland

Today, 1^st August, was the deadline for Twitter to handover details of the user behind @UnSteveDorkland, a spoof account of Northcliffe Media’s chief executive Steve Auckland. Handing over user details is well within the rights of Twitter’s T&Cs, if the site receives a complaint from a third party about said user’s account.

However, Twitter also provides details of how the user can acquire legal aid. This, combined with a high level of media attention for the case, led pro bono layer Frank Sommer to take up the case. He’s now filed a motion to halt the disclosure order from Northcliffe. According to the BBC, Sommer has stated “I have been unable to find any website that lists this controversy in terms of someone being deceived that any of the Twitter usernames listed in the subpoena are anything other than a satire on Mr Auckland.”

Take that out of legalise and it simply means if an account is obviously a spoof, there’s no case for taking it down or even handing over a user’s details. The difficultly here is defining exactly what counts as ‘obvious’ in a court of law. Amazingly, this could reach a court room (if Northcliffe decides to push on) on 2^nd September. If this happens, presumably we’ll get a clear ruling and precedent on what can and can’t be deemed an overtly satirical, spoof Twitter account. Good luck reaching a verdict on that one. 

@Rileyy_69

Finally, the rather unpleasant case of @Rileyy_69 appears to have been settled. After the 17 year old behind offensive tweets to Olympics diver Tom Daley was arrested, he was released with a harassment warning. Clearly this wasn’t a case that would ever make it to court, but hopefully one that shows you can’t get away unscathed with vicious comments on Twitter anymore than you would saying it to someone’s face (although you’re far more likely to get arrested, and less likely to get punched in the nose, it seems).

@simonhill

In the last week or so, Twitter has been tripping over itself with legal wranglings here and in the US. The legal world is still in something of a catch-up scenario with the digital world generally, and Twitter specifically. The advent of the web, and everything there on, means new precedents are being set at a unprecedented (geddit?) rate. Hard and fast rules are not forthcoming.

Aside from marketing execs getting slaps on wrists, there is a more serious side to Twitter judgements. One report this week was heralded as a victory for common sense, and for everyone who has ever tweeted in jest.

Back in 2010 Twitter user Paul Chambers posted “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!”. While it was obvious to most this was a jovial posting from a frustrated traveller, it attracted legal action against Chambers. Yesterday he won a High Court appeal, with judges concluding “[the] appeal against conviction will be allowed on the basis that this ‘tweet’ did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.”

The downside: this “dose of common sense” took over two years to come to fruition, meaning stress and almost £1000 in legal costs for Chambers. 

When Twitter itself gets involved, a situation can get more complicated. There’s two ongoing situations involving an individual’s use of Twitter right now. One is the case of @UnSteveDorkland, a spoof account of Steve Auckland, chief executive of Northcliffe Media. The publisher of the Daily Mail, and 113 other regional UK papers, has both requested the identity of the user from Twitter and filed a court order in the US. Twitter has notified the user, and made it clear his details will be revealed by 1^st August 2012. While this may seem a little harsh, Twitter is simply complying with the law and informing those who are involved. If you’re going to tweet material that will be offensive to a powerful person within a powerful organisation, it seems Twitter can’t and won’t guarantee your anonymity. The company does, however, offer advice of how to find legal help when notifying a user, as was the case with UnSteveDorkland.       

Putting Twitter in this position of being able to aid or take action against users has its own risks. The second situation involves Guy Adams, a journalist writing for The Independent. Adams has been had his Twitter account suspended, according to reports, because he tweeted the email address of an NBC executive after poor Olympics coverage. Twitter claims to have suspended the account as the email address was private, meaning Adams was in breach of the site’s T&Cs relating to publishing private content. Unfortunately, the email address appears to have been anything but private. More unfortunate still is the current partnership between Twitter and NBC as part of the Olympics coverage. It all ties together so well you have wonder at the various motivations of those involved.

Twitter, despite some well meaning intentions, can seemingly be put at the mercy of a corporate partner – although this is still to be proven categorically. What these cases do prove for sure is there’s no clear policy for action against Twitter users following third party complaints. While ‘NotSteveDorkland’ is still tweeting away, and currently using Twitter to solicit further media attention, Guy Adams is suspected.

More troubling still is the case of @rileyy_69 (account now set to private). According to The Guardian, the 17 year old from Weymouth was arrested yesterday following hateful tweets aimed at Olympic diver Tom Daley, including an apparent ‘death threat’. Following Daley’s placing fourth in the synchronised diving with partner Pete Waterfield, and thus outside the medals, he was sent an offensive tweet from @rileyy_69, which he then retweeted. A barrage of outraged followed, with the original tweet attracting over 29k RTs and counting, and Daley fans and followers prompting global trending.

Of course the tweet in question is vile and should never be condoned, but is the hot-headedness of one foolish 17 year old really a matter for the police? Will it take two years and legal costs to conclude teenagers often think before acting, like anyone one of us can be guilty of?

@simonhill

There’s a fairly important international sporting event coming up, and as its 2012 some are predicting this will be the first “social media games”. In other words, the Olympics organisers are looking to social media to make the events engaging for everyone not holding a ticket.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) didn’t get off to a brilliant start. Their Social Media Guidelines issued in advance of the games caused something of a stir, with regulations banning ticket holders from posting or uploading their own images, video and other digital recordings to social media or the Internet. So no burly Instagram shots of sprinters as they whizz past.

In contrast, the IOC and other sponsors have gone a bit social media bonkers in the final few days before the games. A whole host of sites and interactive content around the athletes, Olympic venues and London generally has popped up. Here’s a quick snapshot of what we have to look forward to:

Athletes Hub, Facebook, FourSquare, Google+ Twitter, Tumblr and more

Paid Content has published a handy rundown of the IOC’s official social media channels, which includes all the big names you’d expect.

Some highlights:

·         The Athletes Hub, aggregates 2,000 Twitter and Facebook accounts from athletes at the games in one place.

·         Four official Tumblr blogs to follow: olympics.tumblr.com, Faces Of Olympians, Olympic Fashion and Olympic Moments

·         Foursquare users checking in at Olympic venues will be in with a chance of winning tickets in a daily giveaway.  

Twitter photos from the Athletes Village

Even the athletes themselves are getting in on the social media fun, with a bit of cajoling from the IOC. The Guardian published a collection of photos posted on Twitter from the athletes as they arrived in the Athletes Village, their digs for the summer. The women’s football team seem to be having the most fun.  

London Eye

The colours of the London Eye’s nightly light show vary depending on Twitter sentiment. A clever sounding ‘intuitive algorithm’ developed by British professor Mike Thelwall from MIT, and his students, will monitor the sentiment of tweets during the games. Depending on how happy or sad the great British public is, the riverside ring will change colour. It’s yellow for happy, green for sad and purple for ‘meh’. The algorithm’s development is being sponsored by EDF Energy, which is also an official Olympics sponsor. The nightly show will also be live streamed of light show on EDF’s website.    

Quite a nice idea that last one. Although if Team GB aren’t winning gold and the weather sticks to British summer tradition we’re gona be seeing alotta green on the South Bank in the coming weeks. Lets pray for yellow.  

@simonhill

My previous posts on ASA rulings have started a bit of debate from my learned colleague Karan. I believe this is what you call a gentleman’s disagreement. So, to continue:

To the argument “it needs to be abundantly clear that you’re being paid to promote a product” on Twitter, I say posts containing branded URLs or discounts for haircuts already fulfil this criteria.

Labelling every single marketing-focused tweet with #ad would be like scrawling “this is an advert, make sure you want to buy this product before you buy it” across every billboard, poster, side of a bus, leaflet, flyer and printed ad in existence. Do we need to be reminded an image of Wayne Rooney looking stern and wearing a Nike shirt is an advert for the Nike shirt?

If you were to liken this practice to established rules and regulation, consider the imitation feature articles in national papers that have ‘Advertorial’ printed across the top of a page. This has always seemed strange to me. If you can’t fathom an 800 word feature article on a trouser press is an advertisement, how on earth did you make it to the shops to buy a paper without tripping over your idiocy. These advertorial labels must exist to safeguard papers against being sued by anyone who brought a trouser press under the impression the ‘bedroom dressing and equipment correspondent’ had recommended it to them. Every major or B-list celeb does not need the same safeguard.

The question on social media’s “constantly evolving” state doesn’t hold much mustard either. In such an evolving state consistency becomes more important, not less. Why bother to legislate at all if you’re simply look at the situation afresh each time. In any case, as quickly as social media does evolve, Twitter didn’t change that much between the Snickers and Nike rulings.

This is not ranting at the ASA for no reason. Just this morning, for example, a very sensible and consistent judgement was reported. Where the ASA had previously ruled on T-Mobile’s use of the term “truly unlimited” (against, by the way), they’d also stumbled into defining which services can be called “truly unlimited”. So when Virgin Media compiled Sky’s use of “totally unlimited downloads” was misleading, Sky simply pointed to the T-Mobile ruling and low and behold the ASA confirms they’re in the right.

Proof the ASA can be consistent. Now if they could just inch that thinking over to Twitter we’d all be set.

@simonhill

Everyone’s favourite advertising watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority, or ASA, is firmly stamping down on ‘unacceptable’ uses of Twitter an advertising platform. Tepid on the heels of a ban on Nike’s Make it Count campaign for failing to use the #ad hashtag in shoe-related tweets, the ASA has come down hard on those ‘actors’ from The Only Way is Essex, or TOWIE if you like.

Love it or physically want to beat yourself unconscious rather than endure one second of it, TOWIE is pretty popular. Said popularity has led to the ASA looking very closely at the tweets of a certain Gemma Collins.

Miss Collins has recently had her hair cut at hairdresser chain Toni & Guy. In two tweets deemed ‘marketing communications’, she enthused about how great her hair looked after a visit, followed by the below offering a 10% discount off a cut for anyone coming to the Lakeside shopping centre and mentioning her name. Truly a case of ‘not what you know…’.

As in Nike’s case, this is another questionable decision by the ASA. The very fact the tweet contains the mention of a ‘10% discount’ makes it pretty darn clear this is a marketing related statement. As one needs to mention Miss Collins’ name to get an equally ‘amazeballs’ haircut is also a clear indication this is marketing related. Do we really need a #ad in there as well? That would be three indicators of an ad in 140 – on top of the fact she’s a goddamn reality TV star.

If Collins was to include a #ad or similar, it’s likely this would cause, rather than clear up, confusion regarding the nature of the tweet. I’m hedging a guess the majority of her follows could deduce the promotional nature of the above tweet, but how many of them will instantly link #ad with advertising? It seems more likely they’d assume it’s to do with the programme in some way, or encouraging people to ‘add’ (follow) Toni & Guy. It’s not clear cut anyway (and just to avoid any confusion, that last sentence should be followed by #PunIntended).

Poor Toni & Guy has been somewhat singled out here as an example of the ASA’s increasingly zero tolerance stance. According to a source, Collins made the appointment herself and the tweet idea was a “spur of the moment” one. They also believed “the reference to a discount was clear evidence they were marketing communications”, according to The Guardian.

You can see their point.

Compare it to other TOWIE stars, for example Lauren Pope, and the picture gets more murky than the water in a fake tan soiled shower basin. Pope openly asked Virgin Airways on Twitter for free flights in exchange for “some twitter shout outs and PR”, says the Mail. Now, when one is blatantly presenting oneself in such a fashion, do we really need constant reminders of their habit of exchanging cash for product endorsements?  

The ASA rulings need a bit of work on consistency, and consideration for users’ common sense, before being fully effective.

@simonhill