People are still coming to terms with the lack of privacy that social media and the online world have brought. Some are happy with the fact that ‘privacy is no longer the social norm’ (to quote Mark Zuckerberg). However for many more of us the fact that our every online move is tracked (whether by large companies or the NSA) is a big worry. But at the moment, the usefulness of free online services, such as search and social media, outweigh the intrusion. After all, it is confined to the virtual world and provided you don’t do anything stupid, like give out your house number on Facebook, you can keep your real life separate from the web.
But the shrinking size of cameras, and the forthcoming launch of Google Glass, promise to merge the offline and online worlds like never before. Whether deliberately or by accident you can photograph and share images, video and audio in real time, without the knowledge of those around you. Combining this with the vast store of digital information on the web enables people and places to be easily identified, tagged and shared. So far Google Glass has privacy safeguards built in – it bans facial recognition apps and requires either a voice command or tapping the top of the glasses to take a photo. However given that there is already a hack to take photos by winking, I can see developers getting round this all too easily.
Should we be scared? The normal argument trotted out by those in favour of increased surveillance is that only the guilty or those with something to hide should be worried. And obviously the ability for the police to identify criminals and terrorists is a major positive of ubiquitous cameras. But what about the person who happens to be snapped where he or she isn’t expected to be – on their way back from a secret rendezvous with a lover, or a job interview that they don’t want their existing employer to know about? The difference between official surveillance, where access to the pictures is tightly controlled, and the world of personal photo sharing, is that everyone can see everything, without safeguards to limit access. There’s already issues with unauthorised photos taken upskirt or down blouse by low lifes with camera phones. Add in facial recognition to these, enabling the victims to be identified, and it makes the whole practice much more sinister.
For me the even more disturbing thought is what businesses can do with this data. Advertisers already have access to your location, your past browsing history and what you have previously bought. Add in what you are looking at, and your reaction to it, and it gives a 360 degree view of your behaviour. Spend five minutes idly staring at a poster at a bus stop? Look at a pair of jeans in a shop window? Expect it to be noted and used to sell to you.
Don’t get me wrong, the proliferation of personal cameras can be a good thing. They can be used to provide information on the world around us – want to know what that plant is or what bird is singing nearby? Google Glass can help. They benefit dementia patients, enabling them to fill in the gaps in their worsening memory. Personal cameras provide a tamper-proof record of conversations that can prevent litigation against doctors, couriers or the police. But in my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives.
What is needed is a fundamental review of privacy and how it is enforced. And that needs to happen now, before Google Glass and its competitors hit the streets and become mass-market. Social media failed to do this – there privacy was an add on rather than built in from the start and this has had a major impact on how our personal data is shared. When it comes to something even more personal, what we see and what we hear, governments and businesses must act now to guarantee privacy before it is too late.
November 20, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Marketing, Social Media | cameras, Facebook, Google, Google Glass, Mark Zuckerberg, Privacy, Searching, social media, surveillance, YouTube | Leave a Comment
Everyone in business today has a plethora of communication channels to choose from, split between analogue (face to face, phone) and digital (email, social media, text, web). But is it a good thing?
As a member of Generation X (roughly defined as born between the mid 1960s and early 1980s) when I started work in public relations the only ‘digital’ communication was the letter (and extreme cases of urgency the fax). So analogue channels were pretty much the sole way of interacting with colleagues, talking to clients and pitching to the press. That meant that you had to develop verbal communication strengths such as being able to respond quickly to questions, give succinct answers and carry a conversation.
And PR was typical of all professions at the time – we were forced to speak to people (even if it was scary) and consequently got reasonably good at it.
But this has changed with the entry into the workplace of Generation Y. Weaned on new technology, these digital natives never had to learn to use email, social media or text as new channels – as far as they are concerned they’ve always been there. Lots of people I know comment on how much quieter today’s offices are as people are simply not on the telephone.
Which brings me to my issue. At the risk of sounding old, Generation Y need to start picking up the phone rather than hiding behind email and social media. It is very easy to craft a wonderful email, hit send and believe the job is done. Research quoted in Fresh Business Thinking found that 1 in 20 18-24 year olds is terrified of using the phone in work – and I reckon that’s a gross underestimate. The survey also found that 40% of 18-24 year olds were made nervous by telephone communication, against 28% of the total workforce.
We’ve all ducked making that call and sent an email instead (whatever generation we are), but here’s three reasons I think it doesn’t always get results:
1 Lost in transit
Most people get hundreds of emails every day and with the best will in the world it is easy to overlook one out of the many, whether deliberately or not. So the end result is that you don’t get a response and either have to re-send the email or try another channel.
2 Lost in translation
Even if everyone in the email conversation speaks the same language the chance of misinterpretation is high. Something that you can explain verbally can appear rude or just unclear, giving the wrong impression or leading to being ignored.
3 Lost in the gaps
With a phone call, or face to face, you need to think on your feet and try and build a rapport. You can change your tone, explain things and actually persuade someone by listening to what they are saying and responding accordingly. You simply can’t do that on email. While someone might come back with a question they are more likely to just hit delete and move to the next email.
I’m not Luddite enough to suggest going back to the days of telephone only communication, but people need to understand that there are advantages and drawbacks to every channel and pick the right one for each particular task. That might be email, social media or text – but it is vital that today’s workforce doesn’t neglect the telephone or we’ll end up as a nation of business mutes rather than engaging communicators.
October 30, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | Business, Chris Measures, Communication, Facebook, Generation X, Generation Y, marketing, Measures Consulting, Public Relations, social media, Telephone, twitter | Leave a Comment
Like a lot of people I’ve been impressed by the current easyJet TV ads. Celebrating ‘generation easyJet’, the group of travellers that the airline claims was created due to its low fares and wide range of destinations, it is modern, engaging and aspirational. There’s no overt mention of price (in contrast to Ryanair’s pile them high and sell them cheap advertising), and the overall approach is grown up and comparable to ‘proper’ airlines. The message is travel with easyJet to do the things you love.
However in an age of social media and consumer activism advertising can’t trump reality. Two recent easyJet blunders threaten to undo the slick ads, damage its brand and put off prospective passengers.
Firstly, it initially refused to let a passenger who criticised it on Twitter board his flight. Lawyer Mark Leiser sent a tweet after his plane from Glasgow to London was delayed, potentially preventing a soldier on his way to active service reaching his base in Portsmouth. easyJet allegedly said they wouldn’t help pay for him to get to his destination. After tweeting Leiser was pulled out of the boarding queue and told by a manager that he couldn’t get on the plane as ‘you can’t tweet stuff like that and get on an easyJet flight.’ It was only when the manager found out that Leiser was a lawyer that they changed their mind and let him on. easyJet later apologised and denied that it was its policy to ban passengers based on what they’d said. However by then the damage was done as Leiser’s original tweets were shared around the world and then picked up by major media.
A couple of weeks later easyJet managed to leave 29 passengers behind even though they’d passed through the boarding gate and completed check-in (and had hold luggage on the plane). Interestingly statistics from YouGov found that nearly 10% of UK Twitter users heard about the story, showing the power of social media to spread bad news.
Obviously easyJet is not the only airline to suffer at the hands of social media. After BA lost his parent’s luggage, Hasan Syed invested in a campaign of promoted tweets focused on the airline’s target audience, leading to the #BASucks hashtag trending. Eventually BA customer service responded, apologising for not getting back sooner but (I kid you not) the global airline’s social media team only works 9-5. Like easyJet, BA has an ambitious new ad campaign out now, highlighting its “To Fly, To Serve” motto. No news on whether they are going to amend that to “To Serve (business hours only).”
easyJet has invested over £5m in its new ad campaign and I’m sure BA has spent a lot more. But it looks like a classic case of being distracted by shiny things. A much smaller investment in social media and staff training might not look as impressive, but in today’s world may well go a lot further.
By bringing the world together the internet opens up pretty much unlimited possibilities. You can discover completely new topics and interests, communicate with people across the globe and access a myriad of content that was previously unavailable.
More and more of what we read, watch and listen to comes via the internet – and this is only going to increase as previously analogue services such as TV go digital. On one hand this widens choice, but how do we navigate and find things we are interested in? And more to the point, is just watching what we’re interested in necessarily a good thing?
Showing my age, when I was growing up I had a choice of three TV channels (I remember the excitement of the Channel 4 launch), and video recorders were in their infancy. So you watched what was on – or switched the TV off and did something (less boring) instead. That meant there was a greater chance of stumbling upon a programme or subject that you wouldn’t have chosen to watch but actually widened your knowledge. I’m not saying the 1970s was a golden age of TV but you were likely to see a broad range of subjects in your daily viewing.
Now we have a plethora of channels and there’s always that nagging fear that there’s something better on the other side. Navigating this maze is difficult – how do you choose what to watch when there are thousands of alternatives? The way I see it there are essentially three ways of making a choice:
Robots – like Amazon Recommendations your TV/Set Top Box or PC sees what you have watched and enjoyed in the past and comes up with more of the same. However this essentially narrows your viewpoint – you’ll potentially end up watching programmes very similar to those you’ve seen before. The same goes for search – after all, you’ve got to know what you’re looking for before you type something into Google.
Friends – personal recommendations work, provided they come from people you trust. And given pretty much every programme is available on catch-up TV, you can view what your friends on like after the fact. And social media provides a quick way of gathering recommendations. Better than robots, but still likely to keep your watching within a relatively constricted area – after all we’re governed by a herd mind.
Editorial choice – what does the newspaper/TV guide say is good and worth watching? TV previews tend to cover a wide range of subjects so can highlight programmes that you wouldn’t normally watch. All good, but even with glowing reviews some programmes may not sound like your cup of tea and you won’t watch them.
Ironically the digital world can give us too much choice and make us flee back into watching a tiny fraction of its range. So, what’s the solution – or does there even need to be one? I’d argue that we should rely less on robots or even our friends and trust to serendipity – switching on the TV to a random channel and giving the programme 10 minutes to make an impression. Yes, it might mean seeing some duds but it also gives the chance of finding a new area that will change your life. Now all we need is an app to help us do that……………
Twitter is currently at a pivotal point in its development in the UK. Having celebrated its seventh birthday in March, it now has 10 million users in the country and worldwide 400 million tweets are sent every day.
It is worth looking at these figures in the context of the current publicity around the hateful trolling of female celebrities on the microblogging network. Over 1 in 5 of the UK adult population is on Twitter and, as Baroness Lane-Fox has pointed out, the danger is that the genuine outrage about misogynistic threats on social networking will drown out the issues of violence against women in the real world.
Clearly there is a wider issue about how people, particularly men, feel they can treat others. Social media provides an anonymous and easy way to broadcast their ‘thoughts’, as they are able to hide behind their keyboards rather than having the guts to talk directly to people.
The danger is that the current abuse will drive right-minded people away from Twitter and it will lose some of its variety and ability to enable millions of conversations. A second worry is that in the run up to the election, the government will take action that, while it cracks down on trolls, curtails genuine freedom of speech.
So what can be done? While the 24 hour boycott was well-intentioned it risks the trolls feeling they’ve won. In my opinion what is needed is, unfortunately, increased proactive policing of the network. Twitter’s decision to add a report abuse button to every tweet is a step in the right direction but at the moment trolls don’t see the consequences of their actions. In the same way that the Lord McAlpine Twitter libel case brought home to people that social media is not above the law, a similar high profile trial of trolls is needed to demonstrate that abuse, threats and harassment is as unacceptable online as off.
Currently the CPS guidelines on prosecuting offensive tweets require either a credible threat of violence, stalking/harassment of specific individuals or breach of a court order. ‘Grossly offensive, indecent, offensive or false’ communications have to pass a high threshold of evidence and the guidelines state that ‘in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest.’ Therefore while prosecutions would happen for some of the most high profile trolling cases, the vast majority will slip through the net. The police have said they don’t have the resources to monitor every offensive communication. This puts the ball back into Twitter’s court and it is time it began suspending accounts more quickly and making it more difficult to reactivate them. Naming and shaming of trolls is another option – witness the abject apology given to Mary Beard after someone threatened to tell the troll’s mother about his behaviour.
Twitter, like other social networks, has crossed the chasm into mainstream life. What is needed is fast action to demonstrate that actions online have the same consequences as they would have offline, with fast prosecution of offenders and, before that, suspension of accounts. While this may not cure misogyny and violence against women in the real world, it will send out a strong message that it will not be tolerated online.
- Twitter threats highlight blight of online trolls (kansascity.com)
- Don’t Feed the Trolls: New Anti-Abuse Button Introduced On Twitter (thesterlingroad.com)
- Mary Beard silences offensive Twitter troll (guardian.co.uk)
In an increasingly cluttered world, reaching consumers with your ads is becoming incredibly difficult. We watch programmes on catch-up TV and fast forward the adverts, ignore online banner ads and routinely delete marketing emails unread.
So how can advertisers respond? Step forward the latest Japanese idea – using women as walking billboards. Public relations consultant Hidenori Atsumi is paying young Japanese women to put adverts on their thighs and walk round Tokyo for eight hours a day. His rationale is that it is an area that men want to look at anyway and that women are happy to expose. Even ignoring all the inherent sexism in the idea I think it is a tactic that doesn’t have a long term future, despite the column inches it is currently generating. While men won’t get bored of looking at women’s thighs, the impact will wear off – they’ll remember the medium rather than the message.
However the idea got me thinking, so here’s my top five underexploited ways of advertising and reaching the right audience
In a counterpoint to young women’s thighs, another body part that gets a lot of attention is the head. You could dye hair in corporate colours or sculpt it to look like a product or company logo. Beards and moustaches offer another great opportunity. Alternatively for the follicly challenged, bald heads make a great space to display your message.
2 Beer glasses
I have seen some adverts on the bottom of beer glasses, but it still seems like an underused space. Obviously you need to keep the message simple so it is understandable after a few pints, but it would be a perfect way of reaching drinkers. How about a ‘Buy Crisps’ advert to boost pub snack sales – or for the more hardened drinker ‘Buy Alka Seltzer’……
You can buy bean seeds that supposedly grow a leaf with a word on them, but that’s small in comparison to what could be done with careful breeding and a bit of ingenuity. Individual plants with a sponsor’s name or whole fields that display a message when viewed from above. Perfect for farmers near airports to boost their income.
4 3D Printers
3D printers are becoming cheaper and cheaper – you can now buy one for £699 in Maplin. But what if you were actually given one for free – but in return every third or fourth thing it made was an advert or replica of a product someone was trying to sell you. Essentially the Spotify model brought into the physical world. You could even hook up a webcam and social media so that it automatically tweeted a picture of the object to your social media followers.
5 Personalised billboards
We walk past billboards every day and often don’t give them a second glance. But if they addressed us by name and delivered a personalised advert that would be different. It should be relatively simple to use smartphone proximity to trigger ‘your’ ad to appear – and it could even be based on your location. A billboard between the train station and your house would advise you to buy milk on your way home or one outside a clothes shop can offer a discount on new trousers. Providing you situate them in less busy areas (Leicester Square isn’t going to work) they’d be able to deliver a personalised message to a steady stream of consumers.
Any other ideas I’ve missed? Tattooing toddlers or affixing ads to animals? Let me know in the comment section.
July 24, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Marketing | 3D printers, advertising, Alka Seltzer, billboards, cows, Hidenori Atsumi, Japan, Leicester Square, social media, Tokyo | Leave a Comment
The world of business used to be a simpler place. Companies worked in a linear fashion, creating products and services and then marketing and selling them to consumers. Most organisations had a single business model and customers were very much at the end of the chain.
The rise of the internet, greater communication and social media has changed all of this. Rather than being driven by brands, consumers have now taken back power and are in the driving seat. Don’t like the service you’ve received? Social media provides a megaphone to broadcast your concerns. Dislike the attitude or activities of a major brand? Use the power of the internet to force them to change. The #FBrape campaign succeeded in forcing Facebook to change how it dealt with gender-based hate speech on the network, both by demonstrating the scale of anger (60,000 tweets and 5,000 emails in less than a week) and by lobbying advertisers to remove their adverts from the network.
And the new world order goes much further than this. Companies need to tap into this complexity to co-create with their customers rather than continue in the top down, industrial mindset that we’ve known for so long. That’s the view of visionary thinker and Cambridge-based author Alan Moore, who talked through his book No Straight Lines at last week’s CamCreative.
Alan sees five key areas for companies that are being disrupted to focus on as they move into the uncomfortable zone of today’s business reality. They are:
The non-linear world is complex and unclear. Rather than fearing the unknown companies need to unleash their curiosity to see how they can change.
As Wittgenstein said “the limits of our language are the limits of our world”, so everyone (companies and individuals) needs the knowledge, skills and tools to formulate what they want and how they can request it.
We’re not in a monoculture anymore. Companies in all industries need to open up to work with their customers and other partners to design and deliver the products and services they want. Crowdfunding is the perfect example of how this delivers results, as is Lego’s Cuusoo site where builders post designs of new models. If it gets enough support from the community the design is turned into a fully-fledged product, with the inventor receiving a royalty.
4 Participatory cultures and tools
Humans are not machines and we want to make meaning in our lives, participating in the world around us and providing input into things close to our heart. The rise of fan fiction demonstrates this, with people actively extending the stories that they love. Rather than reaching for the lawyers, creative companies need to work with enthusiasts to benefit everyone.
The old model of build it and it will sell is broken. Companies need to continually update and adapt their products, listening to feedback without fear of failure.
The new world order can have a transformational impact on your business and the lives of us all. Companies need to embrace this and deliver an epic response to meet the needs of the world around them.
Whatever your business, marketers and creatives need to understand and react to the changing world, making it more relevant to everyone. There’s a lot more in No Straight Lines, which can be accessed online for the price of a tweet or bought in paperback or Kindle editions – it is well worth a read.
July 3, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Cambridge, Creative, Marketing | Alan Moore, CamCreative, disruption, Facebook, Marketing and Advertising, No Straight Lines, social media, twitter | 2 Comments
Everyone is bombarded with marketing messages – from the moment you switch on the TV or radio in the morning to emails with the latest offers, posters by the side of the road and adverts on the internet.
The trouble is, as every marketer knows, even the most targeted consumer campaign has a lot of waste. Only 3% of unsolicited postal marketing leads to a sale and online conversion rates hover well under fractions of per cent. Not only is this expensive from a company point of view, but it also risks alienating consumers who object to being spammed with things that simply don’t interest them at that point in time.
And all of this is despite the fact that companies now hold massive amounts of data on our buying habits and can easily access our demographic profiles that we’ve provided to loyalty schemes or just posted up on the likes of Facebook.
According to researchers from IBM, the problem is that studying demographics and buying habits is a deeply flawed method. Just because you live in the same area as another 40-something bloke and earn around the same doesn’t mean you have the same interests. What is needed, according to the IBM team at the Almaden Research Centre, is to discover the deep psychological profiles of customers, including their personalities, values and needs.
There are five dimensions of personality recognised by modern psychology:
- Openness to experience
Research has already shown that these traits link to buying behaviour. Agreeable people prefer Pepsi to Coke and if you link your product messages to excitement and adventure, it will appeal to the extroverts.
All well and good, but how can brands find out the psychological profiles of their potential customers? After all, no-one is going to go through a long personality test to give marketers the information they need to harass them.
The answer is via social media, specifically Twitter. IBM’s research has used software to analyse three months data from 90m Twitter users, matching the words people use against their values and needs. It took just 50 tweets to get a reasonable match for their personality and a very good fit from 200.
The moral of this story? As I’ve said many times, you are what you tweet. And as Sally Bercow’s court case has shown, it isn’t just words, but how they are interpreted, that define you. So be careful what you say, and if you want to put advertisers off the scent throw in a few random comments to confuse the targeting software…………..
- How can Twitter reveal your personality? (economist.com)
June 5, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Marketing, Social Media | advertising, Facebook, IBM, junk mail, marketing, Pepsi, Personality test, Psycology, Sally Bercow, social media, spam, twitter | Leave a Comment
Pretty much everyone now has the means to report what is going on in the world around them. Even the most basic phone has a camera, and it is simple to post images, video and text to social media sites at the click of a button. Consequently citizen journalists – ordinary people doing the job of trained reporters – are everywhere.
And there are significant benefits to our understanding of the world. Particularly in straitened times, journalists can’t be everywhere at once and often arrive after the news event has actually happened. In many cases, such as during the Arab Spring, journalists can be banned or censored by regimes and individuals that don’t want stories to be reported. So citizen journalists with camera phones can be our sole source of first hand information. Much of this then feeds into the traditional media, with TV news and national newspapers running stories based on reports filed by citizen journalists.
Nearer to home, the closure of many local newspapers has spurred community activists to launch alternative sites and blogs. Many of these aim to hold local councils and elected representatives to account, using the Freedom of Information Act to unearth key facts about how we are governed.
All great stuff and to be praised, but there are three key reasons that we should be wary about what citizen journalists write, publish and upload.
Firstly, bias. As someone that studied history, I know that bias is evident in anything we say, write or do – whether we know it or not. Professional journalists are trained to understand both sides of a story and (as much as possible) divorce bias from what they are writing. It is why the majority of stories have quotes for and against a subject in them, even if the overall tone is slanted to left or right. Citizen journalists don’t have this training and may well have an axe to grind – potentially making their reports unreliable, whether consciously or not.
Second, the law. The laws of libel apply equally to the internet, as many people found out with the Lord McAlpine case. Again, journalists are trained to understand libel law and what can and can’t be said. Reddit’s coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing demonstrated what can happen when citizen journalists are given an unpoliced platform. The site’s Find Boston Bombers thread wrongly accused several people of being involved in the atrocity, leading to harassment of their families and potentially slowing down the police investigation. In today’s instant news cycle, where an unsubstantiated tweet can be front page news in seconds, there’s a real issue with potentially malicious or unthinking reports quickly making it into the mainstream news.
Finally, there’s the area of copyright. Lots of news sites now actively encourage you to upload your pictures, video and text to give added perspective on news and features. The latest, the Guardian’s Witness site, provides the chance to contribute to live news and other content through a smartphone app. Content is vetted before going onto the site, with stories and videos made available to journalists for potentially developing into bigger pieces. All great, except that as soon as you post your prized video, The Guardian gets an unconditional, perpetual and worldwide licence to use it as it sees fit. You may still retain the copyright, but the paper can commercially exploit the content however it wants.
Controlling how news is reported and disseminated is inextricably linked to power. Hence why dictatorships have always censored or removed the free press and run state TV stations with a rod of iron. While much of the western world has moved on from that, media is often controlled by a certain group, making citizen journalism a vital part of the opening up of reporting to everyone. But if it is to truly make a lasting impact for good, citizen journalists need to understand their own responsibilities when it comes to bias, the law and copyright and act accordingly.
- What is citizen journalism? (blm371.wordpress.com)
May 1, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, PR | Arab Spring, Boston Marathon, citizen journalism, citizenjournalism, Guardian, Journalism, Journalist, libel, McAlpine, Media, social media | 1 Comment
Why Revolutionary Measures?
Marketing is undergoing a revolution. The advent of social media provides the opportunity for one-to-one communication for the first time since the move to an industrial society. This blog will look at what this means for B2B PR and marketing, incorporating my own thoughts/rants and interests. Do let me know your feedback!
About meI'm Chris Measures and I've spent the last 18 years creating and implementing PR and marketing campaigns for technology companies. I've worked with everyone from large quoted companies to fast growth start-ups, giving me unrivalled experience and ideas. I'm now director of Measures Consulting, an agency that uses this expertise to deliver PR and marketing success for technology businesses.
- RT @Cabume: Hubs, bridges and the discovery of America. Great guest blog by @ChrisMeasures ow.ly/rFhHq 8 hours ago
- @AnnHawkins @paulsmithuk @CamBizLounge And the coffee in Starbucks is horrible! 14 hours ago
- The Cambridge startup cluster - what's working, what isn't (my blog) measuresconsulting.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/the… #startup 14 hours ago
- Legally in the right, but not good for brand>>BBC News - Zavvi threatens shoppers after accidental PS Vita deliveries bbc.in/1f6Ihgu 15 hours ago
- RT @uktechnews: [Telegraph] Twitter is 'best technology firm to work for' bit.ly/1bDpWIf 15 hours ago
advertising Android Apple ARM Autonomy BBC BBC Micro big data Business Cambridge Cambridge Judge Business School Cambridgeshire Cambridge University CamCreative CfEL Coca Cola Daily Mail David Cameron Deloitte Design Entrepreneur Eric Schmidt Facebook Google government Guardian Hermann Hauser Huffington Post IBM Idea Transform innovation iPad IPhone iTunes Journalism LinkedIn London marketing Marketing and Advertising Mark Zuckerberg Measures Consulting Mentorship Microsoft Mike Lynch mobile MySpace New York Times Nokia Norwich Online Communities Pebble Pitch and Mix PR Privacy Public Relations Raspberry Pi Red Gate Software Silicon Fen Silicon Roundabout Silicon Valley Smartphone social media Social network Starbucks startup Startup Weekend Steve Jobs Tech City Ted Shelton twitter United States Wikileaks Wired YouTube ZX Spectrum
Site infoRevolutionary Measures
The Andreas04 Theme.