Revolutionary Measures

Copy approval and the threat to the truth

The media today faces constant economic pressure – competition is up, digital has decimated advertising, and people are increasingly reading news via other sources such as Facebook and Twitter. This has had a major impact on revenues and how they operate, including increasing the importance of advertorial, paid-for content within publications or on websites.Clarebalding

It has also strengthened the hand of brands, and celebrities who have money or clout, and are increasingly precious about their image. Witness the HP spokesperson complaining to the Financial Times after a throwaway negative reference to HP CEO Meg Whitman, threatening to pull advertising from the newspaper.

This shift has also led to a rise in attempts to control the message in mainstream media, at a time when social media has taken away control in other areas. Two areas come to mind – interviews and copy approval. When I started in PR, most interviews with trade press were organised, a briefing provided to the spokesperson and they were given the journalist’s number to call. Follow-up ensured that the journalist had everything they wanted, but that was the extent of the control. Since then, even the most straightforward interview with the most trusted interviewer, has to have a PR person present. This is fine if all they are doing is keeping track of what was said, housekeeping and politely reminding the spokesperson if they’ve missed something vital.

The second area, copy approval, is much more insidious, and is in the news this week with a media debate about an interview carried out for Saga Magazine by journalist Ginny Dougary with presenter Clare Balding. Dougary claims that Balding and her agent were given copy approval of the resulting piece, and inserted additional material and quotes within it, prompting her to ask for her name to be removed from the article. Balding insists that the Saga editor herself made the changes and that she did not have copy approval.

Whatever the real story behind what has predictably been dubbed the #SagaSaga, it does bring into the light the whole area of copy approval i.e. the subject of an interview being shown the draft article and being able to make changes to it. I’ve never worked in celebrity PR but I know that many interviews don’t take place without copy approval in place, even if it is just to ensure that the interviewee’s new book/play/cuddly toy/wedding get a mention, while certain areas are declared off-limits to questions.

What is insidious is that granting copy approval by its nature makes the resulting article less independent. Some of the most interesting interviews I’ve read have a tension or awkwardness between the subject and the journalist, which actually adds to the story and your understanding of the person involved. Copy approval means that interviews are more likely to be bland and on-message, controlled by the brand. There is a big difference between sharing an article for fact checking (which journalists I’ve worked with have done before when covering very technical subjects), and copy approval of the whole piece.

As Dougary points out, copy approval undermines independence. If people stop believing that what they read in properly researched, fact checked, mainstream media, then we are accelerating down the road to fake news at alarming speed. This case may be about a celebrity in a consumer magazine, but the principle is the same – the public need to be certain that the stories they see in the press are not controlled by the subject, and are unbiased. Otherwise, it does whittle away at the truth, harming the whole media industry and removing debate at a time when we need it most.

Photo By Keith Page (Claire Balding) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Advertisements

October 4, 2017 Posted by | PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moore’s Law – will it make 60?

50 years ago, engineer Gordon Moore wrote an article that has become the bedrock of computing. Moore’s Law, as first described in the article, states that the number of elements that could be fitted onto the same size piece of silicon doubles every year. It was then revised to every two years, and elements changed to transistors, but has basically held true for five decades. Essentially it means that computing power doubles every two years – and consequently gets considerably cheaper over time.

"The new Hewlett-Packard 9100A personal c...

What is interesting is to look back over the last 50 years and see how completely different the IT landscape is today. Pretty much all companies that were active in the market when Moore’s Law was penned have disappeared (with IBM being a notable exception and HP staggering on). Even Intel, the company Moore co-founded, didn’t get started until after he’d written the original article. At the same time IT has moved from a centralised mainframe world, with users interacting through dumb terminals to a more distributed model of a powerful PC on every desk. Arguably, it is now is heading back to an environment where the Cloud provides the processing power and we use PCs, tablets or phones that, while powerful, cannot come close to the speed of Cloud-based servers. This centralised model works well when you have fast connectivity but doesn’t function at all when your internet connection is down, leaving you twiddling your thumbs.

Looking around and comparing a 1960’s mainframe and today’s smartphone you can see Moore’s Law in action, but how long will it continue to work for? The law’s demise has been predicted for some time, and as chips become ever smaller the processes and fabs needed to make them become more complex and therefore more expensive. This means that the costs have to be passed on somehow – at the moment high end smartphone users are happy to pay a premium for the latest, fastest model, but it is difficult to see this lasting for ever, particularly as the whizzier the processor the quicker batteries drain. The Internet of Things (IoT) will require chips with everything, but size and power constraints, and the fact that the majority of IoT sensors will not need huge processing power means that Moore’s Law isn’t necessary to build the smart environments of the future.

Desktop and laptop PCs used to be the biggest users of chips, and the largest beneficiaries of Moore’s Law, becoming increasingly powerful without the form factor having to be changed. But sales are slowing, as people turn to a combination of tablets/phones and the processing power of the Cloud. Devices such as Google Chromebooks can use lower spec chips as it uses the Cloud for the heavy lifting, thus making it cheaper. At the same time, the servers within the datacentres that are running these Cloud services aren’t as space constrained, so miniaturisation is less of a priority.

Taken together these factors probably mean that while Moore’s Law could theoretically carry on for a long time, the economics of a changing IT landscape could finish it off within the next 10 years. However, its death has been predicted many times before, so it would take a brave person to write its epitaph just yet.

April 22, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s the right size for a tech company?

The news that HP is splitting itself in two (ironically a few years after a previous CEO lost his job for proposing the same idea) made me think about the size and structure of tech companies. Some companies invest in growing rapidly and aim to be biggest in their field, others focus on niches, while a third group aim to be a jack of multiple trades, spanning diverse sectors.

HP was previously in the jack of all trades camp, with its fingers in lots of different pies, from enterprise software and services, through servers and networking equipment, to consumer PCs and printers. It will now become two companies, one focused on the enterprise and the other on PCs and printers. Sadly, it haEnglish: This sign welcomes visitors to the he...s missed the chance to name one H and the other P, going instead for the more prosaic Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc.

While the two companies will be smaller, they will still each have over $50bn in revenues, and are likely to be hard to disentangle. At the same time eBay has announced it will divest its PayPal subsidiary, following pressure from shareholders and the entrance of Apple into the payments market. I must admit to being cynical about efforts by many tech titans to refocus themselves – it can look suspiciously like a random throw of the dice that keeps investors happy but has no real long term strategy behind it. After all, the world’s most valuable tech company, Apple provides software, hardware (mobile and desktop) and music and video content, alongside payments, maps and health data. And no-one has yet pressured it to split.

However there are definitely optimum size and types of company, depending on the maturity of the market they are in. Emerging sectors, such as the Internet of Things, change fast, so a company needs to be flexible and focused, with the ability to pivot quickly and respond to market conditions. It stands to reason that smaller players will be able to do this faster than legacy behemoths.

Mature markets run less on innovation, with much tighter margins. You are selling a replacement piece of software/hardware and any new features are likely to be incremental not transformative. Consequently the bigger you are the greater the economies of scale when dealing with suppliers and customers. The car industry is a perfect example outside the tech industry, where you need to be big to have a chance of profitability.

The tech industry is going through a rapid wave of change, driven by the move to the cloud and the rise of mobile devices. Previous shifts (such as from the mainframe to the minicomputer and then the server) have led to market leaders falling by the wayside – does anyone remember the likes of Data General for example? In fact HP has done well to survive so long, with a heritage that dates back to 1939. What will be interesting to see is if can make it to its 80th birthday in 2019, or whether it will be carved into even smaller chunks before then………..

 

October 8, 2014 Posted by | Cambridge, Marketing, Startup | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Autonomy loses its autonomy

Autonomy Corporation

Image via Wikipedia

The news that Cambridge technology leader Autonomy is to be bought by HP for £7 billion has led to plenty of soul-searching and editorialising about British tech know-how being (again) being subsumed into an international megacorporation.

Like many people I’m sad that Autonomy is no longer independent, but it was definitely coming. Autonomy had put itself in the shop window – for example through sports sponsorship of both Spurs and the Mercedes Grand Prix team (interesting that HP is a previous Tottenham shirt sponsor) and CEO Mike Lynch has had a robust/adversarial relationship with the city, characterised by complaints that the company share price didn’t reflect the real value of the business. And HP paying a premium of 64 per cent on yesterday’s closing price seems to bear out his stance.

But this isn’t the end for Autonomy or its impact on the Cambridge tech scene. While overseas operations may well be merged into local HP offices, it makes no sense to shut down R&D in Cambridge as HP doesn’t have any similar technologies within its software portfolio. Autonomy is at the centre of a Cambridge cluster of businesses based on intelligent search (in one form or another) and this can only continue and grow if, as promised, HP invests in its new acquisition.

Add to this that there is now a serious amount of potential investment floating around Cambridge in particular and the UK in general for new tech ventures and, over time, this can only significantly strengthen the UK software scene. So time to celebrate success and look to the future rather than indulge in hand-wringing about British assets falling into foreign hands.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Cambridge | , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments