I saw this and thought of you

It can be embarrassing if you have to retract your customer complaint:

"oh no - I thought it was like an artists impression, not instructions..."

Demanding Content

According to a new study, more of the Great British youf watch music videos on YouTube than traditional channels like MTV (57% of 15-24 year olds watched music on YouTube, compared to 56% watching them on TV). But poor ol' YouTube has had to take a load of music videos down after a row broke out about licensing fees.

Working in tech PR I've been listening to companies talk about content on demand for donkey's. And back when I first started in tech PR, I was rather taken with the first incarnation of Napster (is it illegal to admit that?).

I'll also admit another taboo...I find it hard to part with cash for digital content.

I don't get anything tangible in my hands. I pay my license fee because it's like a utility bill, I have a Lovefilm subscription because they post me things (DVDs to be precise, I don't have a special agreement with them). But when it comes of video on demand, if I want to see something, by hook or by crook I will make it happen.

But that doesn't mean I won't pay for it, it's just that option is more often than not unavailable, making it physically impossible to part with cash.

So why isn't it legally available - I said I'd pay for it, why can't I? Usually it's because the series/movie/whatever is only out in the States, not the UK, and as such I am expected to wait. Me? Wait? Outrageous.

But this is a problem for content owners - I am a problem. Piracy funds terrorism, we all know that right? Mickey Mouse working for the Taliban is an image conjured by many a political comedian ove rthe years. But the VOD services out there are simply not good enough. I want more than content on demand, I am demanding content.

Take last night as a case in point. Lovefilm sent me Disk 1 of Apparitions, a BBC series from last year that I'd never seen but had wanted to. I loved it, and after watching all 3 episodes over the course of the weekend, and being left on a cliffhanger edge for part 4, I realised that I needed that next episode. I'll have to wait a couple of days to get it from LoveFilm, and BBC iPlayer doesn't keep stuff from back in November. I was screwed, and found myself trawling the web for somewhere I could download it.

Now...would I have paid for that download? Yes. If I'd found it, I wanted to watch it so badly that I would have happily paid a couple of quid for it. But so too would I have broken the law and watched an illegal copy, because I wanted to see it - correction, I needed to see it.

The whole experience of watching and listening to things is so utterly different from owning a gadget or a gizmo that us mere mortals find it hard to check our morals when the desperation to find out what happens next takes over. It's like reading a book, you stay up late to get to the end, forgoing sleep and rocking up to work the next day broken and tired with a crick in your neck simply because you could not put the darned thing down.

So there's the rub. Traditional broadcasters have no choice but to change their business models because we're all 5 steps ahead of content on demand, we're demanding what we want, when we want it. These people have been talking about VOD for so long now, it's time to shape up or continue to lose money on stolen/pirated copy.

See what I did there? It's not my fault if I view pirated video, it's because I didn't have any other choice.

Epilogue:
I never managed to find Apparitions online, and so have ordered disk 2 from Lovefilm - it's the only one in my rental list on high priority so hopefully it's next to arrive this week.

For the Legal Eagles:
This blog does not condone the distribution or consumption of illegally obtained content.

Converging or Colliding?

We're always hearing about convergence and we all own converged devices, one of the most common being the lowly camera phone. But now there seems to be a new battle for the most converged devices in the home, and who will be in control of them.

Currently my living room is like one of those old stackable home audio systems, featuring a plethora of boxes under the TV; my freeview, DVD, VHS (yes...I still have tapes I wanna watch), a CambridgeSoundworks Wave Radio, my SlingCatcher...and so the list goes on.

None of these are converged, none of them could be at the time of purchase and even if a one-size-fits-all product were to emerge I doubt I'd rush out and buy it because I have a snazzy TV unit bought as a wedding gift from John Lewis that houses all of these things beautifully and tidily. It'd look sparse if I only had one device.

But if the future pictures being painted by the gadget Gods are anything to go by, we'll all have phones implanted in our teeth and a central 'hub' in the home ordering milk for us.

The O2 Joggler is one of the first in what I'm sure will be a long line of devices trying to be this central hub. We've already seen the router manufacturers giving is easy to use network management software, and this is kind of like that, but a physical onscreen interface that lets you manage the network of your family - I don't mean their online set-up, but their calendar.

A nice idea, but standalone it has a cat in hell's change of ever being the defacto device. There are too may device manufacturers and service providers all making a play for that central role, and if they don't start really working well together we'll never get any closer to having a truly converged home, and my John Lewis TV unit will always be needed.

Besides, in those films set in the future where the home has a central hub ("lights on"), something always goes wrong and the home computer takes over, trapping everyone inside until a burly man rescues them. That kind of lifestyle is just unsustainable.

Pink Stinks

I have been told that my blog is quite girly in its design* because it's pink. Pink is the universal Girl Colour. When a man wears a pink shirt he is seen as brave, stupid or gay. So clearly, it isn't just a colour. Pink says too much to be just a colour. Which is why I avoid, like the plague, the various gimmicky pink gadgets out there.

Designed to attract women, these dodgy facias really get on my wick. Not because I'm feminist - far from it. I rue the day feminism began to get some traction. Thanks to feminism I have to go out to work, think about politics and open my own door. I could have been so happy at home baking all day. *sigh*

Feminism aside, my point is simple. Do women only wear pink, all day every day? Or do we like to think of ourselves as having quite a unique look, individual to us. We wear the eye make-up that accentuates our iris, the lipstick that plumps our lips, we wear this seasons green only to toss it aside for next seasons green. We're fickle with fashion, but we like to have the choice.

A piece of technology is usually something we tend to be less fickle about. It may be an impulse purchase, but we intend to keep it longer than the high-fashion mini** we bought for the summer months.

I'm most attracted to colour and design when there is a lot of variety...like the Flip video, or the Olympus µ-mini (where I did actually chose pink), or the array of coloured Dell Studio Hybrids.

These products are sleek, stylish, work well and offer choice - giving that sense of being individual, even if it is mass produced (much like that high-fashion mini).

So what is it with these tacky-one-size-fits-all-garish-pink-Kappa-trouser-wearing gadgets? It appeals to a certain demographic - but it's not as broad as 'women' so please do not position it as such.


* at the time of writing it had pink boarders...I am fickle, so it's possible this may change soon
** skirt - not car

Changing Facebooks

Checking Facebook on my mobile over the weekend I couldn't help but notice a common theme in status updates, along the lines of "what happened to Facebook?" and "why can't they just leave it alone?"

The funny thing about social networking* is that the users, the people behind the profile pictures, think they own it - because they've made it what it is. So any change to that service drives 'em mad! But rightly so, I can't make head nor tail of my home page now.

Most of us knew this change was coming. Twitter has been grabbing so many headlines of late, and now everyone who is anyone is on there telling us they're about to make a cup of tea. But all this attention seems to have put the willies up Facebooks' arsebook, with reports saying Facebook was going to revamp to look more like Twitter, which seems to have just wound people up. Last time they revamped was summer '08, and the people were livid! And so taking on board that feedback, they've done it again!

What's interesting is this desire to be more like Twitter. But the two are very different beasts, with users looking to get very different things from each.

I very rarely trawl through the archives of Twitter to find out what inane comments have been made by the people I follow, however I will take time to peruse Facebook, catch up on photos of parties that I couldn't go to, fast forward through holiday snaps and see who's broken up with who (mainly gloating at ex-boyfriends' misery...). It's a catch up tool, a place to reconnect with old friends (without paying the fiver Friends Reunited once extorted out of me to email back someone I didn't even like in the first place), but Twitter is an immediate micro-blog feed, some useful tidbits some drivel. I don't get the same interaction through Twitter, and I'm also more exposed.

So why compete? Because you're jealous that your day in the sun seems to be over and Twitter is getting all the headlines?

Companies remain successful when they listen to what the customer wants, learn from how the customer uses their product or service and then adapt around that. Text messaging is a fine example of something that turned out to be a huge boost for mobile operators who originally thought "no-one will want to send a message of only 160 characters, but we can do it...f*ck it, stick it on the phone and see what happens."

Listening to feedback is even more more important when you rely on the interaction of your customers. So like crossing the road, look right, look left, look right again**, then when you're sure it's safe, make your move.

*I really hate this phrase, all networking is social, both online and off, but I guess in terms of the computer world the geeks might think it's the top trumps site for Ethernet cables...

**If you're in a country that drives on the right hand side, look left, look right, look left again...and if you're in India, you're safer not crossing.

Are we really all Eco-Warriors?

Apparently, 62% of us let environmental concerns influence our purchasing decisions. We're not just talking recycled loo paper here, for tech goods, some 20% of us care about the environmental reputation of a company too.

I think I may be about to call out a taboo, but I'm not sure I do care. In the same way I still buy disposable fashion from Primark, I really don't think the 'green' thing enters my mind when I buy technology. I buy it because I want it, and my choice is influenced by what it does, how well it does it, what it looks like and how much it costs.

The research is by the Carbon Trust Standard, so I guess it didn't look at what else influences our purchasing decisions, or what our order of influence is. I bet I'm not far off the average consumer where brand might enter into it too, but environmental concerns are way down the list.

I mean really, my solar powered calculator was only bought because I could save money on batteries...

Charged in a flash

I had a debate the other day about whether it's better to have a device that takes standard batteries, or whether it's better to have a device that is rechargeable. Apparently the fact that the Flip video takes normal batteries is a good thing.

However, I prefer rechargeable. I don't like spending money on batteries. Yes, I could buy rechargeable AA/AAA batteries if I wanted to, but I still have to buy them, actually part with my cash. And then I also have to buy the charger.

Sure - I pay for the electricity used to recharge my devices' lithium-ion battery, but that never feels like real money.

The only time it's annoying for me is if I've forgotten to do it. Like Saturday night, heading out for a party and I'd not charged the battery on my camera. I plugged it in to squeeze in as much power as I could before it was time to leave and fortunately it was just enough.

So the news that boffins at MIT are working on a way to manufacture lithium-ion batteries so that they can be charged in a flash is music to my ears.

Even my Zen has been lying dormant in my handbag for four days now - if I could just give it a quick blast and be up and running again I'm sure life would taste that little bit sweeter.

Wow us consumers are impatient! I want it faster, better, quicker, and I want it to cost less, look better, double up as a calculator/music player/camera/phone/TV/car. Make it so.

Until death us do part

Something every consumer facing company strives to achieve is a brand loyalty until death us do part.

I tend to have very little brand loyalty, but I am still stuck with Vodafone. Why? Because the sheer effort of moving is too much. So I keep my shitty little handset, pay my £20 a month and leave the phone at the bottom of my handbag until it runs out of battery, ashamed to show it to the world for fear of ridicule.

I have another phone, primarily for work, although it's much better, hence I use it more. It's better in every way, from including things which may well be down to the operator, like signal strength and call quality. But I don't want to get stuck into a contract, and won't buy another handset - handsets are free right? So I hide my shitty little phone with shame. If anyone sees it I quip about how retro cool it is. But because it's rubbish, I don't use it. I really should do something about it. But the effort is too great, so I put it off for another week. OMG. Do you see a pattern emerging?

I do find the whole mobile handset/mobile operator loyalty thing an interesting one though. Are people loyal to the network or the handset manufacturer?

It's got to be the device right? I'd upgrade to a cooler phone, that's what my peers will see after all. But operators need the subscribers right? So they must want to create brand loyalty? It would seem not in the case of Charli Rogers who last time she renewed her mobile contract with Orange was awarded a £15 a month loyalty discount, but this year that discount will only be £5. She's been with them over 10 years, so surely she's a keeper?

A mobile operator seems to create brand loyalty by making the sheer effort of moving seem too great. Reminds me of a couple so used to being married that the sheer effort of divorce or separation seems too much, even though they're unhappy together, but they stay that way because it's easier. But that couple are wasting their lives and I'm wasting my money.

According to Charli's Twitter feed, she ended up staying with Orange, but only because Carphone Warehouse were able to offer her a better deal.

So buying through a 3rd party is cheaper*. Again...another oddity.

Buying stuff shouldn't be this hard, but always look around for the best deal, even if the effort seems to great, especially when you're signing up to a long term contract. I'm a fine one to talk though with my shitty little phone.


*I am NOT suggesting you buy a new spouse through a third party to get a better deal, although you may fix it through a third party, like a counsellor, so the analogy still stands - W00T!

I'm obsessed with Kindle 2

I can't leave it alone. Maybe I want one afterall?

Loved this on The Onion.

The business of getting what you paid for

If it weren't a shameless way to make money off the back of other people's misfortune, I swear it would be possible to get rich having a full time job where all you do is call companies to complain about a service or product that either wasn't delivered as agreed, is broken, or just doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

I love the Consumerist, and I always feel quite proud of people who plod on until they actually get what they paid for. Like James, who bought a MacBook Pro and also wanted to get CS4 (some graphics software).

According to James, "they didn't have enough copies for people seeking student discounts, so they said that they'd send me CS3 so that I could go to class, and that they would automatically send me CS4 as soon as possible."

Unfortunately for James, this was agreed over the phone, and not in writing. So in good faith, James pays up, trusting that he will be sent his CS4 Adobe software. None arrives. And James has learnt a hard lesson; never trust a salesman.

We all get bitten by it in one guise or other, and it is such a shame that we can't trust people to do what they say they'll do or deliver what they say they'll deliver. But before you pay for anything or sign anything always get an agreement in writing, especially if anything is out of the ordinary. Hopefully you'll never need to refer back to it, but if you do, it can save a lot of time and effort down the line later.

In the end, James got what he wanted. But as he said himself, even his persistence was waning, "...I almost took the deal, too. Glad I didn't give up!"

AP: Artificial Performance

Bringing a snazzy new gadget to market that does all sorts of whizzy bang things isn't that easy, not least because of all the other people who need to stick their oar in.

Like the Kindle 2. Now I'm not an auto-fan of this new gadget, but I do appreciate what it's trying to do. It may not float my boat, but if I were to get one, I'd want it to do all the whizzy bang things you'd expect of a new gadget.

Which is why it gets my goat when 3rd parties get precious and find a reason to block a gadgets functionality.

Like when the N95 came out and Vodafone and Orange started getting all uppity about the WiFi, the Authors Guild is getting uppity about the text-to-speech functionality of the Kindle 2. Ideal for those with impaired vision, text-to-speech isn't new; it's when the computerised voice reads what's on the screen to you. And the Author's Guild thinks that's taking revenues from audio-book rights (which are usually bought separately, and worth a fair whack). Now, the Kindle 2 is good. It's text-to-speech is pretty good. But come on...comparable with an audio book?

Artificial intelligence must be coming on in leaps and bounds. Apparently computers are now trained actors, able to give the performance of their lives and keep an audience rapt for hours.

Get off your high horse Authors Guild, let me have fun with my new toy and let those who need that feature benefit from it.

IQ testing for Facebook users

So maybe Social Networking really is bad for kids brains? The latest person to lose her job after posting comments about her place of work on Facebook is 16 year old Kimberley Swan who commented on the social networking site that she was bored at work.

Poor, poor Kimberley, learning the hard way that you can't always say what you're thinking openly.

Heck, we all do stupid things, but really, what happened to common sense? There was a PR incident recently with some chap heading over to his clients office to give a media training session about social media, dos and donts etc and so forth. Shortly afterwards he found himself in trouble for slagging off the town where his clients HQ was on Twitter. Oops.

Let it be a lesson to us all, that in the same way that you wouldn't announce in a room full of people that your best friend (standing next to you) looks like she's gained a few too many pounds, don't then think it's OK to pop that on this here interweb thingymajig, open to all, even those outside the room. D'oh.