The answer from @hjonesy (that’s our Helen) was as profound as it was immediate: it’s a social experiment; something to try to see if it works. And I think she’s hit the nail on the head.  This isn’t about music. This isn’t about the X-Factor, Simon Cowell, wee Joe, or some funny fellas in hoods. It’s about the most seismic shift in consumer behaviour that has happened for a generation, that has started in earnest in 2009.

If there is one thing that we are to remember 2009 for it must be the rise of social media and its ability to empower people, en mass and as individuals, as never before. For providing the opportunity for a single voice to express an opinion and for that opinion to join with others that are similar; growing, developing and coagulating as more and more join in, until their presence can no longer be ignored.  Until their presence is so great that it becomes more significant than the subject that inspired the first voice to be raised. Until the desired and necessary change occurs.

Think Jan Moir. Think Trafigura. Even watch Gordon Brown on TED (no, do). In 2009 we have passed the tipping point at which the balance of power shifts from corporations and institutions (the brands) to the people. It marks the point at which brands have to start to think and operate differently. The point from which no organisation can ever be forgiven for putting itself first and for not taking its responsibilities to its audience, or the wider world, seriously.

Now, the RATM movement isn’t quite the real thing just yet. As Helen says, it’s an experiment rather than a genuine desire for a Christmas No.1 of one type versus another. It’s wrapped up with the irony that the real winner is Sony BMG who have both artists on their label – some will argue that the ‘enemy’ ends up winning after all. But that’s to miss the point. The enemy here isn’t Sony, or Cowell. It’s the old way of doing things. The past. And, in 2009, it’s been defeated.

I’m looking forward to 2010.

So yesterday via Twitter I received two identical tweets from the same ‘company’. Being a little more specific, one form the ‘official’ Twitter feed of that company, the other from the ‘personal’ Twitter account of the MD of that company. I say personal, however in the profile he states that he is MD of X…. so in my book, that counts as a representation of that company is a ‘pseudo corporate’ feed. So, two identical tweets, sent from the same ‘company’, to the same individual, me, in the space of a few seconds.

Now if that happened with email, to which I had subscribed, i.e. which is permission based, as is Twitter… I’d be annoyed and think ‘what a stupid company’. Well the same thing happened with those tweets, I thought ‘what a stupid company’. Just because they are short, possibly less intrusive than email, it’s still really dumb to send identical messages over different accounts when you have the same person subscribing to both accounts on the other end! We wouldn’t do that with email would we? And as the business that did this was, surprise surprise, a social media agency (ROFLMAO)… that makes it, as we say on the Internets, an EPIC FAIL.

So, to an extent you have to say ‘bless’, let’s face it a lot of people working in social media, on the face of it, aren’t that experienced in the grand scheme of things, email is for old people right? But more seriously it points to the fact that platforms such as Twitter, even when combined with some of the 3rd party corporate tools, are still massively lacking in maturity and functionality to run at the same level of ‘permission’ and accuracy as email or more traditional direct communications. To my knowledge, (I did say this was ill-informed) no tool exists to manage Twitter subscribes across a companies multiple accounts in the same way as email (i.e. with really thorough, get prosecuted if you mess up, list and subscriber management… yes I get that Twitter is a little less complex in that if you unsubscribe that’s that, to an extent). If it does I get the impression many companies aren’t using it. As far as legislation goes, again I’d welcome an update on this… however, if the law doesn’t hover channels such as Twitter in b2c communications, isn’t it about time it did?

Social Media's capital

I was intrigued to read last week on The Telegraph website how London has been confirmed as being the ‘top city’ when it comes to social media. Twitter, Facebook and Digg have all confirmed that London has the highest level of social media contributors of any worldwide city (in relation to population size).

Digg announces that “Nearly 10% of traffic to Digg is from London and the UK is our second largest country next to the US.”

As a Londoner as well as a keen Tweeter, Facebooker, blogger and general ‘social media meddler’ I was impressed. I felt a warm glow of pride swell inside as I considered myself to be part of the most progressive, digital nation.

In. The. World.

I finally felt like the hours I spend poring over what to blog, or how to condense my puerile ramblings into a mere 140 characters, was worth something. No-one knows my name, or gives a damn for that matter, but I don’t care, I’m an inhabitant of the ‘Social Media Capital’. Hear me roar.

As I pondered on this for a while longer I began to wonder what has been the reason for London, in particular, to rise to this remarkable level of social media usage. Is it because, as a population, we are just inherently more digitally advanced than our erstwhile neighbouring nations? Are we so super-tecchie with our fingers firmly pressed on the pulse that we are close to uncovering the secrets to The Matrix?

Just then my phone rang. The caller display informed me it was a good friend of mine calling. I stared at my phone as it called out to me like an needy infant “Answer me, answer me, answeeeerrrrr meeeeeee”, and I just let it ring through to voicemail as I thought to myself “I don’t have time to speak with her right now, I’ll just drop her an email in a few moments and deal with it that way”.

Then it hit me.

Londoners may not be any more digitally innovative and progressive than any other ‘hooked up’ nation. We’re not necessarily leading the charge towards the purely digital age. The reason social media is so successful in this City could well be because we are just generally quite anti-social. We may well be a melting pot of diversity, but we are surely also one of the world’s most anonymous cities. There’s not a person I know who hasn’t admitted, at some time, to actively dodging a colleague/friend they’ve seen on their morning commute just to avoid a polite conversation because they ‘don’t feel like it’ that early in the morning. Equally there’s the people who like to pretend they’re asleep in an aisle seat on the train/bus just so someone won’t ask them if they can occupy the vacant seat beside them thereby forcing them to interact with another human being. Or there’s my personal observation that a vast majority of Londoners moving around the city are permanently plugged into varying music/media players, or engrossed in tapping away on some PDA/mobile device, as a means of isolating themselves from all that’s occuring around them.

Does this sound to you like the behaviour of ‘social’ people.

I believe that Londoners, and Britons in general, could well be embracing social media simply as a means of avoiding direct contact with others. Why ‘speak’ to someone when you can email them? Then you don’t have to suffer the agony of small-talk or, heaven forbid, listening to the woes of others. You can just fire off a quick message via the varying digital channels available and the job is done.

Don’t get me wrong, I am probably one of the UK’s biggest advocates of social media and the opportunities it opens up. But then, I am also one of those people who’ll dodge to the other side of the street if I see you approaching and I haven’t had my morning coffee as yet. As proud as I am of London embracing the digital age, I’m also slightly embarrassed that it may just be because we’re so anti-social as a population.

On that note, I’m going to pick up the phone, call my friend and see how she’s doing….Ah, voicemail…..never mind.

“it is clear that L’Oréal have learned a lot over the past few years and it’s actually quite refreshing to hear brands such as L’Oréal talking about online conversations and saying that brands have to be sensitive enough to listen to their customers.”

Indeed. Brands are a two way thing. Brands have to listen to their customers and adapt. Brands need to engage in conversation, conversation enriches understanding. Understanding and Insight serve to refine the customer experience, the better the customer experience, the better the brand experience.

Read on here…