The Internet - a vehicle for people power

by Lachlan McArthur

It has been an interesting few weeks in the UK as we have seen pressure groups utilising the Internet to great effect. The UK public has often been accused of apathy. The real issue is that our lives have become so much busier that we can't or are not willing to find the time to address many of the issues which would have had our parents marching the streets.

Check out this article from The Independent, one of the UK's national broad sheets.

Essentially the Internet has provided a source of information and a vehicle of communication for people with concerns over a particular issue, bringing them together, so they can take action to achieve their common goal. The Internet has been doing that for ages, so what is different now? Well in a word volume. Using the Internet for political or consumer action has gone mainstream - no longer the preserve of the fanatical activist, or geeky nerd, everyday people are using the Internet to tackle issues important to them, and people are listening. Change has been effected as a result which will fuel its popularity even more.

Let’s look at a couple of the areas highlighted in the article in a bit more detail.

Banks, for years have been overcharging customers for exceeding overdraft limits or rubber cheques. Go 3 pence over your limit and you get a letter in the post notifying you of a £30 'administration' fee. Now it transpires that legally an administration fee can only cover costs. Basically banks are not allowed to charge a penalty fee, they are only allowed to cover any costs that they incur as a result, so for years the banks have been applying unlawful charges to their customers. Now we have all known this for years but the Internet has enabled us to do something about it - Providing us with the information, to act to reclaim our money.

Moneysavingexpert.com offers a step by step guide, including template letters and a video, to claiming back 6 years worth of unlawful charges from your bank. Thousands of people are doing just that, in addition thousands more are complaining to the Financial Ombudsman to complain about over charging prompting potential government action. The banks are paying out rather that going to court as they know they would lose, and they don't want the courts to set a precedent.

Road pricing is also a huge story here in the UK, essentially the government was planning on introducing variable road pricing across the UK. This would mean a GPS tracker in every car so that the government can track where you travel and charge accordingly (you see technology can be used for evil as well as good).
This created an outcry on 2 levels, firstly around the privacy issues of government tracking our movements, and secondly on the additional tax on drivers, who are already over taxed with fuel duty, road tax, congestion charging, parking and speeding tickets.

Tony Blair had set up a vehicle for people to partake in online petitions on his own Number 10 website. So a petition asking the government to not move forward with road pricing proposals was placed there and was signed online by a staggering 1.8 million people.

So what was the result? Well, despite one cabinet minister saying moving forward in the face of such over whelming opposition would be political suicide; the government is doing just that.
Imagine a company opening an area on their website for customer feed back. and 1.8 million customers respond telling them that their plans for a product are completely wrong, and the company sending those 1.8 million people an email saying thanks for their input but they (the customers) are wrong. Effectively that is what the government here has done and I am sure it is a contributing factor to their recent plummets in the polls and, despite government moving the plans forward they will not be able to introduce them against such huge opposition in their current form, or we will see similar demonstrations to the poll tax riots 15 years ago.

So what does all this mean? Well, when people get together they are pretty powerful, and get enough of them together and they are more powerful than any corporation or political party. If enough of us get together over something we can effect real change, from serious issues such as banking, climate change, and government policy, to really important stuff like the price of premiership football tickets. The Internet facilitates this, and the conversation in the market that companies need to work to their advantage if they are to succeed, is also something that entire industry sectors and even governments are starting to hear, and will need to react to if they want to survive.

2007/03/07 | permalink | comments (2) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

The Internet - a vehicle for people power

by Lachlan McArthur

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments