Follow-up on Frachising sports

I feel I may have been somewhat either a little naive or ignorant by suggesting that there is a lack of collective passion for franchised sports teams. I think this may be born out of my personal lack of genuine affiliation and connection with my own NHL teams across the pond.

I have never been to Phoenix, I don't know anyone who lives or works there, and none of my family come from or been there either. My affections are based upon the first jersey I had bought for me whilst playing for my local team in Basingstoke.

My comparison between hockey and English football also assumes that they two sports are on par with each other based on popularity. Football in England, Britain and most of Europe (maybe even the World?) is the national sport, or certainly officially the biggest. Having American friends I have come to believe that hockey is generally seen as the 4th sport of America (after Baseball, American Football and Basketball). With this in mind, it may make the use of 'markets' to describe potential fans in the article that sparked my original post (Which should be re-names Issues of franchising sports teams rather than Problems with franchising sports teams), seem a little more sensible. Football is undoubtedly the biggest sport and really doesn't have to fight for fans. Near enough every town has a team that plays in a national league and so there is ever really a problem with having a fan base. Of course there are going to be fights for football fans (not literally) in a shared area (for example, the South coast of England, where I grew up there is a large mix of Southampton and Portsmouth supporters - so geographically, I am in the middle). So for this geographic middle ground, there is competition for support. There is no competition for fans from other sports such as Rugby or Cricket.

With this in mind, hockey has a lot more to compete with that other teams, but 3 more sports that are bigger (I appreciate Canada is a different story).



Aside from my assumptions I think I could have re-worded my concluding concerns in a slightly better way than I did. The issue of new franchised sports teams instills on its fans is the fact that it's new. I think it is hard to embed a deep sense of loyalty to a complete new team that has no history or cultural sinificance within the city. So when something goes wrong, such as Phoenix' losing streak, home attendence starts to deplete. This may not be a problem for well established big teams who have more than enough fans to fill the stadium even in a dry patch. So with new teams, support increases with wins which is great for a winning team, but retention is a problem with a losing team. It is THIS that challenges marketers and the heads of hockey to ensure there is a lot of support in times of need.

The issue of "Shared Markets"

I think the nature of support for teams are generally different in UK football than the NHL. Take Southampton ad Portsmouth for example. Both teams have always existed for over 100 years - like nearly every other team and on a national scale may rise and all in fame. Southampton once in the Premiership in 2003 is now in League 1, and Portsmouth have risen to the Premiership within the last 10 years. However once you support Southampton, you will always support Southampton - the length of support you give may of course change depending on the success but as a rule, you are not going to start supporting Portsmouth. Having grown up with this sort of sporting culture, I do find it hard to understand how quickly a new team can gain a big fan base and worry near competition. I know our systems don't facilitate such a scenario, but if a brand new team was developed in the same area, for example, Alton, by someone with a lot of money, it would be difficult to find support because everyone in the area will have already established their support for other teams over the years. The only people who would, were those that were indifferentabout the sport in the first place and therefore didn't follow a team, or kids. Coming from Alton I am not going to stop supporting Southampton.





It is this situation I have only recently (the last few years since really starting to follow the sport with a passion) really come across . Maybe the news report got it wrong, but reading that Toronto were worried about a potential move of Phoenix to nearby Hamilton, OT, I couldn't understand why. Surely if everyone in the area were Leaf fans, why would they change out of pure convenience of maybe a 30 minute drive? Why would people stop going?





As a result of understanding why fans have a affiliation and how to gain loyal fans, maybe out of common sense, maybe by looking at established teams and how franchises of recent times in the NHL have become successful straight from a move - which is to get them young. If you get them young, you keep them. This is what marketers have been doing with the newer teams. They don't have the benefit of a 100-year history that Montreal has. A lotof the newer teams I have noticed, and the rest of the NHL if I am honest as well, are focusing on those grassroots. Summer camps for kids, that are free, community involvement from players, and truly trying to immerse the team and the players into the culture of the area.







So what are the 'Yotes doing to create a core of loyal fans?:

I saw this video that really showed the newer teams, especially those in the South really trying to get in with the community. I know winning is something that everyone wants to see their team do, however loyal fan base takes time to build and should be earned, especially in light of instant franchised teams. I like to see this happen. It happens in my town of Alton as well, with Pompey in the Community - although Portsmouth are my Southampton's rival team, they are doing something right in being visible in the community, and as a recruiting young fans.

And more Specifically?
8 Coyote Charity affiliations,
Youth Hockey Development

Click on the links to see to see the extent of community work and involvement is. You can decide if you think it is sufficient. This video is an example of what is going on down in Sunny Phoenix this summer with the Local community.





OK, so the 'Yotes are obviously working hard to engage with the local fans and communit which is perfect. This ground work shall prove successful in the future I am sure as has happened with New Jersey Devils for one. However I think the fruits of Coyote's labour will be too late for this current situation. Either that or something extra will be needed. As you can se with the video and the website, and I know from the last few seasons there have been numerous hospital visits etc, that a lot of community work is being done. I give all my wishes to the Coyotes team in this tough time and look forward to seeing them on the ice again for many a year to come.


If YOU have any comments on how the Coyotes could ecourage the local fans to get involved in the team and to side by their side please let me know.


Cheers, Scott

The Problem with Franchising Sports Teams

THE NHL - PROBLEMS WITH FRANCHISED SPORTS

Background

In 1972 The Winnipeg Jets were formed to play in the league controlled by the World Hockey Association (WHA), moving to the National Hockey League (NHL) in 1979. However in 1996 the Winnipeg Jets moved out of Canada and down to Phoenix and the Phoenix Coyotes were born.

The reason for moving (Wikipedia):

As the NHL expanded in the United States, operating costs and salaries grew rapidly; this development hit the league's Canadian teams particularly hard. As Winnipeg was the league's fourth-smallest market (eventually becoming the third-smallest market after the Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver in 1995), the Jets were unable to retain their best players. Various schemes were devised to save the team through a tremendous grassroots effort and government funds, but in the end the efforts were not enough.

As a result the team folded, was bought and moved to the desert of Phoenix. This is a usual occurence in the NHL.

1980 - Atlanta Flames become Calgary Flames

1982 - Colorado Rockies (Previously Kansas City Scouts) become New Jersey Devils

1993 - Minnesota North Stars become the Dallas Stars

1995 - Quebec Nordiques become the Colorado Avalanche

1997 - Hartford Whalers become the Carolina Hurricanes

There are a lot of teams that have been born out of nothing. There are new teams such as the Columbus Blue Jackets, Nashville Predators, and Minnesota Wild all that are 10 years old or less. I think one of the most famous NHL teams to non-americans is the Anaheim Ducks (Fomerly the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim). This team was a creation of Walt Disney Pictures that developed into a genuine NHL team. This, I think, says it all.

This gives you some background to the franchising of Ice Hockey teams (obviously focusing on Ice Hockey) so I can talk about the Phoenix Coyotes in some sort of context for you.

The reason I want to talk about my 'beloved' 'Yotes is that they are in the same situation as the Jets were in 1993. On May 5th the current owners have filed for bankruptcy and putting the 'Yotes up for sale. The NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is dedicated to keeping the team local to Phoenix. Originally only open to offers to keep the team in Arizona, Bettman has been forced to open it up to re-location. Relocation of my team and a resulting re-naming leaves me stranded.

What the hell do I do? This doesn't happen in the UK with football (apart from Wimbledon/MK Dons) I have never been in this situation before. I saw this report that really made me think. If you read it, I wonder if you spot the same thing as I did.

It says that relocation to Hamilton, OT (One of the proposed moving sites), worries Toronto Maple Leafs as they will be competing for markets. WHAT? Markets? Followers of sports teams should not be described as markets, they are fans, certainly not in public in a newspaper. This made me think about franchising sports, the set up of the NHL and all the problems that come with it.

Situation

Lack of loyalty - Because of the way the league is set it, people with a lot of money, ultimately can create a franchise to be included in the NHL. Yes, CREATED. Because this can happen there is a lack of grass root support. As it is a winter sport, it is a native sport of Canada and the most northern parts of the USA (Hence the Original 6 - Detroit, Toronto, New York Rangers, Chicago, Montreal and Boston), franchising and start-ups is the best way to expand the sport across the country. It has worked successfully, with teams like The Ducks winning the Stanley cup in 06/07 season but Coyotes is a current example of the problems that this lack of grass-roots genuine support.

So when a team is in trouble, as it is, not too many people are going to be that bothered. For example, when Rover went bust, car users will just go somewhere else when they want to purchase a new car. It shouldn't be like that for a sports team.

The league set up - Unlike the in UK, the NHL (and all other American sports?) use a drafting system, where players get to play in the top flight by being picked in the summer drafts. The team that comes bottom in the NHL gets 1st pick, and the league winner gets last pick, in lame mans terms. This is a great way to bring in young talent and sustain the quality of play for the future. In the UK, we buy foreign players. However, this is only great for the individual players. There is no relegation and promotion set up, where the successful are rewarded and the crap aren't. This limits teams and great sporting institutions to stay in the same leagues with the same teams for what seems like an eternity. I can understand the problems in the football leagues here, where teams can spiral out of control. Teams like Leeds who went from Europe to League 1 in a matter of a few years, and more recently Southampton who went from the FA cup final in 2003 to League 1, having scraped existence by an hour or so (and also started with -10 points). However these are rare occasions and as it stands, these teams do exist. However with the fickle 'market' as the report put it, teams can pick up and move, and leave Phoenix with nothing.

The league and whole drafting system is run like a business plan. It is run like an education system. You go here and then go up a level to here and finally, if you make the grade, you will graduate to the NHL. These is no graduation from team to team in UK football, you graduate from academies, for sure, and lower teams are used by the bigger teams to allow their kids to earn experience, however, these other teams have the opportunity to take advantage and take the next step up. I think this leads to a lot of respect in UK football, and the whole football format, because teams who are in the top flight deserve to be there because they have earned it. OK, a team like Burley may be shit, but they have earned their opportunity - and once there even greater fan support. Unlike Phoenix who admittedly didn't earn their place in the NHL, it was delivered, and as a result, there is a sense of snobbery in hockey to not being a proper team. Like a kid getting great grades because daddy pays more schooling fees. A Crap example I know.

As a result of all of these, huge stadiums are quiet (even in the Stanley Cup Finals, the crowd was quiet unless there was a goal, check or fight), when a team is in trouble there isn't as much genuine support, even in non-troubled times its a constant effort, fans seems like empty supporters, there because there is nothing better.

AFC Bournemouth is a small club but by gum, fans are blood fans, fans for live, PASSION. Toronto Maple Leafs should not be worried about a new top league team invading their space; they wouldn't be if the fan base was like it is at small teams. But it isn't their fault, the way it's marketed, the league set up and the way teams are treated like products by management.

Best way to put it, big franchised teams are like toys, when they break, you can buy another one. Non-franchised teams are like puppies, there till you die.

Solution

I don't really know if there is a solution. The NHL compliments itself with young talent, a lot of teams and it makes a quick buck but crap support. Grassroots football (or any other sport for that matter) has genuine quality support and reward granted when due, with a less efficient home-grown player arrangement.

I don't think the solution is by conversion to different league systems. They are onto something good with those home-grown guys, but I think it is essential for the players in the back bench and the press to stop talking and seeing teams as a product - a sense of grass roots needs to be instilled in to the local community. But for new teams I think this will take time, for the generation who grew up with a hockey team in Phoenix to get old. Patience is needed. The most successful teams in the NHL are from the Original 6. There are of course teams that have a strong and genuine following, Montreal for example, the only French Canadian team in the League, which surely lends a sense of belonging to that team, but for the others, they have built up this following because it's 100 years old this December (4th). For a team to become successful and have the same status as these teams, it needs to get established and take its time.

Businessmen are impatient. Stop treating it like a business and fans will become loyal and not treat it with the lack of affection as a toy. Something the World 20/20 cricket franchise will learn soon I am sure.

Cheers, Scott

Swedish Twins . . . mmm

This is an advert raising awareness for the the National Hockey League. It was shown only in the USA and Canada as these counrties are where the NHL is played. The main way that the ad agency wants the audience to remeber the advert is by using humour. It plays on the way that grown men act together in a group away from the family and the perceptions of 'Swedish twins'. I think this is a good advert because unlike some funny adverts, the brand or the message can be forgotten. Because of the nature of what is being advertised and how representatives of the 'product' (The NHL) are the initiator of the comedy it is hard to forget what is being advertised. The initial hook is the mentino of "Swedish Twins". There are two thoughts that can occur from this, either that the ad will have some stereotypical swedish twins (so the viewer hopes to see some sexy ladies) or that there will be a funny twist. Of course there is a funny twist, with the Swedish twins being the current most famous brothers in Ice Hockey, Daniel and Hendrik Sedin.

More than this twist they are in their hockey gear, also strengthening the link between the advert and the brand. Although the dancing of the sweish duo leaves a lot to be desired I feel it targets the audience well, especially as the TA are included in the ad, in a social situation they expect to be seen in (drinking with friends that is!).

The advert I think is to try to make the audience feel more involved within the league and the sport. They have done this well in a number of ways. Firstly by the Tag line, "My NHL". Another way is by using Hockey Stars and letting them interact with the supposed TA. This makes the players who can sometimes seem like they are so far away in stardom (as in many sports) closer to the fans and more approachable. This advert is one within a series that all went out at the same time. I have not had this confirmed but I think each ad was shown in the area of the team represented in the ad only. If not it certainly represents the area of the team in the advert. I know this because the other adverts featuring players Such as Jonathon Cheechoo for San Jose sees him riding a surf board. Overall, I feel this ad represents and appeals to the TA effectively and does the job of making sure the humour doesnt over ride the conveying of the message and remembering the Brand.

Cheers, Scott

To View the original post that includes the video, click here

Katona is dropped

Kerry Katona has bee dropped by Iceland FINALLY, after News of the World published hotos of her snorting Cocain in her bathroom.



Iceland who previously had stood by her when going through some highly public, personal problems, saying she was a normal mum going through the problems of fame, and sticking by the side of someone who is mentally ill.



This however, is something different that cannot be supported. She had a close shave on GMTV last year when she was slurring her words. She was only ket on as the brand ambassedor because they had already shot the Christmas campaign - too expensive to re-film.



I am supprised however it took this long to get rid of her. I can understand that the problems she endured were because of her illess and normal to anyone, a part of the charm that probably that made her a great person to front the Iceland brand. However I still do wonder what effect it had on the Iceland brand. Even as a student I would much rather go to Lidl than Iceland not only because the food was better quality, but I just didn't want to be seen dead inside the iceland. I know I am not the target market, however others should not be so obviously unwilling to enter the shop. Hey, La Sensa isn't targeted at me, however I was not nearly as nervous to enter with my housemate as I was going into Iceland.



This I put down to Kerry Katona. I can understand she may be a great role model for people in the same situation as her, however Iceland's TA isn't full of washed-up celebs, but young mums, who I am sure don't really aspire to be like her. She is a state.



Enough of slating Katona, this is not a Red Top, so who will be the next person to represent Iceland alongside Coleen Nolan? Katie Price maybe?



Get it right Iceland.





Cheers, Scott

Anti-social Networking

I was going to write a blog about social networks based on this, that I saw in The Guardian today, however it turned out to be a long line drivvel. I still want to share this though (see 1) and the websites I have discovered as a result. So I am not going to attempt to derive any meaning of significance from the existence of a of these websites - just to let you know they are out there, and quite funny!

1. Having read todays Guardian, I came across this from Benrik

2. Bugroff - the networking site to get some peace and quiet!











3. Snubster offers an 'enemy-designating application' for Facebook which allows users to first put offending persons 'On Notice' (with the chance of redeeming themselves as a friend) or to immediately list them as 'Dead To Me'


4. http://www.ifuckinghateyou.com/ "Your enemies enemy is my friend" - Everytime I look at this I have to chuckle.


Some are real some are not, however all are comedic in just taking the piss out of Social networking. Anti-social networking is something new to me, however they all seem out-live my online life.

I do wonder if there is going to be the Twatter beta launch - Maybe a great PR opportunity for David Cameron on the online version of HappySlapping


Cheers, Scott

ASA ban Skinny Water Ad

Well, that would be nice wouldn't it? It hasn't however I would like to see it done. And this is the story behind why.

Story Behind Why

Whilst watching a documentary on Charles Manson last night I came across the advert for Skinny Water that took me back and made me wonder how this was allowed to be aired. See it here

This seems like something to come straight out of Hollywood that dupes people into thinking normal water is so unhealthy. Damn, what have I been doing all my life, drinking tap water.

The product is of course flavoured but it takes a while to introduce the fact it isn't normal water. As for added natural ingredients, well, it looks like something to reel in the already gullible consumers of bottled water.

It wasn't this that really got me going (although those who know me know of my dislike of bottled water), it is the name of the brand, Skinny Water. It does not present itself as the Skinny Latte does - A Latte, but without fatty milk or whatever (I'm not a coffee connoisseur, I like it black, strong and no sugar), but there is NOTHING to take away from water. I think that is how it was pitched, and used in it's defence for the word 'skinny' however it really doesn't come across in that way.

The tag at the end of the advert says "What are you Waiting for? Get The Skinny"

That is what it reads however listening to it just says "Get Skinny", which I think is a terrible misrepresentation of what the product does (its water for Pete's sake) and it seems to promote and add pressure to those who may want to lose weight. There is nothing different about this product than drinking 3 bottles of tap water a day to stop that feeling of hunger - Water fills space in the tummy.

This is supported by a forum threat I saw about the product and what is mroe worrying is that 13 year old girls are writing in asking for advise if they should buy this product so they can become skinny. Check it out here

I really don't think this advert or product should be on TV, certainly in the format it is now. It is just atrociousy and wrongly suggestive of what you should look like and the ways of going about it.

If you fancy complaining, you can do it at the ASA website here

Am I over reacting?

Am I just in my thinking?

Let me know

Cheers, Scott

(P.S. If anyway one has any ideas why I am being prevented from embedding videos from outube, let me know, would make it easier for you all)

Optical Illusions in Advertising

Having seen the ford KA advert, and browsing on the internet I my attention was brought to subliminal advertising, something that is always interesting - to see if I am fooled. Subliminal Advertising however is supposedly long-gone. This was highlighted in 2007, marking the 50th anniversary of the original experiments by the subliminal grandaddy James Vicary

However there are still some clever and sexy advertising out there that really plays tricks on the mind. Not so much subliminal in the illegal sense of !BUY ME!, but more clever hidden messages when worked out makes you think "oooo, clever"

Here are some of my favourites adverts demonstrating clever optics

1. The new Ford KA

2. Landrover

3. Club Med - How many Faces?

4. Schick Quatro

5. Clubbing

6. FedEx

These are just a few of some brilliant adverts that rely upon illusions to get their message across. If you wish to see more see here @ Moillusions

Cheers, Scott

Sexting about!

There have been some reports in the papers and online this week about the phenomenon of sexting. If you don't know the term I am sure most are aware of the behaviour attached to it; The texting of explicit photos to someone.

The concept of sharing intimate photos has been around since it was possible to record a photo on a piece of paper and I suppose sexting is a natural progression from the posting or sharing of photos to remind people of what they are missing. It is not however this act of sexual deviance that is leading some people to be concerned it is the dangerous new tools that are being used to share such photos.

Images of such nature should be going to someone you trust such as a partner or spouse however if it gets into the wrong hands then it can be highly damaging to the owner of the image. If you lose your phone with nude images of our girlfriend, the finder of that phone is likely to see them and can send them to anyone, post it on the internet - anywhere - where as with a lost photograph it is likely to just be passed around the pub. Either way this is likely to cause embarressment and could have severe consequences at work or in the family.

The concern does not come with the saving face of adults, but the lives of children and teenagers. Most young people around 14 years and up have their own phone with a camera on it, and the privacy to use it for more than holiday snaps.

Teenagers are always going to be experimental and interested in sex, this is nothing new, but the technology that is so accessible to these young people allows them to experience it in a completely new way. It makes the experience easier and can be stored and kept for later. There are huge implications to the way these teenagers are using this technology, as the same with adults, can cause massive problems in the playground. You can read the full report here at Guardian.com and I would just like to comment on if it is a big problem or adults just complaining again.

As the report suggests, and for anyone with some dignity, intimate images you wish to send should be to someone you trust dearly. However, when that trust lays in the hands of a horny 15 year old boy with an ego to feed and mates wanting to see the boobs of Sarah from science class, that image is unlikely to stay in the pocket of the receiver.



"oh this is just playground fun" - No it can be more damaging. Rumours or anecdotes of what Sarah did can be debated and over come, photo images cannot, and have been used to bully kids at school in a way that teachers and the government has ever seen before. It is more than embarressing to find your pictures on the college network - people have killed themselves over such occurrences. With respects to the receiver being a 15 year old boy, I only have an ounce of sympathy. If you don't trust this person 110% or are just worried about it getting passed on, then stand up and say no. I know the pressure can be on, but that outcome is likely to be better than if you do send it.


Aside from the personal damage it can cause, there are also now a lot of legal implications for the forwarder and viewers: Voyeurism, watching sexual act of a child, conducting sexual act with a child etc. If leaked online there are copious problems as a result - Just dangerous.

I know this has been written as the boys wrongfully sharing but isn't one way, boys shouldn't feel pressured to get out their Johnson on the basis of false promises leading to a gaggle of giggling girls.

So what can be done?


As suggested above the consequences are immense as has proven in the past - public humiliation, bullying, police involvement, having to move schools an even suicide - but Sexting cannot be banned or prevented by intervention. Looking into text messages for naughty pictures is against some privacy act I am sure, and the only way to prevent many people getting into the same situation as many have before is through education. The technology will stay, and even be enhanced. Teenagers are going to be exploratory, horny and egotistical. It is unlikely that people are going to suddenly become more trustworthy and respectful for the naked form and privacy of the sender, so educating individuals highlighting the possible outcomes of their actions is essential. Making them think twice about it. Those whom already have committed their bits to the airwaves will probably learnt by experience and unlikely to do it again (that is, if they don't enjoy the attention).


So what do you think?


Do these kids need protection or do they deserve it?

Do you have any exaples from your school or friends caught out?



Cheers, Scott

Modern communications and Society

Right. I didn't get the job at Ogilvy Healthworld, but that's OK. It means I can write more blogs, and keep those 10 people who read my blog entertained for another 3 and a half minutes. Thanks for those who asked via facebook, MSN and MMS Text.

Ahh, Facebook - and modern communication. It is one of the biggest things to have ever graced the lives of so many, to affect enterprise for the best, to make so many stars out of the normal people out there. Modern communication (so, the internet, mobile communications etc) and everything that comes with it (social networking, ebay, blogging, retail) has been the biggest revolution to effect so many, since the industrial age. So many have benefitted it is unbelieveable. However, there are those that still that use it as a scapegoat for societies pitfalls.

I read today on the BBC website that Archbishop Vincent Nichols has blasted "Myspace and Facebook led young people to seek 'transient' relationships, with quantity becoming more important than quality".

The main argument coming from Nichols is that relationships are not as 'rounded' as they used to be because we are no longer asked to read body language, or tone of voice because electronic written communications don't really allow for this, leading to non-rounded communities. He does not deny that there are communities online, however he is left sceptical in believing that these communities are based on boasting about ones self to as many people as possible. This can result in teenagers or anyone for that matter, feeling isolated and desolate when these non-real relationships - and even suicide.

I can understand the concerns. There are people who have 700 'friends' of facebook and 7000 followers on twitter. Surely they can't talk to all them? They are making up for something aren't they?

I don't think so. I have around 460 friends on facebook, and God knows how many on Myspace (only 29 followers on twitter however, most insist in selling me something). I agree with the Archbishop that most of them are not genuine friendships, but acquaintances. These acquaintances are real however, and would exist with or without facebook - it is merely a list. My best friend does not have facebook, myspace, twitter or is on any networking site of any sort. The only way for me to chat to him is to call him up, or drop him an e-mail.

I have a realistic idea of who my real friends are, and who aren't. I know which people are adding me for my body, and those who add me because I listen to metal, and those who add me because I am friends with them in real life. So, I talk to them accordingly, about my body, Metal and real stuff. I don't think the Archbishop realises that people are not stupid and are aware of who these people are online and the relationships they hold with them. Of course, there are some deluded people out there who are genuinely obsessed and create false friendships with Devon and Randy - the Porn and Rock star duet, but this is something that is wrong with some individuals who use social networking to create friendships that cannot be found in real life, not the networks themself.

Most people in life can make genuine friendships, those who can't, use social networking. It's easier and more acceptable to be creepy online.

But this is nothing new; The blaming of something new, of something that isn't covered by the bible, or something that goes against it. Rock and Roll encourages promiscuity; Heavy Metal encourages the worshiping of Satan, Cliff Richard and Wham! promote homosexuality. However, the results are always the same. Promiscuous women, Satanists, Gays and those unable to build real life relationships already exist, they just tend to levitate towards these specific social tools to express themselves. It appeals to them. Just makes what they do or who they are more acceptable (homosexuality and Satanism).


In the evening I played a prank on a friend which turned out to prove a kind of a point in the end, or this blog in argument against the Archbishop.

Prank victim: One certain colleague from my course, lets call him, Steven

Prank: Peter Andre was on BBC Radio 1's programme this evening, promoting himself and the new single. 'Going in Alone' [something like that], and someone text in as 'Steven' "I love you Peter, and I love the new single. Are you ready to re-marry? Love Steven from Kent". Everyone heard it and wrote on his wall about his new love for Peter Andre.

Here is the Catch: It's bollocks.

Although Mr Andre was promoting his new single on radio one, no one text in pretending to be Steven. I wasn't quick enough for that. I managed to contact as many people as possible who may be friends of 'Steven' via facebook chat, and asked them to say they heard Radio One announce his text live on air, and react to it; and they did. So, Steven now thinks someone text in pretending to be him, about fancying Peter Andre, and now he wants to find out who did it. But it is all made up.

What resulted from the prank?

Collectively there are 60 different posts over all (and counting) that I know of (not including IM, PM etc). This accumulated in about an hour so I was rather pleased with the mini buzz that was created around this little white lie.

So what does this tell me?
Firstly, it says I need a job. I have spent all evening trying to orchestrate this joke. Yes, that is what it originally was, a joke, to fill the time. After the joke was finished and I started to write a blog on what the Archbishop had said, I realised this prank born out of idleness seems to prove a point on communities.

Well, it tells me that there is a big sense of community online, especially with Facebook. Something like this would not have been pulled off without modern communication technology, because what Facebook has allowed me to do is to bring together many people to pull a prank on that common friend that is Steven. Everyone apart from Steven himself was in on this little 'experiment'. Because of this, it tells me that there are real communities online, they do exist.

"But surely if you were a real friend of this Steven you wouldn't have pulled such a public joke on him?" I hear you say.
No, there is a reason why the best man at your wedding is your best man, but he still shows the guests the photo of you with your trousers down doing a poo in the sink ages 15.

The internet and the viraility of some material and the nature of human beings wanting to share things is something that is now becoming an essential part of the marketing plan. Using online allows consumers to share videos or information about a product with their peers and friends, and ths is encouraged by being a part of something. As tonight has shown, people want to be a part of something and will quite happily spend time to make sure that they and their friends belong to it. It will become an offline social talking point as well. I have already talked to my family about this, and I am sure by tomorrow it willbe talked about by those involved with friends face-to-face. This is what s valuble to marketers, but also that provides some evidence that communities and relationships online are not as false as Archbishop Nicolas is making out.

As I said before in this post, I feel that the claims of the Archbishop are slightly over exaggerated and something of an attack to something new that deems to threaten religion, or the Bible. However it is something that he can exploit to really 'spread the word', instead of knocking on peoples doors. Of course there are social problems and issues, but it doesn't create them, it just highlights they are there in the first place. I think it important to realise that, and that there are many advantages out there.


So This is what I ask from you:

What do YOU use social networking sites for?
Why are the friends on facebook called your friends?
Why did you participate in this experiment?
Do you think Archbishop Nicolas is correct or is he wrong?


Oh, And DONT TELL 'STEVEN' IT WAS ME!

[Steven has now found out and isn't too pleased. I'd like to reiterate the prank was never intended to be used as an example for this blog - just happened to prove a point]


Cheers, Scott