Social networking in Asia

Spotted the link to this on ReadWriteWeb and thought it worth including here. Pity that the presentation doesn't have audio, but the slides do largely speak for themselves.

| View | Upload your own

Video production for PARD programme at WMG

Pickle Jar Communications was contracted earlier this year by WMG at the University of Warwick to oversee the production of a video promoting the successes of the various projects within the Premium Automotive Research and Development (PARD) programme. We worked with @Warblefly Productions, Eight Eyed Sea Bass and Mustard Design to co-ordinate the final package - a 20 minute video and DVD packaging with 2000 copies supplied. Our colleagues at Eight Eyed Sea Bass have kindly popped the video online, and we are able to embed it here:

WMG Innovative Solutions
Uploaded by EESB

Pickle Jar Communications worked with the team at PARD to develop the video brief, then worked closely with the production team to develop the concept. We were responsible for organising all filming, scheduling a very tight 3-day shoot, then overseeing the edit process for delivery of the final DVDs in time for a conference that the PARD team had organised where the DVDs were to be distributed. The entire project was turned around in just 6 weeks from proposal to final delivery.

Another brick in the wall

It's all about the kids today. What are they doing online? How can we make the web and video games safer? The launch of the report of the Byron Review is of course welcomed by most people - parents in particular, I suspect. The report itself acknowledges that "headlines have contributed to the climate of anxiety that surrounds new technology and created a fiercely polarised debate in which panic and fear often drown out evidence" (Byron Review, Foreword) but I fear that the press reports surrounding the publication of the review will simply serve to heighten those anxieties even further. The fact that the report calls for a strategy for e-safety for children, which is of course what the press will report on, in itself seems to me to say that the world wide web is an unsafe place. The emphasis is on the negative. Why isn't there, for example, a strategy being launched on the educational value of the web for children? Why should parents be educated to protect their children in an online environment, but not at the same time also be educated on how to support their children productively use the web to influence their education and development. Don't get me wrong, I don't for one second see the web through rose-tinted spectacles, and the dangers to children do need to be addressed. However, they need to be addressed in a balanced context that also embraces the positives and I sincerely hope that the new strategy will achieve this.

But it isn't just what our kids are reading or doing online today that has hit the headlines. What they are reading offline is also of interest as The Guardian reports on the Read Up, Fed Up: Exploring Teenage Reading Habits in the UK Today study also published today which looks at the reading preferences for 11-14 year olds. As someone with two degrees in literature but not exactly what you would call a bookworm as a child (I think I finally managed to read The Bell Jar and The Catcher in the Rye at around aged 15 or 16 - my introductions to really great literature!), the reading patterns of young people fascinates me. I'm disgusted to learn, for example, that Heat magazine is the most loved read for this age group. However, at number four is blogs, showing an excellent example in my opinion of why the web is an excellent educational space for young people - encouraging them to write, debate and digest other people's opinions. I'm slightly suprised that facebook ranks so low in this age groups' opinions (it is number nine on their most loathed reads), but maybe that's just a clear sign of how us 'oldies' just don't understand the content that makes young people tick - although I know plenty of well-educated 'oldies' too that would probably rate Heat magazine as one of their favorite reads. But I do have to applaud the youngsters that participated in this poll for putting BBC Online in their top 10 most loved reads. Isn't it great to see young people engaging with news, current affairs, world affairs and fantastic educational resources? Perhaps this needs to be taken on board when the government come to writing their e-safety strategy.

University Open Days in Second Life

The BBC reported this week that Liverpool John Moore's University (LJMU) is hosting an open day for prospective students in Second Life.

I have been involved in a number of conversations over the past couple of years with colleagues throughout the HE sector about hosting open days in Second Life. If truth be told, it's a no-brainer and if the popularity of Second Life continues (and at this moment in time I'm not entirely sure where it is going) then all universities will begin to take this approach.

However, what worries me about the reports from LJMU is that the campus that they (or in this case some of their students) have created is not a true representation of the actual campus. Some of the buildings are virtual replicas, but others are reported to be fictional spaces that students would like to see built on their campus, such as halls of residence with their own swimming pools. Designed to be 'talking points' amongst the student amassadors and prospective students, I fear that with language barriers in place amongst even some of the best English-speaking prospective students from overseas, these fictional buildings could be mistaken by some as representations of real buildings and create a false reality.

If Second Life is to become a widely used tool for marketing universities to overseas students I think a few simple rules of best practice need to be observed by the creators of those virtual spaces:

• keep it true to life. If you are including buildings that are either planned to be developed or complete fictions then these need to be very clearly labelled as so, and in a language that is concise and not open to misinterpretation by those who do not speak English as their mother-tongue;
• if you have 'student ambassadors' there to speak with potential students, then you need to be true to their genuine personality and not have marketing or communications folk 'posing' as students, which would be very easy to do in this false environment;
• when advertising a virtual open day you again need to be clear and upfront (in a language or languages that cannot be open to misinterpretation) about what will be available for visitors to see, and whether it is a genuine representation or not;
• don't ever see Second Life as a suitable replacement for actual visits to a campus. I have visited a vast number of university campuses over the years and nothing quite sells a university so well as the atmosphere that its people can create (a sunny day always helps too of course!). Second Life really does open up opportunities that standard print prospectuses or online 360 degree tours just can't offer, and this is an important step for overseas student recruitment, but nothing quite beats one-to-one communication in person on a real campus and I really hope that universities don't ever begin to see this as a replacement for that level of contact.
  

Why does the British public trust doctors so much more than scientists?

A lot of my work is around communicating science, or working with education bodies. So, every year I am interested to see how certain professions fare in MORI's annual survey of trust in different professions.

Catching up on reading my backlog of publications that have fallen on my desk over the past few weeks, I was delighted to see that February's edition of Profile magazine (the CIPR's main publication) featured the results of this year's trust survey, announced on 5 March. I wasn't quite so delighted, however, to see that public trust in scientists has fallen by 7 per cent since last year's survey - the largest change in any of the professions.

The poll asks respondents whether they would 'generally trust them to tell the truth or not', and lists 16 professions to compare. Doctors come out top in this survey, with 90 per cent of respondents saying they would trust them to tell the truth. By comparison, just 65 per cent of respondents claim that they would trust scientists to tell the truth.

This difference insterests me and I think its a challenge of those involved in science communication to address this. Is the difference in perception caused by the public's exposure to these professions? It's highly likely that most of the public know their doctor and see them every so often, but how many members of the public know a scientist or someone that they would call a scientist? To some extent we might also question why doctors are even separated out from scientists in this poll. Aren't doctors also scientists, afterall?

Perhaps if we could communicate the work of scientists and science-related professions more effectively, and put a more human face on science, there wouldn't be such a marked difference in trust between doctors and scientists.

They've done it again

I just have to say that the BBC have done it again and created a really wonderful, very usable, new homepage for their website. I adore the features like the radio links on the right-hand side, the clock at the top and more news on the homepage. With the iPlayer link at the bottom and the blog feed in the bottom left, it really is a great example of various media coming together all in one seamless place. Well done BBC!

Fast Forward to the End

Tomorrow we're holding the final of the Fast Forward series for Ideas for Life TV. Not only have I been production manager for this project, but I have also had to be event manager too pulling together all the various strands to make it work. I have to say, I'm feeling quite sad that it all wraps up tomorrow (with the exception of one further piece that we need to film with another company). On the plus side, I will be able to stop working silly hours for a short while, my house actually might get cleaned this weekend, and I will really get to see just how far our teams have come along. It's been an interesting experiment in science communication and I'll reflect more on that soon, but for now I need to get back into those last minute preparations for the final. The prizes for the kids have started to arrive at my door now and I think there's another delivery man knocking at the door right now ...

Is it right for journalists to use social networking sites for source material?

So, here is a dilemma that has been rife in the press recently. Supposedly journalists are dipping into individual’s profiles on social networking sites like facebook, MySpace and Bebo to find out more about them for stories they are developing. I’m ever so slightly surprised that this has caused such an outcry, in truth. I think the biggest question to be asked here is where do we draw the line?

Let’s make a comparison. If the paparazzi climbed a tree outside a celebrity’s house and took a photo of them in their bedroom wearing their PJs, or lounging around with no make-up on their sofa watching TV, then there would be outcry and we would consider that wrong. However, if said celebrity pulled on that same jogging suit and ventured out of their house to buy some milk at the corner shop, we would react differently to a photograph taken then.

So, the dilemma is really one of space – personal and public space. In this case, the only difference is that it’s virtual space that we are talking about. As such, if an individual chooses to reveal aspects of their character or personal life online, then they have made a conscious choice to move something that might be private to them into the public domain. How can they then complain if the media uses that information? All the media is doing is exposing such information to a wider audience, any member of which audience could have found out this by searching online themselves.

Using photographs or videos or the like is a different issue, and we have copyright laws to protect against that. Just because I publish a photograph of me at standing on the Statue of Liberty Plinth against the Manhattan skyline on facebook does not mean that I am freely allowing anyone to use that. I still own the copyright. I’m not suggesting for one moment that any journalist would want to use that photo, but I’m sure you get my point. And in the interests of my own self-publicity, here is said photo.