Media has always been social

I participate in a new blog about social media. One of my fellow contributors (and the founder of the project) Justin Flitter left a video post which demanded a reply.

I have concerns that the novelty of 'social media' is overwhelming common sense and experience?

I hope the last thing you take out of my reply to Justin's post is any sort of Luddite view. It's just that I feel the discovery of access to media isn't such a novelty really for people who have had something to say and which they can articulate with at least a modicum of skill - mass media has to be fueled with content. In a way it is like a teenager discovering The Beatles today. New - but old.

I have to confess that I didn't really understand the central thesis of Justin's video. But some of his points stimulated the following thoughts of my own:

I have worked in social media all of my working life, since 1983 anyway. That may sound paradoxical but assuming broadcast or mass media isn't social or doesn't have a social dimension is false. In many ways broadcast media has more social dimensions to it than what we have come to describe as 'social media'.

In New Zealand TVNZ alone has the capacity to reach every household in the country. Our relatively homogenous and harmonious society is, in part, a direct consequence of this dynamic. Broadcast TV is a strong binding element in our society. It is, by definition, mainstream. The majority shared in the cultural conversation, albeit vicariously. I would venture that television programmes like Pukemanu, Close to Home, Gliding On, It's in the Bag, Top Town (the original) and the six o'clock news broadcast (and on an on) helped define our national sense of identity in very real ways. I don't consider this to be premised on the desire to have everybody conform. More like holding a mirror up to the audience.

It is too easy to write off broadcast media as 'one-way'. Paradoxically it is and it isn't. Given that advertising is essential to free-to-air television's survival broadcasters have a compulsive obsession with ratings. If the audience finds the content disagreeable it changes channels or switches off. Curiously enough Nielsen PeopleMeters are a 'listening campaign' and broadcasters pay close attention.

Your remarks about interpretation and meaning are also not exclusive to 'social media'. We all process information based on our experience of the world (both a priori and a posteriori), regardless of the source of the information. It is wrong to assume that every communication received from TV, say an advertisement, will be received in the same was as a matter of course by the entire audience. Television might be influential because it is TV, but even that dynamic is changing because TV exists a world where we now have a far greater portfolio of media. @aplusk is influential on Twitter but only because of his access to traditional media - That 70s Show and Punk'd (not to mention the tabloid press via his consort, the former Mrs Willis). Likewise Ellen Degeneres and Oprah. Broadcasters around the world are looking to the opportunities digital tools offer. They will have to learn new skills, to be sure, but they will.

Finally, to my initial point, as an advertising writer and designer I always believed I was having a conversation with the audience. Not the same kind of conversation as the one we would have over a coffee or a beer, but one that conformed to the timeless rules of engagement - be polite, be respectful, be interesting and share. I like to think my awards were compensation for that belief. Sure there are plenty of advertising messages that are rude and offensive (Harvey Norman are you listening), but the same is true on Twitter, Facebook and the bogosphere (sometimes in extremis). Mediated communication is a matter of degree. A standup comedian is having a conversation with the audience, but it is one that is rehearsed and the occasional heckler or interjection isn't a dialogue in the usual sense. A Papal speech probably talks directly to a believer - even if it is broadcast via TV or radio (or YouTube). Hey, Bob Dylan's music from the 60's talks to me - even though it was recorded decades ago.

Much as I am enjoying learning about the new tools we have at our disposal I don't think the principles of communication have ever been any different, and - so long as we are human - ever will be. The tools and dynamics are a little different but, since the invention of moveable type and the printing press, it has always been about giving voice to ideas. Being in print, or on the airwaves or Internet has never made the content a truth. The message will always trump the significance of the medium.

How TCHO built its brand

How do you build a chocolate brand? from edenspiekermann_ on Vimeo.

Building brands takes time. Nice designs and packaging don't automatically constitute a brand. It really does depend on people forming a relationship with the product that, ultimately, they feel somewhat proprietary about.

Great design ideas and implementation are far more likely to provoke that sort of response. In the chocolate market TCHO is really distinctive. The associations with chocolate seem to hark backwards. This brand is decidedly contemporary. The care and attention lavished on the presentation supports the idea of a premium experience with none the usual cliches.

If the opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference. I imagine that people will have fallen in love with TCHO and the equity in their brand is building. I can't believe that indifference is a possibility.

TCHO website
Video via Idealog magazine

Procrastination…if you have a spare 4" 16'…

Love this video on a subject near and dear to my heart.Meant to post it earlier, but I just never got around to it.

I wonder what strategies you employ to break out of inertia like writer's block? I have always found that, sometimes, just starting to write and not worrying about the content is the solution. First map out the terrain, then make sense of the words. Likewise staring at a blank page without a single idea can be overcome by making a mark on the page. A border sometimes helps me in the way that marking lines on the floor of a corridor can help a person with Parkinson's avoid freezing - rather than making it to the end of the hall they can then simply make it to the next mark.

Here's an interesting blog post about overcoming creative block by photographer Paul Indigo.

Bob Garfield - The Chaos Scenario redux

The Chaos Scenario from Greg Stielstra on Vimeo.

I have just finished reading Bob Garfield's book The Chaos Scenario. Garfield has long been the ad critic for Advertising Age magazine. The thesis of the book is that the digital era has decimated traditional media by radically changing its economics (unlimited supply) and corresponding changes in consumer media consumption.

For such a dystopian view the book is remarkably jolly. Garfield's style is witty and informed. It is hard to argue against his points, even if it means radical shifts in the industry I work in. Personally I welcome the changes and have been preparing for the shift since the late 90's - even, at one point leaving the advertising company I founded, which concentrated on churning out preformatted TV ads, to join Lion Nathan's online marketing business as creative director for its brands in Australasia.

The future may well be uncertain, though I have a feeling much of what marketing communications people will do in the future is similar to the things we do now - in principle. Consumer insights will still drive proactive messaging, cut through will still be critical to success (possibly more important in a fragmented, chattering environment), consumer information about brands will still have value so long as people keep buying things…In practice the skills we will need may be subtly different with an emphasis on listening (Garfield has coined the term 'listenomics'.

Watch the video, it is an excellent overview based on the book - which you should read if you work in advertising specifically or marketing generally.

The first 3 chapters are free to read here

Bob Garfield in Ad Age
The Chaos Scenario Blog

Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon…illuminated.

I used to lie in bed in the dark listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon through my headphones, marveling at the stereo effects (those were the days…revealing my age).

I rather like this clip of a recreation of the album art in real life. It is a little cheap and cheerful but kind of cool. I have the strangest of impulses to buy a digital copy of the album, which I haven't heard for years. Interesting how related content on the web can trigger that response - which should be instructional for music companies whose first impulse might be to attempt to silence a clip on YouTube for copyright infringement.

BTW - you can still buy the vinyl edition

Via Simon Law's blog - Another Planning Blog

The Element of Surprise in Advertising

Many years ago I read a book called A Whack on the Side of the Head: How You Can be More Creative by Roger von Oech. It's a great book. But the parallel here is that some ideas are so simple they are striking.

This Nissan light truck ad makes a simple point - carry a lot in a small space. They could have tried to hard sell with data about the size and load carrying capacity, but that isn't really how advertising works for cars and trucks. It's hard to avoid the fact that a sales person will most likely be involved in the purchase process,…most people don't buy trucks online…so the task of the ad is to engage the reader's attention and provoke interest. After that other elements of the communication chain can do its job.

It pays to remember that boring people into submission has never been a successful communications strategy. In a cluttered communication environment there has to be an element of surprise. The unexpected commands more attention than the banal or familiar.

Apps & Hats, slightly mad, but very clever.

There is an advertising truism that goes something like:"If you have a straight picture…use a twisted headline. If you have a straight headline…use a twisted image."
I came across Apps & Hats, the quirky iPhone application review show through Twitter (I think)have have been fascinated ever since. There is something weirdly engaging about two women discussing technology while dressed in period costume.But here is the kicker, they deliver the information about applications in a straight way - never referencing the costumes. The presentation style is simple and conversational. They produce an episode every couple of weeks.

Video is more and more important on the web (hopefully New Zealand's broadband speeds will keep pace - I can but dream). If you are thinking of producing content for the web I suggest that the Apps & Hats model is worth studying:

1. Keep it simple.
There is no need to over-egg production - the web isn't HDTV. Your return on investment will never look good if you try to make Lawrence of Arabia on a YouTube platform.

2. Keep the duration manageable.
Brightcove, the US video syndicator says about 2.6 minutes is the amount of time most people are prepared to spend with a clip online

3. Have an idea.
It's not brain surgery to wear a costume - but it is clever to subtly differentiate your product from the thousands of other shows online (not to mention tens of millions of other entertainments vying for your attention).

4. Be regular.
The bi-weekly schedule of Apps & Hats suits my consumption habits.I've found in the past that too much can simply be too much. If you have few resources it is better to spend time polishing the content than pumping out a slurry of stuff. Don't leave too long a gap between messages though, you will lose your audience.

My company has been developing online channels for some of our clients. The most recent is The Drawing Board. Broadcast TV is used to trailer the segments which track the progress of a home renovation. Tell me what you think…

Price Points

The PriceSpy model takes a new twist - research widely, purchase as cheaply as possible. Dixon's, a price discounting retailer sends out an only marginally tongue in cheek message to customers. Of course Dixon's will have been affected by the web themselves.

The challenge for retailers who sell at full margin is to close the deal before the customer has a chance to go elsewhere. What kind of mechanisms and strategies are available to them?

Make it personal.
In the good old days customers were known by name to vendors. Of course that's not always practical in the 21st century, but it would be possible to harness technology and strategies to make customers feel they are indeed valued by the retailer. An old favourite amongst restaurateurs is to greet guests with 'Nice to see you again…" (even if they have never been to the place before), it elevates the customer's feeling of being special. Not being one to advocate disingenuity, I only use the example to make the point that people like to be acknowledged personally. When social connections are made then there is an emotional tie between the participants in the transaction.

Years ago I worked on the Volkswagen advertising account. One the most interesting marketing initiatives was the introduction of the ill-fated Phaeton, a super luxury vehicle from the makers of 'The People's Car'. When a buyer ordered the Phaeton they would be sent a key to their vehicle with an invitation to be present at its 'birth' the final moments of its construction at the Die Gläsernen Manufaktur (The Transparent Factory) in Dresden. When the owner passed through the factory gates the key would send a signal and an elaborate welcoming procedure would be initiated. The whole process would not only reinforce both VW's commitment to the buyer's status and good taste, but also the sophistication of the technology inherent in the car.

Add value.
Adding value to a customer's experience doesn't necessarily mean giving them something tangible. One of the aspects of the ad (above) that spurred my thinking on this subject is the implication that the shop assistant (or clark, if you are North American) is actually indifferent to you - the pitch implicates that you ought not to be in their domain - a populist/tabloid pitch. The truth is that anyone's money is as good as anyone else's - a dollar/euro is a dollar/euro whether it is wielded by your mum or a footballer's wife. Your job as a marketer is to get your money out of their purse, whoever they are.

Of course value, as anyone who has studied Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance will know, like 'quality' is an a priore concept. It is subject to prior experience and expectation and will, therefore, mean different things to different people. If you know you are paying a higher price than Dixon's will undoubtedly charge, what are the things you will value? Do I have to carry my purchase home - or will you deliver? If I buy a new flat-screen TV that is bigger than an iMax will I have to install it myself? If the picture quality of my new Sony Bravia is the reason I selected it will you help ensure I have the best settings and reception at home?

If I have chosen a Phaeton, or a Lexus with the idea that it sets me apart, makes me a member of an exclusive club of people with better discernment and taste, will you facilitate introductions to other people with similarly good taste through exclusive events and information.

If you are a wine merchant competing with low cost volume wine in the supermarket will you share your expertise with me, so my post purchase dissonance is balanced out with an uncanny knowledge about the habits of the winemaker or the specifics of the terroir. The Wine Vault in Auckland's Grey Lynn suburb does a fine job of this via Wine Vault TV

Make premium service exclusive.
If there are additional benefits for shopping with you (per above), merchandise them. Don't leave customers with the assumption that a higher price is simply extra profit for you. Reposition the competition with your own meme that emphasises why to buy from a store that doesn't just 'stack 'em high and watch 'em fly' (if I might indulge in a nostalgic retail expression.

Of course highlighting the added extras might also take a leaf from the Internet marketing book. To receive the care and attention of our sales staff you must register with us. This could take the form of discrete technological process - log on to the store's iMac and, fill out a short from and become a priority customer then and there. Old fashioned sales technique might also be of use. Qualifying a prospect before spending valuable time with them (our service is a premium offer remember), "if we can match you up with the right TV today sir, how will you be paying - cash, visa or would you care to apply for our store credit scheme' that will help sort the tyre kickers out from the people who genuinely intend to buy.

When all is said and done customers are people. They are as vain, insecure and proud as the next person. They want to be liked and treated with kindness and respect and not viewed simply as an economic unit. People will, ultimately, value what you value. If you take service and product knowledge for granted then so will your customers. Apple computers have created a theatrical retail concept that helps promote the idea that everything in store is worth the premium that Apple seems to command. The concept of Genius Bar in store - knowledgeable staff who will help you to choose a product or overcome a tech problem is, well, genius. It synthesises almost every point I have made.

Remember, wherever you sit on the price spectrum - no one buys anything from people they don't like.

Dixon's ad via Eaon Pritchard's blog Never Get out of the Boat

Toyota does the hard yards

This ad for Toyota is an excellent argument for making commercials that will create momentum - where people will do some of the marketer's work for them. There was a time when people who bought LandCruisers would have talked up their choice (post purchase dissonance), but now people like me (I don't have a Toyota Landcruiser) will happily embed the commercial on my blog - see above and then point people to it through Twitter - and a host of other social platforms.

It may cause a renaissance in advertising creativity, the sort of messages that were more common in the 70's and 80's, such as the classic Benson & Hedges ads (I'm not encouraging anyone to smoke) or John Smith's bitter. The commercials that people would discuss around the proverbial water cooler.

The Toyota commercial also demonstrates that advertisers are beginning to understand that 'viral' messages don't have to be low budget emulations of You Tube user's style of presentation (of which the recent V energy drink commercial is a good example - chap with rocket pack places road cone on the top of the Auckland Sky Tower).




Brightcove, the video platform recently published a study of online video conducted by Dynamic Content detailing the kind of content that is more likely to go viral:

Laugh-Out-Loud Funny
Videos that are laugh-out-loud funny get passed along to friends.

Edgy
Content that crosses some boundaries and challenges people gets good pass-along.

Gripping
If the video captures your attention and holds it for the duration, it’s more likely that it will get passed along to friends.

Sexual
Content with some non-pornographic sexual angle to it tends to go viral.

"The videos that get the widest viral distribution have these characteristics, but even with only one or two you’ll get more distribution than if the video does not have any of these elements. In niche markets, you’ll also see interest from fans and bloggers who may be motivated specifically by the topic."

Social Media changes lives

Great video presentation about social media. Did you know that if Facebook was a country it would be the fourth largest in the world?

Tales of the Unexpected - don't give people what they think they want.

I’m told that the cover of the first edition of the newly relaunched New Zealand Marketing magazine had a cover personalised to its recipient. From what I can gather the extent of the customisation was simply to say something like ‘Hello David…’. I didn’t feel I had missed much. Mail-merged salutation is little more than a 90’s party trick in the era of web 2.0.

It reminded me of Saul Wurman’s comments about customisation in Information Anxiety 2 “There is a tendency to go overboard towards customising when you try to give people only what you think they want.” Wurman thinks customisation is a worthless idea – in the context of customised marketing, web experiences, newspapers and so forth because ‘people often buy what they didn’t know they wanted in what they didn’t know they were looking for’ – a serendipitous effect. If you only get what you thought you wanted, he argues, you don’t get much.

He brings the discussion round to the subject of creativity – the observation of patterns. Without a little meandering you don’t see the patterns in life that permit you to make new connections. As Wurman explains, “If I did a survey of people’s interests they would never list jugglers, etymologists, vibraphone players, or science advisors. But the jugglers, bug person, vibraphonist and science advisor to the ‘X-Files’ were what everyone remembered from the last year’s TED Conference.”

This construct interests me because I have often wondered why I can attend a meeting with a colleague, hear the same information, but come away with an entirely different interpretation of the business opportunity than my associate. We are programmed differently. He or she may have a sales or business management background that conditions them to respond literally to a client’s description of what is required to solve their problem. They are more likely to assume the client’s brief is an instruction – a literal description of their expectations. This corresponds to Wurman’s analogy about searching for ‘boxing’ information on the web. If only information about the kind of pugilism popularised by the likes of Sugar Ray Robinson or Cassius Clay is delivered then the opportunity to follow serendipitous threads and see patterns is lost “Maybe I am interested in violent sports or two person sports. Maybe I would be just as interested in Sumo wresting or tennis or chess?” My colleague is more likely to express a desire to give the client ‘what they asked for…” as a customised service response. Doing so can be a limitation on our effectiveness as a creative business.

When I use the term ‘creative business’ I don’t necessarily mean producer of hare-brained, random ideas – though the hare-brain and an element of randomness may play a key role in discovering solutions that might not be evident to other individuals or firms.

One of the characteristics of creative people, in my experience, is their interest in a wide range of topics. One of my favourite indulgences is to visit my local Borders book store, collect a pile of magazines covering topics I have no deep interest in like yoga, genealogy, model aeroplanes or fashion and to flip through them simply out of general interest and because there is the chance that a pattern, as described by Wurman, might emerge. It might be a social trend or the process might help offer up a solution to a problem I had sublimated earlier but not solved.

Returning to my colleague and client, the literal approach to problem solving – tailoring the solution exactly to the perceived problem is a significant business limitation – the opportunity to beat competitors with an innovation is lost if the problem isn’t taken more seriously.
Teaching design research methods one of the concepts I thought essential for my students to grasp was that of imponderability. To some extent there is no point in asking people what they want – especially in terms of new products and services – because they simply cannot express what they don’t know.

In business the unknown is often an idea that is regarded with some suspicion. Executives with MBAs are trained to analyse and manage the known, the finite resources available to a business. Processes are often conventions, accepted by the majority – and so, therefore, somehow correct, until they are overturned by a novelty or innovation.

The assumption that advertising agencies respond to customised client briefs for individual products led to my invention of Family Health Diary, an advertising product that permits many brands and advertisers to use a pre-formatted idea. It is now a multi-million dollar media product in New Zealand and Australia.

In the beginning my colleagues resisted the idea because it was ‘not what the client asked for’. But, of course, the client couldn’t ask for it because the idea did not exist. Nor would it have existed if I had not been exposed to some random, hare-brained stimulus – one of which was a flirtation with Amway with my then-wife.

Amway is an excellent training organisation and one of the ideas that stuck with me was that the most effective ways of succeeding is to do something once but be paid for it over and over again. As I worked late one night on the pitch for a large pharmaceutical account I found myself resenting the absence of my colleagues who did not have the required craft skills to help put the campaign into a tangible form for presentation. Not only that, but also I have a long held resentment of developing speculative ideas for clients who high-handedly decided from either my business or another’s but didn’t necessarily pay for the process. To complete the ‘perfect storm’ my wife, who worked for the same client’s advertising agency would complain to me about working on products whose budgets were so small that, by the time meetings were conducted to plan and discuss, concepts developed and produced – there would be nothing left for placing in media. It was a self-defeating problem. Because the agency valued the client’s higher spending brands and watched over the control of the account like a tigress tended her cubs, it was better to do nothing about the problem (which the client also assumed, with conventional wisdom, was a hopeless cause and so accepted the status quo).

When my partners and I won the new product launch the client made one significant condition that opened a serendipitous gateway for me. We could have the account on the proviso that we relinquish another pharmaceutical account we held. Little did they know it was dormant and had stopped spending on the product while the FDA investigated claims that it was lethal.

In order to get their hands on the millions attached to the drug launch we had pitched for my colleagues were more than happy to relinquish the languishing account – but I pitched in first: We would let go of the other company’s account if they would spend more with us. It was a risky gambit. We needed the account and would probably have folded if we hadn’t won the business. But the client manager simply said: ‘show me how’. Over the next weekend I mapped out Family Health Diary. It seemed logical to combine many small products under a unified banner and to present in a style that didn’t consume the kind of creative resource that would devour the budget before getting to the media.

Over the years the presentation format of Family Health Diary has changed but its essence has not and the premise remains as effective now as it was then. But the solution would not have ever come about if we had simply followed the instructions of the client – neither they, nor my colleagues could possibly have arrived at the solution because their inputs didn’t reveal the same patterns as mine and their approach to business is premised on matching a client’s perceived need with a tailored (customised) solution.

It seems counter-intuitive not to give people what they say they want. We’re conditioned to assume this is how business should be conducted. I’m not so sure. No market research would have uncovered the latent need for the iPod or iPhone, let alone Lego or the product I have in mind now (I can see the opportunity – but it’s not exactly what the client asked for – and it is vast).

Make room for a little meandering in your thinking. A linear approach will take you to the same destination as your competitors. That’s fine if you want to scramble after incremental changes in market share…but if you want to develop intellectual property that gives you some protection or such a significant head start on competitors that you will have the market to yourself (at least for a while), then maybe tailoring your ideas to a specific instruction might not be such good business after all?

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, You're dead…

Ok. Let's just say this wasn't the finest moment for either Kiss or Pepsi.
But it does show what happens when marketers try to change the brand narrative. Kids loved Kiss (I did) but Kiss weren't kids. They were what we aspired to.

Putting a kid in the commercial and shoe-horning a Pepsi lyric in the spot was the destroyer (pun intended) of authenticity - i.e. the reason you'd pay the big bucks for big talent.

If you use a successful song - don't mess with it.
if you choose an edgy band - don't homogenise them for the 'family audience'.

Listen or Perish

Bob Garfield, eminent writer for Advertsising Age has a new book. The Chaos Scenario
. Looks like an interesting read. Better still, the video promo is an interesting watch.

I've ordered my copy (while there is still a publishing industry). It seems a familiar story for anyone with an eye an ear open in the world of social media. But, coming from such a respected source in traditional media - maybe the message won't seem to be a rant from a marginalised disruptor.

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired said "Tales of total industrial collapse have never been so fun! Garfield's analysis of the total disruption of the media industry (and how it may be reborn) is right, prescient and wildly entertaining."

Are you in the game?

Who doesn't know the Monopoly brand? It is perennial. How would you bring it to life for a new audience or remind those of us who have forgotten how much fun it can be to play that it is still around?

This campaign does a pretty good job of it. While it is relevant and on-brand (ignoring the ordinary and obvious things like digital versions,…yawn - product not brand) it is still engaging and stimulates the idea of being 'in the game'.


The American street names kind of baffle me, but the idea is universal. Especially like the plastic sheen. Nice touch.

Twitter, love it, loathe it, learn from it.

I have long been an advocate for owning one's own words online. I don't believe in anonymous comments and when I write a blog entry or send a 'tweet' I may only be expressing my opinions - but they are mine.

This morning I had a thought provoking experience using Twitter. I remarked on a New Zealand man who had been shot by the Armed Offenders Squad in a suburb of Auckland. Early reports said the man had moved menacingly towards police called to the scene with a meat cleaver. He refused calls to halt and lay down his weapon and was shot - apparently in accordance with police standard operating procedures.

Reports then began to filter through that the man was a widely known actor and that his action seemed to have been over distress about what the media broadly term 'a domestic incident'. Not an improbable scenario, especially when alcohol is also involved (not that I am certain it was in this matter).

The following day it became apparent that the man had made the call to the police in the first instance himself, giving his own description as a weapon wielding man - surely in the knowledge he would then be confronted by armed police. It has been speculated that he engineered a scenario that would result in his own death. But that is only speculation.

The man survived and is in hospital making a recovery.

Subsequent media reports have further speculated that the man's actions were a 'casebook' response to extreme stress by Maori men. This may be true, but it may not necesssarily apply to this case.

This morning the New Zealand Herald offered a bedside comment from the man's family who had little to say because they had not raised the shooting incident with him, given the trauma of his wound and need to recover.

On reading the reports I found myself forming the opinion that what the man had done was one of the silliest things I had heard. I commented on Twitter that calling himself to the attention of the police in the full knowledge they would respond with force should earn the fellow a nomination for a Darwin Award.

New Zealand is a small place and it dd not take long for friends of the man to react to my Twitter post. The replies were hostile and personal. My initial reaction was to take offence. But I have changed my view.

By commenting about the matter I was no better than the mainstream media. The facts of the case are yet to be fully disclosed. I am sure they will be in a court when, ideally the facts will emerge and he will be justly treated. The man's supporters remark on the mental illness he suffered. I don't want to be insensitive to people with mental illness. I do wonder where the man's friends were before the alleged illness erupted in an act that endangered the man, the police and innocent people in there homes and on the street, but that is another story and, once again I have no data.

When we comment publicly offering our opinions on serious matters that have yet to go before the courts we influence the outcome - some might say we are perverting the course of justice. The news media might argue that the public have a right to knowledge - and I would agree. But speculation and opining is not fact and the media are not the courts and neither is the 'court of public opinion'.

In such a small country as New Zealand I wonder how long before it is impossible to receive fairness or justice when every single person in the court has been exposed to information that will inevitably bias their opinions?

It has got the stage where vested interests lobby for their opinions to be heard; the Police Association do it - I saw their union representative protecting the reputation of his 'Member' after the shooting I have described - not his fault, he is traumatised. Voices 'diagnosing' the man I have been discussing as mentally ill (from a lay perspective - I assume no psychiatrist has had time to examine his state of mind), and so the meme spreads without due process for the facts to emerge without bias or spin.

It all should give us pause for thought. Which brings me full circle. My remark on Twitter about the man in question, whom I had never heard of before, was unkind and unfair. His friends were right to admonish me - I have pulled my head in. I apologise unreservedly for any hurt and or offence and promise in the future that I will pause to think before 'tweeting'.