Our social media journey – will you join us?

duncan lucas says: 15 November 2018
I am not on any social network nor will I ever will be

You do realise that thisis a form of social media, Duncan? And Patrick: this is a social media platform.

That thought occurred to me too 🙂

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Sorry, but I have difficulty in following your argument. You say

You could then say every technical /political/help website round the globe is “social media ”

and to an extent you can, in fact. I believe the two important aspects are whether the system allows you to create topics which are then read by a lot of people, and the degree of interaction. Many of the sites you suggest don’t allow interaction of any sort, while others simply allow it without moderation.

But I’m more interested in your comment

What this is social control on a world scale to change the publics communication into a controlled environment heavily influenced to conform to US big commercial interests in world monopoly.

Once again you reveal a concern at what you see as a hegemonic effect on the part of the US, but I don’t believe social interaction has ever been a purely US innovation. It may well have been a few US individuals who created the bigger platforms but the internet itself was created by a British innovator, so by that logic he’s to blame for all the ills you foresee.

But it’s good to see you enjoy this social media platform.

Although Which? Conversation is a form of social media there is no way of addressing a selected audience. It’s all or nothing. That is not necessarily a drawback as it also has a moderating effect.

When Which? Conversation attracts large volumes of comments over a short period it ceases to be conversational and becomes a series of statements without much attempt at reasoning or responding to other contributions. Twitter etc have taught the public to emit talk-bites within tight limits; there is a risk that this trend will drive out quality from social interactions generally and we shall all be found ranting.

A lot of insider references there, Ian. What is PTB? And who are the people you refer to by first names? The old days all sound a bit clique-y. More democratic now I perceive.

Interestingly, that was the first criticism I levelled when I joined the place. The use of ‘inside’ references can tend to make it sound that way – I agree, so I’ll explain:

PTB – Powers That Be. Not really an inside ref.

Sheila, CEO and Director
Kim, Deputy to Sheila
Dave, Director
Alan, Director
Paul, Which? OnlIne manager
Fergus, Head of customer Service.

There were many others, but those were the most common interactions.

Now – I do take issue with the suggestion that it is “More democratic now”. We had a core group – much like today – but we also communicated directly with the folks at the top. And they listened – didn’t always do what we wanted or suggested – but they always – always explained why they couldn’t.

One excellent example of democracy was when there was a move to foist upon on a new type of forum. We nicknamed it Newwol (sure you can work that one out) and it was dreadful. Now, it might have been foisted on us by the PTB at that time, were it not for the fact we approached Kim directly. She listened an reversed the decision.

Contrast that wit the which.net debacle and you can see how things have changed – and not for the better.

Thanks, Ian. Well, that was then and some decades later we are where we are today. I feel that at the direct operational level Which? Conversation is reasonably democratic and there have been substantial changes mastered by Patrick Steen in which those of us interested enough have been able to participate to a high degree, both publicly and privately.

I don’t think harking back to olden times gets us far; we have to adapt to the generation that is in the ascendancy now.

Nobody could legitimately support or excuse the process employed by the Which? management to exit which.net but I would distinguish that from the general running of Conversation.

We all have our unrequited gripes with Which? from time to time and some [Good morning, Patrick T] are forever hurling brickbats at the organisation to no avail, but that is a product of Which?’s promise exceeding its capacity and our enriched expectations based on our association with Which? Conversation.

I feel that in matters concerning Which? Conversation there is at least a consultative process now and we can influence the practical aspects to some degree. Why that approach has not migrated to other corners of the organisation is a cultural problem that the new CEO will need to address.

John: I want to pick up, if I may, on your point:

I don’t think harking back to olden times gets us far; we have to adapt to the generation that is in the ascendancy now.

I would say two things: the first is that if we never learn from history…well, you know the rest.

But the second point is, I suppose, allied to the first, in that what W? created in the mid-’90s was rather special – and certainly unique. For the first time ‘customers’ could talk directly to ‘bosses’. No intermediaries, no rules, no impediments. You could have a dialogue with the CEO.

Through that approach W? placed itself at the forefront of emerging technological communication systems. And this was in the mid ’90s, for goodness sake. Some of the current W? employees would not even have been born. And it took Apple fourteen more years before it would even consider allowing folk to email Steve Jobs.

So why do I harp on relentlessly about this? It’s really rather simple.

What destroyed the unique advantage that W? possessed at that time was the corporate culture. In effect, W? was dragged back into the technological dark ages by those who felt the customer had no ‘right’ to talk to the boss. By doing that, of course, W? squandered the immense advantage they enjoyed.

It’s worth remembering that when Michael Young started the organisation, he envisaged a cooperative endeavour, with the members participating in its development as fully as any staff might.

I agree that Patrick S and his team have achieved a great deal in the time W?Cs has been in existence. It’s been a welcome development. But we must never lose sight of the fact that we’re still nowhere near where we were in 1996, in terms of democratisation, dialogue and cooperation. I do have a record of the number of times we’ve been told something new and exciting is on the horizon, and that it hasn’t yet happened is, I believe, due to the corporate intransigence to which I referred earlier.

But Patrick continues to rise through the ranks and thus acquire more influence. I hope that Anabel appreciates both his value and his vision; because W?Cs remains the second most prominent public face of Which? and how that is developed over the next few years will, I believe, determine whether Which? remains relevant to 21st Century consumer policy or whether it fades into a once-interesting but ultimately irrelevant social experiment.

We can turn back the clock by seizing the day and transforming this place (or its technological successor) into a similar but not identical structure to that which inspired so many in 1996 and which could serve as a beacon for others who still fail to grasp how powerful a truly cooperative movement can be. Or we can throw it all into the bin marked “broken promises, dashed dreams and aspirations, and forlorn hope”. I hope Anabel makes the right choice.

Yes, I see what you’re saying, Ian, and go along with it in general.

I have been a continuous subscriber since 1964 but I had never heard of the Which? Forum until a few years ago – from something you wrote if I remember correctly. So whatever it was it was kept well-hidden and I have to take your word for it being so advanced and valuable to members/subscribers. Perhaps the lack of projection was the only thing Which? got wrong with it.

But as I said, we are where we are and we now have a multi-platform future with different outlooks and different technologies. I just hope Which? strives to reach out in all directions and be as inclusive as possible. I feel that a lot has to change and I support Patrick S in moving things forward, although at the moment it seems a bit like those waterfalls of pennies at the funfair where everything moves forward across a broad front by a tiny fraction and frustratingly slowly. It seems all big organisations suffer from that built-in paralysis.

Everyone seems to be piling the pressure on the new CEO with huge expectations; we don’t even know what the Board was looking for and its mission scope [well I don’t, anyway] so we shall just have to wait and see. I am not expecting much change in the first few months at least.

Fair enough, Patrick, but if you take only one thing from what I’ve written it should be Michael Young’s original intentions. Cooperation and not imposition.

alfa, as I’m sure you appreciate, the F/T/I social media platforms are e-commerce businesses not social services.

So, at the point of use, they may be free, as in a free lunch, but they’re not free as in free speech. Hence, some limited sharing of personal data is the price that one must pay to access these services. Obviously, many have decided that this price is reasonable relative to the available benefits (but many others may have just joined without pausing to think about that).

If used well, I think these platforms can help Which? spread its educational messages, so it would be wrong to ignore them.

I am in general agreement with you, Derek, but was it envisaged when it started that Facebook would be an e-business enterprise with all the advertising and trading in personal data that that implies?

Perhaps in the inner recesses of the minds of the founders that is exactly what they foresaw, but the innocent young things that first signed up to it probably had no conception of how its participants’ thoughts and lifestyles would be exploited for commercial gain that is now running into the multiple billions every year – and with no physical end product of any value in sight; everything virtual but nothing virtuous.

Thankyou Patrick. I like your definition of the Which? Community, it has action and purpose behind it. However, the relevance to most of us depends on your definition of The Which? Community. If you refer to all of us, then that’s great. If you refer to a select group, corresponding within a closed members forum, then that has no relevance to me, personally, though it might do some good if anyone takes notice of what is written there.
Your examples of our influences are encouraging, but there is little evidence presented in the magazine or, indeed, here, that our input has been noticed. I am glad that we have “highly influenced” these matters but it would be good to have recognition for that. Perhaps I have not read the texts you have written when you have “shared a number of examples” when this has been the case, and I could be to blame here. I certainly look forward to more involvement from us under the new CEO. As to you and the team, I have always felt we were in safe hands and always felt that your battles were not so much in keeping us in order and more about making the site an important part of the Which? structure. There’s a lot more to be done here.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

“humans also share more than half of their genetic material with chickens, fruit flies, and bananas”.

Be kind to your fruit.

This comment was removed at the request of the user