Our social media journey – will you join us?

I am not on any social network nor will I ever will be but I know even leaders of nations tweet away at each other and why should Which not do the same ?

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.
All very well as long as you know what “club ” you are part of, its the “American Way ” of modern communications and America is the “KIng ” of communication and propaganda no country can better it even Russia China recognise this and employ American interviewers/reporters,
its a back-handed compliment .
Once your on the “system ” you are on a big version of Win 10 everybody on them is “used ” to provide profit the public s natural wish to conform and gather together goes right back to the Stone-Age ,
they feel a “togetherness ” not lonely anymore .
My problem is I am very self-sufficient and while I like talking to people and socialising I always try to put a point over on various subjects to get a reaction but this is done in real life not Virtual Reality so I get more satisfaction having more of a physical contact than over a digital realm ,
you cant hold hands -kiss-embrace virtually –at least I cant , in other words although I am, self-sufficient I enjoy human company and I am not “Hermit ” material, I like human contact .

I know I could join one of them ,and because I am very outspoken either have a lot of followers or a lot of haters but either way I would still be subject to “Big Brother ” and ,as you know I rebel against anybody “controlling me ” , you might not think it but I have become a lot more ” conformist ” since joining Which ?
So to me Which ? is a media social platform I can live with and believe me thats saying something.

In the past I tried Twitter but found that its “signal to noise ratio” was very poor.

More recently, I’ve joined Facebook, so I can better keep in touch with family and friends.

I also briefly visited the Which? Facebook page, but quickly decided not to participate there.

It seems to me that both Facebook and Twitter are excellent platforms for “rabble rousing” and spreading bigoted fake news. I want no part of that.

W?C does also sometimes suffer from the problems of “rabble rousing”, but we do at least have moderation here, to help mitigate the damage. Hence we can have higher quality discussions.

That’s an interesting header, Patrick. And, indeed, the Which? forum – when it started – was one of the first kinds of social media (for the masses) ever to appear. Of course, it was also a closed forum – all those who used it had to be either subscribers or have taken out a trial subscription.

Which? wasn’t just an ‘early mover’, either; it was a true pioneer of the online community in ways the others could only dream about. But for me, this sentence stands out with pristine clarity:

We had lost sight of the inherent value of social media: to reach, connect with and build highly engaged communities

In fact, I suspect it was rather different. The PTB were terrified of social media in all its forms. Sadly, instead of doing the honest thing – which one might have expected from Which? – it did the reverse. Instead of openly saying “We don’t understand social media, so we’re going to cut all the elements that made our forum so attractive when it launched and allow it to whither” they simply did that but never owned to it.

But let’s take a step back and look at the original forum: it was dynamic, filled with the movers and shakers from within the organisation. Sheila, Kim, Dave, Alan, Paul, Fergus – the very top people – used to visit and exchange jokes with the members. In return, there evolved a fierce loyalty towards Which? and everything it stood for. If that wasn’t an example of really, really understanding the power of social media I don’t know what is.

Sadly, Sheila’s untimely demise led to a new CEO, whose sympathy towards the forum was utterly non-existent focussed, as he was, on driving up profits (and getting a healthy share of them) and so – inexorably – the directors and managers we all came to know through interactions on the forum stopped visiting. An edict went out (very Christmassy) that no one from Which?’s directorial phalanx was to set virtual foot inside the place.

So I’d argue that not only did Which? really understand Social media at the outset, they made it a resounding success. A new incumbent decided they didn’t like the idea, and so it was allowed to die. Interesting when you look at it, too: a track record of closures where the internet is concerned seems to have been the hallmark of the top management over the past 14 years.

There’s a great deal more I could say. For the moment, however, I agree that Which? has a second chance. But it’s now a long way behind in the game and the same signs that characterised interactions after Sheila’s death continue to be apparent: promises of great things to come but little happening; almost no member privileges; few incentives for regular posting.

Still a way to go, I think.

I have just been on all 3 F/T/I (Facebook/Twitter/Instagram) social media links above and the first thing that strikes me is…. how unfriendly they are.

Facebook won’t let you look at comments unless you log in. Try to look at photos and the screen is obscured with a very large banner to log in.

Twitter again won’t let you look at replies unless you sign up, obscuring the screen.

Instagram won’t let you look at anything without logging in, and another login popup obscures the screen.

And of course you cannot post, like or do any other interaction without logging in.

@patrick, I find it very strange that you refuse to make people log in to post here, but put so much effort into F/T/I social media that won’t let you even look at what Which? has to offer without logging in.

All that is required here to post is a user name and a password unlike F/T/I social media that asks far more questions than I want to answer.

So what is the point of all these platforms?

The number of followers you can claim on social media? A few of those 150,000 followers might shoot off the odd one-liner, and even become regulars, but can you honestly call them highly engaged communities? Do they talk to each other?

The number of convo rants/comments on a recycled pet project? They don’t talk to each other much either.

Is the answer just simply numbers?

It seems to me, Which? wants less and less engagement with the people it purports to work for. It wants our money, the figures we generate, but at the same time, making sure we are kept at arm’s length. Much of the interaction we could have has been removed – Which? Local, the email service, product reviews, and even the convos seem to have taken a back seat and be less relevant than they were apart from the odd deluge of rants.

Which? Conversation is a darned sight more social than Facebook, Twitter or Instagram will ever be, but sometimes I get the feeling it’s days are numbered.

I have never been interested in any of the usual social media sites, though I have seen examples of family interaction on a sibling’s tablet and how it works. Which can use all these social sites, to its advantage, for promulgating itself, its various messages, warnings and advice on consumer issues. This is using social media as a profile raiser and part of a drive to gain more subscribers. Nothing wrong with that.
Which Conversation is unlike most media sites in that, apart from The Lobby, it is directed by the topics that head each conversation. There is probably a greater degree of moderation here than on any other site. So again, apart from The Lobby, one is not chatting about the daily mish mash of life and exchanging random thoughts on the headlines as they occur. Nowhere here do we send messages to relatives and friends about personal concerns, neither do we make appointments or communicate over business matters. Which Conversation has a defined purpose, that other sites do not have.
If you create a members forum, you do two things. You create a hierarchy of those who can belong and you narrow the contributions of these members to specific member related issues. This then ceases to become a social site and becomes an internal part of the Which structure. By its nature it is not read outside the circle of members. The purpose of such a forum would be to influence the direction and management of Which, and as past efforts have shown, Which is not usually willing to be influenced. There might be some kudos in belonging to a select site and members might feel free to delve into academic and esoteric areas, knowing that their comments are appreciated by others. Good, let them get on with it. This site does what it needs to do within the parameters of good behaviour, thoughtful contributions and community guidance. What it doesn’t do is to make Which management wish to contribute and it doesn’t encourage interference in its working. It also doesn’t take much notice of what is written here. One of the ideas of this site was to use us as a sounding board for research and consumer reaction. We provide the reaction and it is ignored by all but those in charge of shepherding us here on the Conversation pages. They cheer us along and are (probably) kept at arms length from other decision makers?
I find the site therapeutic, but this therapy is personal and little to do with being a Which member or a consumer.

As you may expect I do have a view. Firstly I always like to take the big view of what the organisation does as a whole and then what do the component parts add to the mission.

There has been mention of – forum – which as we know exists, is difficult to access, and has no index. To my mind I have no problem with Conversation per se other than repitition and lightweight articles. For engendering lots of comments I believe it has been a godsend.

The flipside is where is the serious comment and what use does the organisation make of probably tens of thousands of very knowledgeable people.

The Member Forum might be the place where you COULD have detailed discussions on test weightings , on products etc etc. but no there is NO venue for serious discussions. For example have we heard why Which? is not touching the Optical Express case?

I know several are content with what is on offer and of course to my mind I think it is because they have no knowledge of what other consumer groups provide more cheaply, more effectively, and more transparently.

We have had a very top-down arrangement with a Board of businessmen driving an agenda. I look at the Dutch where they sue companies, they have changed the law on new builds/retentions and snagging to the greater benefit of the consumers. There are of course other examples.

I would suggest that we have now an organisation which talks loudly but carries no genuine stick. It is though you sign up for a Alsation guard dog and find instead you have a poodle that barks when most of the mass media barks and months after the more investigative papers and sources have highlighted an issue.

The Which? reputation is incredibly important in making its comments newsworthy, and give added impetus to its commercial growths. If the quality of what Which? offers was compared to outside consumer bodies I fear it will be found seriously wanting.

Which Conversations? was great when it arrived – a major advance – but without some serious revamping of the whole organisation it cannot save it from being seen as a large token bone whilst the commercialising continues apace based on an aura of consumer charity goodness.

If this seems slightly cruel you must bear in mind that every outlet talks of scams and warns people, newspapers, radio, TV’s etc etc. Is it just possible that rather than Which? just chiming in with every other body that it actually it also should be doing serious stuff that nobody really gets it’s teeth into and putting its 700,000 membership behind changes?

What other organisation is in a position to make a big stink about housebuilders and shoddy buildings and incomplete snagging. No organisation I know. Is it a just cause – what are the figuresin terms of people and money – is it very stressful?

I think we can all recognise a case where builders now choose who signs of the build is probably bad for housebuyers and that the Dutch have provided a template for a solution. So Which? a right-sized campaign directly relevant to consumers which has been hanging around for a decade.?

I’m not on Facebook for security reasons, as touched on before in previous convos. Also because of this for example, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/facebook-week-of-shame-data-breach-observer-revelations-zuckerberg-silence

I have been on Twitter for two years now. My, my. It alternates between being fantastic and montrous. As a matter of course I retweet all the safety warnings by Which? that I can. I also make the occasional comment.

Which? Conversation is a breath of fresh air, no ads and no trolls. 🙂

Human beings are just a branch of the animal family even our DNA is not more than 1 % different from monkeys .

As such virtual communication does not provide real human contact which we basically need for one reason or another .
Herd instinct still survives in us -like groups get together they kiss/hold hands /smile and provide the emotional content lacking in virtual space.
You “feel better ” after talking to somebody , and I have to preface this -IMO- females get more emotional content and satisfaction/reassurance than males.
In any case as long as we are living/breathing organisms human communication is a “must ” for most of us as our mental health is improved , ill thoughts , feelings leave us as we feel we are “wanted” /loved by others , the digital realm will never become mother or father to us unless our brains become just a processing machine like a robot.
Thats why “Virtual Reality ” is called Virtual , for those that disagree try using virtual reality to comfort /console/ cuddle a baby.
Also its when you are a child that you develop much of your reaction to the world that lives with you for the rest of your life , in other words your mother first of all is the greatest decider and developer in your future personality as a baby naturally clings to its mother.