Karan Chadda

July 29, 2012

Olympic Cycling – men’s road race

The Olympic cycling road race is one of the open access events. Starting from The Mall in London, the men’s race weaves through South West London into Surrey, passing through Royal Parks, whizzing by historic palaces, looping up iconic hills and then winging its way by Thames Ditton, where I stood to catch a glimpse of the action and cheer on Team GB.

Doing their bit to help Team GB, local children put up signs on the railings.

They also chalked messages on the tarmac to cheer on their heroes.

A local Inn pulled together some passable grub.

There was a real party atmosphere, with Union Jacks fluttering.

The Police outriders heralded the arrival of the cyclists to much cheering from the crowd.

Then the leaders appeared. The crowd screamed and yelled, whistled and clapped.

The noise built as the leaders sped by.

Then the first of the heroes from Team GB appeared and the crowd erupted. Flags were waved and the screams immense, the British riders sat strongly at the front of the chasing pack.

The bulk of the pack followed. Riders from all over the world, proudly representing their countries, peddling for all they were worth, their grit etched in faces. All were cheered through.

The crowd began to thin when the fleet of support cars zoomed down the road.

But a hardy few hung around to cheer through some of the riders who had fallen behind. This cyclist from Argentina was one of the last to come through, but despite being toward the back it was clear he was putting in an Olympian effort and was cheered through by those who remained.

Alas, we know this race ended in disappointment for Team GB. However, it was an amazing day for the crowd and I’d recommend heading down to the women’s road race today (29 July).

July 25, 2012

Selling inspiration

Quite often I have conversations where I’m left defending the role of advertising, or more specifically, selling. In general, people don’t like being sold to. That’s a fact and there’s no getting away from it. People love to buy things though, so selling can’t be all bad. The key point, in my view, is that there’s a difference between selling something and selling at someone.

Nike’s Olympics-ad-that’s-not-an-Olympics-ad is a case in point. Title ‘Find Your Greatness’, it’s not selling trainers or t-shirts. There’s no plug for the latest football or bit of kit that can make you faster. Instead, it focuses on the achievements of amateur athletes. It lauds the effort and achievement of those outside the elite. It’s inspiring stuff and, crucially, it’s also selling.

It’s selling an idea, it’s saying that all sporting endeavours should be lauded. It’s saying that Nike applauds your sporting achievements. It inspires you to get out there and participate. In the process of all that participation, they’ll sell some more trainers and FuelBands, they’ll probably sell a lot of t-shirts too. It’s selling without selling at you.

July 24, 2012

Commercial disclosure

The Guardian is asking a very important question (in social media terms, at least) today: Is it ethical to pay bloggers to tweet? Sunny Hundal and Helen Lewis have taken opposing positions (Hundal for, Lewis against). The Guardian’s question relates to Sky News’s payments to bloggers in exchange for said bloggers tweeting about its Murnaghan Sunday morning political discussion show. Applied more broadly, the question is a good one. So, is it ethical to pay bloggers to tweet?

Fortunately, this question ties in nicely with a discussion we’ve been having on CommsTalk about the ASA’s recent rulings about Twitter promotions. The central point, whether it’s about promoting trainers, chocolate bars, hair cuts or TV shows, is that undisclosed commercial promotions can be at best misleading and, in some instances, damage trust. When they do damage trust, they do so not just in the celebrities and commentators, but also in Twitter itself.

One of the best things about Twitter is its authenticity. Tweets have a sense of direct communication. They connect us with others – friends, businesses, celebrities, causes, etc. – in a very direct way. The conversation is instant and there’s a sense that it’s open and honest. It would be a pity if distrust started to seep in, in the way it has with other media. All the UK’s national newspapers are seen to favour one agenda or another. The BBC, generally respected for its quality and its balance, is shot at from all sides of the political spectrum for supporting “the other side”.

Of course, Twitter doesn’t create the content of tweets, so it’s less likely to succumb to the charge of bias. However, if people begin to become wary of tweets, fearing some alternative agenda and speculating at the commercial motives behind the tweets, then Twitter will become a less nice and less trusting place. It would be a pity if that were to happen simply because of a lack of commercial disclosure.

This piece was originally posted here on CommsTalk.

July 16, 2012

Seeing through the transparency debate

Recently, following the example of Google, Twitter issued its first transparency report. This was move lauded by many and the report’s contents was heavily analysed to see which governments were making requests for details about Twitter’s users, how many they were making and how many were granted.

To properly understand this debate, however, it’s best to take a moment to really understand the two forces at its centre: transparency and privacy.

First, let’s look at transparency. In the context of this debate, transparency is usually shorthand for holding corporations and governments to account; making sure that they’re doing the right thing when holding or accessing data about us. Of course, corporations and governments need to access our data for various reasons, but we don’t want them to have too much of it. Essentially, it’s seen through the prism of personal freedom.

On the other side of this debate we have privacy. This is the domain of the individual. The debate naturally centres on people’s right to live their lives without being surveilled. There is also a distrust of the ability of companies to securely hold private data. The recent spate of data loss by companies, including big technology brands like Yahoo and LinkedIn, have served only to underline this distrust.
The dual forces of transparency and privacy have come to the fore in the internet age; simply, there is more information out there. Companies like Google have been indexing it to make it easy to find. Governments have come under pressure to make more information available. Things are harder to hide, for corporations, governments and individuals.

On social media, data is plentiful but much of it is also personal. Social media companies are constantly under pressure to ensure users are able to protect their privacy but also required by governments to prevent abuses occurring – either online or in the real world. This is when the idea of a transparency report becomes useful. It enables social media organisations to frame themselves as protectors of people’s personal information, while at the same time giving information, which they have a duty to provide, to governments and corporations. The brilliance of such reports is that they not only enable social media networks to honestly tell users about the information they disclose to others, but also allow them to show how many requests they decline. By publishing the number of requests declined, they emphasis they are on their users’ side.

Companies like Google and Twitter should be lauded for launching such reports. By letting us know how much information governments and corporations are asking for, they’re treading a fine line by complying with disclosure requirements, yet keeping governments and corporation transparent while defending individual privacy.

This piece was originally posted here on the Huffington Post UK.