Are we there yet? The 2010 election has come and gone and as of today we still don’t know who will form the next Australian government.

And now Twitter has a new hashtag for the long wait to hear the result: #auswaits.

Its been an interesting few weeks observing the goings on from the sidelines.

The social media war fought on #ausvotes prior to the election was ferocious at times with partisan supporters spamming last minute calls to action.

Twibbons were out in full flight with Twitter users declaring their alignment with the presidential “I’m with Julia”, the nationalistic “Standup for Australia” and the matter of fact “This Saturday I’m voting Greens”.

On election night #ausvotes was a trending topic, as were a number of other Oz election #hashtags, including one for our youngest ever MP #wyattroy which hit number one with a bullet at one stage.

And then came the inevitable #hungparliament as people gradually realised where the numbers were going towards and started wondering what it all meant.

Nearly two weeks later we still don’t know, but time is growing short until the independents make a decision on which way they will jump.

And still #auswaits

I can’t wait for the election night coverage on TV when Julia and Tony go head to head as Australia votes.

Like usual, I’ll settle down in front of the telly with a cold beer in one hand and a list of all the electorates in the other and let the soothing voice of the ABC’s Anthony Green wash over me as the numbers start to come trickling in.

But this year, something will be different: Twitter.

Unless you’ve been living in a hot-spot free cave for the past few years, you’d know that Twitter has exploded as the micro-blogging site of choice for huge numbers of people.

And as viewers of Masterchef will also know, what’s more fun than watching your favourite show on TV? Tweeting about it at the same time!

Reading the comments that people make using the #masterchef tag is a hoot - I’ll never forget the collective tweet shout of “nooooooo” as Marion was eliminated.

Also amusing is to see puzzled Americans post “what the?” tweets as #masterchef trends worldwide everytime the show airs.

And so it will go for the Australian federal election of 2010.

Or will it?

I know I won’t be alone sending #ausvotes tweets on election night.

But while voting is compulsory in Australia, interest in the outcome is not.

Will the same number of tweeting punters come out on election night as they do for #Masterchef?

Suspect not.

To Facebook or not to Facebook? This is a question that is increasingly being asked in legal circles.

I’ve long been a Facebook scoffer - and thought it was an ego-centric timewaster (of course everyone in the world wants to know what I had for dinner last night (pumpkin soup) and my favourite color (red)).

However, Facebook is undeniably a massive global phenomenon, despite the recent backlash due to privacy concerns, and is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

With over 400 million users online you’ve got to think that to ignore its potential for business is a mistake.

A new survey of corporate counsel in the US documents the increasing reliance on social media sites like blogs, Wikipedia, LinkedIn and Facebook for professional news and information (and of course for personal use).

The survey run by US firm Green Target  measures how inhouse counsel (the primary purchasers of outside legal services) are listening to the social media messages sent by the big law firms.

Do you use Facebook for business reasons? If so why and how?

Kraft knew which way is up when it swiftly withheld the use of the name “iSnack 2.0” for its new and creamier Vegemite variant.  Unfortunately , the web -flavoured name  got the ‘now’ generation  mercilessly miffed, resoundingly rejecting the name.  The  company has now settled on “Vegemite Cheesybite”.

Whether this  snafu  at Vegemite was fact or fake  remains to be seen but it brings back  feelings of deje vu of 1985 when Coca- Cola decided to change its formula and the name of its famous product from ‘Coke’ to ‘New Coke’, only to abandon the shift before the fizz run out.

The lesson from the spread and the fizzy is that if a name has become associated with your products it is suicidal to  dabble with it. It is like exposing your soul to the devil.  You may be left in a hole bigger than your business plan. This is more so in the case of  a variant of the original  product  (as was in the case of ‘iSnack 2.0’). There is a danger that customer perception may be driven to conclude that the original product that created brand awareness and association was second rate all the time. 

Writing in his book ‘Brand failures- The truth about the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time”  Matt Haig says that ‘marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products’.

Perception are ultimately visual  and customers associate brands with their  perceptions of products.  McDonald’s  Golden Arches is  example of  brand association. 

Haig  says this about a well established brand:
“ At the most basic level, your brand is your name. It does not matter how important the brand name is to the company. It is what it means to the public that counts.”

Today I continue on from Monday’s post regarding what makes a quality Web 2.0 resource.  I’ll dig a little deeper into evaluating sources using the criteria outlined by Maureen Henninger on page 153 of her book “The Hidden Web” (2nd ed).

Maureen Henninger argues that researchers should apply the same evaluation criteria to a Web 2.0 source as they would to any website or indeed any print resources.  These criteria are:

1. authorship
2. publishing body
3. point of view or bias
4. currency
5. authenticity

The good news is that Web 2.0 has developed a culture of transparency and authenticity that actually facilitates the evaluation of sources.

1. Authorship

Web 2.0 and social networking in particular has seen a reduction in concerns about privacy online and a growth in the number of people who are willing to publish personal and professional details.  Furthermore, the blogosphere is fast becoming an alternative method for developing a professional profile compared to traditional academic publishing.  Consequently many professional blogs will be clearly marked with their author/s and often the author’s academic or business affiliations.  It is often easy to verify these credentials via other sources such as LinkedIn (a social network site for professionals where you can check references and professional connections).

2. Publishing Body

As many blogs and other Web 2.0 sources are self-published, the concept of a publishing body may appear obsolete.  In fact, with 44.4% of active internet users writing blogs (according to Universal McCann), the concept of a publisher has become more important than ever.  The role of a publisher is to identify promising authors and information, improve the quality of the content through editing and review, and then to promote and distribute the work to interested audiences.  Some blogs are supported in the traditional manner by publishers such as CCH, LexisNexis or Thomson.  But what of those who aren’t?

Some join blogging communities such as LexBlog, a blog creation service specifically for legal professionals.  But for many solo bloggers, their readership becomes their de facto publishing body.  Comments and ratings provide editing and review.  Links and reviews from other blogs provide the promotion and recommendations.  There are also blog and website aggregator services such as Digg or Technorati, which collect metrics on readership or recommendations and assign blogs and articles a quality or interest rating.  The collective readership, rather than a publisher, now defines the authority of a work.

3. Point of View/Bias

As discussed above, authenticity and transparency are highly valued in the Web 2.0 world, and it is relatively common for authors to declare their affiliations.  Those who don’t and post for ulterior motives will soon be found out by fellow bloggers and suffer a backlash of negative publicity, as was the case for Walmart’s failed PR stunt “Wal-Marting Across America”.

4. Currency

Unlike earlier static websites, blogs and wikis maintain their audience by constantly updating content.  As a consequence it is common practice to clearly mark the date of each entry or revision, making it relatively easy to assess the currency of the information.

5. Authenticity

Criticisms of Wikipedia are often met with the argument that not only is it easy to view when article was last edited, but also to access previous versions and the discussions between users that accompany revisions (David Weinberger discusses this at length in Everything is Miscellaneous).  It does require a little extra effort on the behalf of the user, but in many ways the ability to assess authenticity is just as easy with Web 2.0 sources as with traditionally published material.

So there you are.  Let no one claim that Web 2.0 sources are unreliable simply because they cannot be verified.  They CAN be verified and assessed - but it requires the reader to take the responsibility for this process.  So are readers ready to take on this responsibility?  Some might argue that it never even crosses their minds - a published book was always a trustworthy source (99% of the time anyway).  But I would argue that people are so used to being bombarded by media that they are developing automatic skills to assess what is valid and valuable - a sort of inherent cynicism.  That said, education - at the school, tertiary and professional level - will go a long way to ensuring people have the necessary information literacy skills.