Evening Standard Snorts at Cocaine Deaths?
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Evening Standard, sister paper of the Daily (our-country-is-going-down-the-drugs-pan) Mail, has just revealed a coded stance to the cocaine-snorting public.
Beside the doomful story 'Record numbers killed by 'dinner party' cocaine', it juxtaposed a small inset that highlights the increase in deaths from 'superbug' Clostridium Difficile. The contrast between the two is so stark, you couldn't make it up. You could argue that this was just a coincidence, but not many would be suitably high to believe you.
The drugs story tells of 196 Cocaine-related deaths in the UK last year - a 16 per cent rise on 2006. The Superbug story talks about 8,324 C. Diff related deaths last year, a 28 per cent rise over 2006. Putting one beside the other, invariably invites a comparison, not very typical of the Standard.
To see the story in readable size click here.
Newspapers don't usually leave things like this to chance, so either someone played a subtle trick, or missed the obvious. Either way, I don't think the editor would be pleased.
BidBoogie UK Launch – Should I Trust You?
I've been asked by Bid Boogie's PR to review their new UK site. I got some free credits and a promise that I won't have to be nice ("We would love to hear your feedback and we appreciate that you need to be impartial.").
Now here's my problem: I think that Bid Boogie are a legitimate company, but I couldn't really verify it, and some of the activity around its promotion does it no favours at all.
As you will see from the rest of this post, my main issue is one of trust. When a service breaks into a new market, it needs to give you confidence that it is legit. With BidBoogie, a trawl on their site and the web brought up the following question marks:
1. I found several spam messages promoting the new service on Internet forums, blogs and sites, including this one (screenshot) on MoneySavingExpert.com (now removed as spam), which is clearly planted (a PS3 doesn't actually feature on the list of already sold items on BidBoogie). A user similarly spammed PriceRunner here (screenshot here). I'm not suggesting necessarily that BidBoogie themselves are behind it, but it doesn't help their brand, and they need to be aware that Imitating a costomer to promote your business is now illegal in the UK, and since May 08 is a criminal offence. If BidBoogie are hoping to instil confidence in their legitimacy, they need to ensure that whoever is doing this, stops. Immediately. And they need to distance themselves from spam.
2. The address provided for Bid Boogie in the UK is that of a virtual office and the phone number a virtual number (0750). It's probably just a temporary thing, but it isn't good for consumer confidence.
3. I know you can't help it, but I found it a little eerie that the first four names of the company's contacts are, in order of appearance: Miko, Miikka, Mikko and another Mikko, respectively. To an Anglo-trained ear this may seem a bit odd.
4. The domain Bidboogie.co.uk is registered to a company called "Effective Investments S.L", in Hotel del golf, Malaga. Again, this does not inspire confidence. I would not pay any money to a company where the holding structure is not clear, and the address for redress is somewhat suspect.
So, BidBoogie, if you are indeed legit, the above is the first thing you need to sort out. In fact, there's a trust issue built into the bid process as well, but I'll cover that a little further down the page.
Further observations about BidBoogie.co.uk:
1. Your registration process needs a good usability review. It's not clear which fields are compulsory and which aren't, the activation email doesn't send an activation address (worse still, the activation code is glued to the previous word in a way that will lose you quite a few users). When I consult to companies on usability, I often notice that the registration process is overlooked, as are privacy and data protection elements (there are some legal risks here too). You need to ensure you get this one right, especially as you are a transactional site.
2. A new website usually loses me if I don't understand what it's there to do within 10 seconds. The homepage of BidBoogie UK was confusing. 'How does it work?' I asked myself. A one liner that tells you in a nutshell has to be integrated into this page.
3. Determined to understand BidBoogie, I was looking for a caption explaining the bid system, but couldn't find one. Eventually I noticed a button called 'Auction Concept' at the top. This doesn't immediately tell an English speaker what's behind it, but I clicked it to see if it holds the answer. On that page I did finally find a paragraph that is supposed to explain the concept, written in the most awkward language:
"Next to the products available for bidding there is a clock, which shows how much time has passed since the last bid. When the set time after the last bid has passed, the auction closes and the person who holds the highest bid wins. So, when the time on the clock is up, the auction closes. There is no other bidding time for the product, and the auction closes when no one has raised your bid within the given time, e.g. five minutes. Now it's time to be smart and bid on fantastic quality products. Placing a bid by sending a text message costs £1.50."
So let's recap:
- When the clock shows the bid time is over, the auction closes.
- When the time is up the auction closes.
- There is no other bidding time for the product (when the time is up)
- There is no more bidding time when the auction closes.
So what exactly happens when the time is up? Oh yes, the auction closes. Doh!
It was lucky that there’s an explanatory graphic there – which does a much better job, although it too needs some work.
TRYING IT OUT
I went to bid on an Apple Macbook Air to try out my free credits. There are only a few products on the site at the moment, I assume because it is in pre-launch. The Macbook was selling for £71.19, and the idea was that if the clock reaches zero before anyone else bids, the Macbook Air is mine for this ridiculous price, unless someone else bids, in which case the clock is reset:
Of course I didn't win. In fact, the auction has been live for just under six days now, and, if the system, is to be believed, then someone has been placing a bid at least once a minute during the site’s opening hours of 7am to 10pm. This is possible because BidBoogie allows you to place automatic bids, and if you buy a package of 100 bids, it would continue to bid for you during bidding hours.
Once again, the one element that really needs improving on your site is the trust and transparency factor. When I bid on the MacBook air, and then realised that I can't see who else is bidding and whether or not they are a legit user, it naturally made me ask: is it a real user, or is it just BidBoogie inflating bid prices? I can't see the history of bids on a product, I can't see who's bidding, and every bid costs me money so, as a user, I am not likely to pay cash for something I'm not really sure works as advertised.
My gut instinct as a consumer says that if something is too good to be true, it usually is. Is it likely that I'll be able to buy a MacBook Air from BidBoogie for £71? Probably not. How high does it need to go for BidBoogie to make a profit? Should I trust these guys? I need some more assurances, which I don’t get from the current site.
The UK audience is by nature sceptical, so the BidBoogie team needs to think hard about how to build trust with us. At the moment, there isn't anything to tell me I can trust you.
I’ll be happy to review my opinion in future if things change.
Design Agency Wisdom – How to Fail a Client Pitch in Three Minutes!
I got a call from a web design agency yesterday. The lady on the other end was cold calling the company I am consulting to, and somehow got through to me.
Here is a summary of the interaction:
'I'm calling from agency X', she said, 'and I was wondering if you were planning any web design projects in the near future?'
Now you see, I am this cold caller's dream target: I am actually looking into a design project for my client, and I was willing to hear her out.
'Yes,' I said, 'you actually called at an opportune moment. I'm looking for agencies to pre-qualify for a tender, do you guys design as well as code?'
'Erm, yes, we do both,' she said. She mutters some client names that I don't recognise and can't remember.
'Great! How big is your agency, how many people work for it?'
'I don't know exactly, in the 20's,' she said.
'OK, and what's the split between technical and non-technical at your agency?'
'erm, I don't know, I only started two weeks ago. I'm just... I can arrange a call for you with someone to discuss the detail...'
At this point I stop asking questions, she's obviously wasting my time. Why would I want to arrange another call with someone from a company I know nothing about, who has just cold called me with no further information?
'I can send you some info,' she offers, 'what's your email address?'
So I give her my email address, but on reflection she didn't verify it with me, and she obviously didn't catch it. I never got that email.
And here's the thing: I understand that the agency put an intern or rookie on cold-calling duty and that's entirely not her fault, but if you are out to catch a client - make sure the person on first-contact duty is prepared for the call that will actually get you what you want. If she could have answered my questions knowledgably, and talked me through some good portfolio examples, I would at least have considered her agency.
Now, but for this entry, I would have forgotten their name.
Update: Five days later I did get an email with more details. Five days?
Internet Forums More Like Slander than Libel, Says High Court Judge Eady
The ground is moving under Community libel legislation, one ruling at a time. The latest is a judgement from Justice Eady that Defamation on internet bulletin boards is more like slander than libel. Justice Eady said that bulletin board discussions are characterised by "give and take" and should be considered in that context.
In English law, a victim of libel can win damages even if he has not suffered financial loss as a result of the statement. A person who has been slandered must prove that actual damage has been suffered.
Read the full write-up by Out-Law here, but note that they have confused chat with bulletin boards, and that there is a statement at the end from Justice Eady that confuses things further, because it relates to blogs, not discussion boards or chat:
Out-Law: "Internet chat more likely slander than libel, says High Court".
Update: following my note to the editor of Out-Law, the title of this article has now changed to read "Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court". As the Editor quite rightly told me, they can't really do much about Justice Eady's reference to blogs.