Johnny Rotten or Beethoven?

Last week I picked up on a tweet from someone via a conference which said ‘Social HAS to loose the anarchist tag – will never go mainstream otherwise. Need to move from punk rock to classical. #e20s’

I thought this a somewhat narrow minded view so I retweeted and said so. Shortly after I received a reply saying ‘You’re welcome to your opinion #e20s’, and perhaps rather bluntly I replied ‘Ta – I don’t particularly welcome yours, punk and classical, we can have both’. In quick succession I then received ‘I’ve no problem with challenge or criticism Doug. I’ve dished out enough of both! #e20s’, followed by ‘I don’t particularly enjoy being hashtagged all the time though’ and finally, ‘I just find the hashtags a bit #naff and #petty Doug’.

I tried to respond with ‘If you can’t stand the tweet heat – stay out of the kitchen’, but the person had blocked me, so I couldn’t. Of course we’re free to follow, unfollow and block whoever we choose and I couldn’t help but feel the final response and subsequent and immediate blocking of me was perhaps, in the tweeters own words, a bit ‘#naff and #petty’.

Definitions of Anarchy

Leaving aside our squabble, I think anarchy sometimes gets a bad rap. As well as being ‘A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority’ it is also defined as ‘Absence of Government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal’, and I’m sure you’ll find other definitions out there too. There are times when people question how much help Government is (regardless of its political hue), and despite all the challenges the concept of absolute freedom of the individual does at times have an allure to it, doesn’t it?

Of course there is an element of rebellion about social media. I expect Starbucks would rather people hadn’t hijacked their #SpreadTheCheer Twitter wall at the Natural History Museum and tweeted ‘Pay your fucking taxes’ right across it, but the mood of the day turned against them, and they got a taste of a ‘State of disorder’. I think this is more a case of recognising that you don’t own and control hashtags and the responses to them once they’re out there, rather than outright anarchy.

Starbucks Pay Your Fucking Taxes

I found a few other examples of the Dark Side of social media (you’ll doubtless have plenty more), which I shared recently at the Workplace Trends Social Media for Business Conference. This was an interesting opportunity for me as in the main; I have a very positive experience of social media. Nevertheless I went searching for the dark side, and I found myself in the sewer soon enough.

I found plenty of examples of disjointed organisations proudly displaying their silo mentality for all to see, including a fine one courtesy of Qantas. As Qantas launched their #QantasLuxury competition to win a pair of Qantas pyjamas, what their marketing department failed to consider was their current public image following the decision taken to ground the entire fleet during an industrial dispute. The online furore that followed was of Qantas’ own making, and you can’t help but feel that a bit of good old fashioned talking between departments beforehand could have saved a lot of embarrassment.

We delved into the tragic tale of Sandy Hook from the perspective of Ryan Lanza. Ryan Lanza, estranged brother of the gunman Adam Lanza was incorrectly named as the killer by CNN News. Fox and CBS quickly followed suit while Ryan continued to work at his desk in New York City, until his social media feeds lit up with false accusations and his world changed.

We then considered Mary Beard, the sometimes controversial Cambridge Don who was vilified on social media following an appearance on BBC Question Time. In this case – the attacks were more about her appearance rather than her intellect, and I wondered, if Mary had been male, would such a thing have happened? As she reflected in an interview with The Independent, Mary Beard said:

“I think we’re still in the process of learning how to deal with all that. I suppose I feel, perhaps naively, optimistic that we’re just not yet quite clear about the rules of how you communicate online publicly. If you do respond, and say quite calmly, ‘I don’t think I actually said that,’ quite often you get a real response.”

Is she right? Watch this space.

My journey took me to some dark places for sure, and in summary this is what I was reminded of:

  • You don’t own hashtags so use them by all means – at your own risk
  • Despite the open nature of social media we see loads of businesses still completely siloed inside. When is business going to understand that it’s all about the conversation – not just in silos, but across and beyond the organisational boundaries?
  • Check your facts

People can be and are hugely irresponsible at times, and they certainly don’t need social media to achieve that.

Perhaps more importantly – there was a brief aside to the squabble I referenced earlier when another contributor said (re: punk v classical), ‘how about New Romantic?’ How about it indeed. In fact – why not a bit of each and every musical genre (except maybe Phil Collins)? If the culture of social can’t be an inclusive, broad church, then it’s not a culture, it’s a cult.

Starbucks Paying Tax – Empty Threats?

Have you walked past an emptier than usual Starbucks lately? If yes, you’re not the only one, far from it. Since the news broke that Starbucks hasn’t paid corporation tax for fourteen of the past fifteen years, my timeline has been busy with tweets about people walking by and seeking out a Costa Coffee, Caffe Nero, or even an independent coffee shop. There are many alternatives to Starbucks on the high street. They’ve never been my preference – I think their coffee sucks, and maybe that’s another story…

But for now, hallelujah, happy days – Starbucks has seen the light and is deciding it will pay more tax in the future. More than nothing eh? Well I guess that is a start. I feel for the people on the Starbucks frontline, I doubt they knew of their bosses decisions to play the tax system for maximum corporate advantage, yet what little job security they have is being made even more fragile by the current absence of customers.

In its press release, Starbucks says, ‘We have listened to feedback from our customers and employees and understand that, to maintain and further build public trust, we need to do more.’ You don’t say?! And this admission implies to me that listening, whether it be to customers or employees, has not previously been a Starbucks strong point. So – looking on the bright side (ish), we now have a company willing to tip a few coppers into the UK tax system (at least until they’re sure no one is looking again), and they’ve had some kind of listening epiphany. I hope that this will make Starbucks a better place to work in future.

While all this plays out, other companies being criticised for similar tax avoiding practice include Amazon and Google. Neither of these companies has blinked yet. And why should they? Who do we order our online Christmas shopping from? And where do we go for internet searches? Hmm… Neither Amazon nor Google faces the level of competition that Starbucks does, and of course none of these companies is breaking the law as it stands, however morally repulsed by their decisions we are, or are not.

It strikes me that whilst customer and employee pressure should be given its due, the simplest way for Government to get a grip on this taxation fiasco is to act decisively and change the tax laws. We’re all in this together, right? In the meantime, I’ve booked a day off to go Christmas shopping in the real world, well Brighton at least 🙂