orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
Good evening mein frandels.
Over the summer, a number of you kind folk, either as hunted Weasels or Weasel Hunters, took part in the Weasel Index. It was a light-hearted, satirical look at the reasonably new industry of the 'In The Know' persons, turbo-charged by the advent of mass social media. With the exception of one misunderstanding beyond the forum, it was generally taken in the manner in which it was intended.
The whole point was - can we trust the Everton-themed information we are receiving? Should we accept it without knowing the "source"'s full motivations? And ultimately, does it really matter?
I'm not going to start naming names again (and I've been asked not to specifically) and this is not by any means an article of accusations. I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone mentioned coincidentally below is first and foremost an Evertonian. But are they a conduit for the club's own social marketing strategy, willingly or unwillingly?
Over the summer, Goodison Park hosed a number of kick-around friendlies. This one linked above was one of the first of the summer; beyond the celebrity boxers and the SportsPesa directors, there are a number of Everton Twitterati names and, rather surprisingly, the (at that time) Everton editor for the Liverpool Echo. Nothing here is itself shocking - a few regulars making up the teams - but the basic question is: would these social media accounts, ostensibly independent of club oversight or editorial, have been invited if they had taken a negative stance in their podcasts, articles and blogging? Once you have a chance to ping it into the back of the Street End net, living that teenage dream of momentous glory that didn't involve Kelly Brook, are you going to do anything to harm the chances of your invite back?
'Kelly, wonderful two minutes there but I must say, dreadful mattress and the wallpaper could do with a fixer-upper in here'
or
'Kelly, 30 seconds of heaven, fantastic coffee by the way, how about next Thursday?'
So does this matter? Do we care whether our Everton mass media (and it is unavoidable, like Fox News, the BBC website and FaceBook - if you're looking for some Everton action you're going to encounter the big Everton beasts that roam the social media safari) is perhaps influenced by the club in a grace and favour manner? How many times after a big defeat or setback was Tim Cahill wheeled out for some positivity? Pointy Phil telling us after selling all our strikers (plus ca change) one summer that it meant the squad was close-knit, together, more chances for a youngster? After a heavy defeat, did we really need to see Tom Davies (socks mercifully under trousers) doing some samba dancing? Do you feel like you are being manipulated and do you care?
My view is that we should at least be wary as we've been here before. Caveat Lector , even in the Wild West days of late 2011. If you read this thread http://www.nsno.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15350.150 and been around for a while, you may remember the infamous Ian Ross (former comms man at the Club) having a chain of emails leaked. At one point, apparently CEO Robert Elstone drew up a list of individuals "who can say good things about us include (and you know these
far better than me)":
I've removed some of the names here, particularly the Supporters Club leaders, good people who even at the time felt they were unfairly seen as patsies. But what is important here is that the Club felt they could lean on these individuals, and that supporter feeling was being manipulated or at least steered in a way that discouraged a fully robust debate. And you can see why; there's a ravenous desire for fresh, to-the-minute transfer and team news, for the hint of stadium progress fresh off the press, that drives people to the big social media figures, and they need that exposure for more listeners, more clicks, more engagement.
Should editorial oversight from the club be declared? Should the Echo have a 'Chinese Wall' *vomits onto self* that means they can say what they like, when they like, and runouts on the hallowed turf be damned?
Sometimes there are no sinister machinations and for your aural pleasure, you can listen to a couple of Everton supporting frandelinos talking about Everton. Try that here https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/listen-grandoldteam-podcast-16-09-17.99008/ .
Over the summer, a number of you kind folk, either as hunted Weasels or Weasel Hunters, took part in the Weasel Index. It was a light-hearted, satirical look at the reasonably new industry of the 'In The Know' persons, turbo-charged by the advent of mass social media. With the exception of one misunderstanding beyond the forum, it was generally taken in the manner in which it was intended.
The whole point was - can we trust the Everton-themed information we are receiving? Should we accept it without knowing the "source"'s full motivations? And ultimately, does it really matter?
I'm not going to start naming names again (and I've been asked not to specifically) and this is not by any means an article of accusations. I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone mentioned coincidentally below is first and foremost an Evertonian. But are they a conduit for the club's own social marketing strategy, willingly or unwillingly?
Over the summer, Goodison Park hosed a number of kick-around friendlies. This one linked above was one of the first of the summer; beyond the celebrity boxers and the SportsPesa directors, there are a number of Everton Twitterati names and, rather surprisingly, the (at that time) Everton editor for the Liverpool Echo. Nothing here is itself shocking - a few regulars making up the teams - but the basic question is: would these social media accounts, ostensibly independent of club oversight or editorial, have been invited if they had taken a negative stance in their podcasts, articles and blogging? Once you have a chance to ping it into the back of the Street End net, living that teenage dream of momentous glory that didn't involve Kelly Brook, are you going to do anything to harm the chances of your invite back?
'Kelly, wonderful two minutes there but I must say, dreadful mattress and the wallpaper could do with a fixer-upper in here'
or
'Kelly, 30 seconds of heaven, fantastic coffee by the way, how about next Thursday?'
So does this matter? Do we care whether our Everton mass media (and it is unavoidable, like Fox News, the BBC website and FaceBook - if you're looking for some Everton action you're going to encounter the big Everton beasts that roam the social media safari) is perhaps influenced by the club in a grace and favour manner? How many times after a big defeat or setback was Tim Cahill wheeled out for some positivity? Pointy Phil telling us after selling all our strikers (plus ca change) one summer that it meant the squad was close-knit, together, more chances for a youngster? After a heavy defeat, did we really need to see Tom Davies (socks mercifully under trousers) doing some samba dancing? Do you feel like you are being manipulated and do you care?
My view is that we should at least be wary as we've been here before. Caveat Lector , even in the Wild West days of late 2011. If you read this thread http://www.nsno.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15350.150 and been around for a while, you may remember the infamous Ian Ross (former comms man at the Club) having a chain of emails leaked. At one point, apparently CEO Robert Elstone drew up a list of individuals "who can say good things about us include (and you know these
far better than me)":
I've removed some of the names here, particularly the Supporters Club leaders, good people who even at the time felt they were unfairly seen as patsies. But what is important here is that the Club felt they could lean on these individuals, and that supporter feeling was being manipulated or at least steered in a way that discouraged a fully robust debate. And you can see why; there's a ravenous desire for fresh, to-the-minute transfer and team news, for the hint of stadium progress fresh off the press, that drives people to the big social media figures, and they need that exposure for more listeners, more clicks, more engagement.
Should editorial oversight from the club be declared? Should the Echo have a 'Chinese Wall' *vomits onto self* that means they can say what they like, when they like, and runouts on the hallowed turf be damned?
Sometimes there are no sinister machinations and for your aural pleasure, you can listen to a couple of Everton supporting frandelinos talking about Everton. Try that here https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/listen-grandoldteam-podcast-16-09-17.99008/ .
