Anything to declare?

[Azza]

I have absolutely no doubt that the club use fan social media and journalists to pedal party lines.

The problem is the club is pretty awful at marketing and fan engaging as it is so when it does happen I think it's quite obvious and it's almost like the club think fans are stupid. I think there is a growing realisation amongst the Twitter & forum commoners that the positive stories are let's call them convenient stories, positioned to help positive opinion of the club.

Now you can go full nilihist, or just slightly and think what is the point worrying or being concerned about such things, but I think they are quite a big deal. If you love Everton or anything really you want to ensure you're getting correct and truthful information about what is going on. No smoke screens, little white truths that falsely provide some hope on a subject or such rubbish because it will just disenfranchise you. I think that happened a lot the past 2 seasons, mainly because of Martinez is his wide eyed view of everything being phenomenonal but I don't think it's washing any more for many people.

 

[orly]

Timing is everything.

Thanks for all the positive comments in here and not turning it into a name and shame exercise. Loads of really interesting ideas raised by others.

The Ian Ross thing is always one of the most incredible (in all senses of the word) fan 'engagement' activities that I've seen. He posted under the alias 'Ruperts_Tower' on Kipper as well - which was an absolute nest of antiboard sentiment - and he was not only as you'd expect totally on club message, he was pretty vicious to a number of other posters.

It's difficult to describe the approach these days as more subtle; I agree with suggestions that we are all far more aware and jaded by the soft nudging these days, but the 'deniability' and arms length nature of the influence is more competent.

However it is said that we buy newspapers that, rather than tell us the news, reinforce or reaffirm our views on the 'olds'. Marketing feels much the same; we just want to be told how great everything is.

 

[Efcjake]

Supporter influence hasn't dwindled, but it has changed

It has in terms of the balance sheet.

 

[orly]

Do you think that's different because one of the contributors is a shareholder? Not that being a minority shareholder necessarily gives one privilege or access, but maybe there's a different perception on that person's rights to information and opinion.

Seriously good point.

 

[bicycleheader]

Very interesting stuff @orly and well written too. I'd like to contribute beyond that but don't have a clue

I do however believe that the club are paying @D410 per post, as they know everybody will believe the opposite of what he says

 

[Efcjake]

Timing is everything.

Thanks for all the positive comments in here and not turning it into a name and shame exercise. Loads of really interesting ideas raised by others.

The Ian Ross thing is always one of the most incredible (in all senses of the word) fan 'engagement' activities that I've seen. He posted under the alias 'Ruperts_Tower' on Kipper as well - which was an absolute nest of antiboard sentiment - and he was not only as you'd expect totally on club message, he was pretty vicious to a number of other posters.

It's difficult to describe the approach these days as more subtle; I agree with suggestions that we are all far more aware and jaded by the soft nudging these days, but the 'deniability' and arms length nature of the influence is more competent.

However it is said that we buy newspapers that, rather than tell us the news, reinforce or reaffirm our views on the 'olds'. Marketing feels much the same; we just want to be told how great everything is.

I remember that profile on kipper. When did he got collared as Ian Ross?

 

[orly]

I remember that profile on kipper. When did he got collared as Ian Ross?

I think his IP was out of the L4 offices and the account registering email address linked to his Facebook account. I think that's right, not absolutely certain.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Ill have to wait till the weekend to read that mein frandel but I'm sure it'll be worthwhile.
That's a 2 cup of coffee and a full pack of chocolate digestive biscuits read that

Save yourself the trouble reading it all and just go for the coffee and biscuits

 

[Azza]

Haha that's superb timing. I'm guessing it's Mo lurking in here again. lol


The biggest gripe I have around fan engagement at the moment is that you have the Fans Forum which is literally a hand picked group of people by the Everton propaganda machine who are meant to represent. But other fans can not actually engage with them in any meaningful way so it just makes them completely redundant.

Then you have the fans TV thing whom well Weasel index doesn't lie, but things are said and denied profusely and then they're invited to a sponsorship football match along with the other people from The Blue Tower - of whom obviously can't critique board room activity because of the people who have a big mutual relationship between the station and the club. On field activity can get negative criticism because it's deserved when it doesn't end with a W.

It's just a weird situation right now I think, there's an area of the business which does amazing work and does great marketing and branding in the charity and then there is the main body which is just abject in nearly every area. Pre-made stories in The Echo, planted Tweets, the Moshiri-White bromance, the continued positive hand trying to calm the masses while not giving anything if substance.


I think many thought things would change when Moshiri came in... but that doesn't look like it'll will happen.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I think his IP was out of the L4 offices and the account registering email address linked to his Facebook account. I think that's right, not absolutely certain.

Wow. I mean, not that I can figure out how to pull off a multi, but wow.

 

[kev]

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/ .

Um, erm, err, . . . that would be an ecumenical matter

 

[devogue]

Most clubs/ companies do stuff like this tbh.

 

[Frang]

Do the club get a percentage from the blue room subscriptions?

 

[leslad]

A perfect example of this concept in action is this article from the Echo last year: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-need-bide-time-transfer-11527466

This talks about us having a 100 million quid transfer budget.

Did we spend 100 million quid? No.

Supporters were not too pleased that their expectations had been met but they couldn't throw it back at the club because the information did not come through their official channels and so there's nothing to be done but grumble.

Now, do you think the Echo and the Trinity Mirror media group just decided to tell that lie and stick to it? Or is it more likely that the club wanted to generate some hype and good feelings for the new owner while fueling season ticket sales?

Plausible Deniability and everyone except us was a winner. Trinity Mirror gets to sell their papers and generate clicks, Everton gets everyone feeling good about Moshiri and drives up season ticket sales on the back of those expectations.

We get misled.

I get that, and it makes sense, despite the fact that it doesn't apply to me, as for me it's my (entirely personal) opinion that it's up to me what I choose to believe to be 'true'. And I only believe that 100 mill will be spent when it is actually spent, because I naturally think critically about information presented to me, regardless of the source of information, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. But not everyone is like that, many people will believe what they read in newspapers and on social media etc, and read it as gospel, and I guess therein lies your point.

I'd advise people against believing what they see when it is written. Faith and critical thought is far more useful than belief in the majority of situations even outside of football.

 

[Efcjake]

I get that, and it makes sense, despite the fact that it doesn't apply to me, as for me it's my (entirely personal) opinion that it's up to me what I choose to believe to be 'true'. And I only believe that 100 mill will be spent when it is actually spent, because I naturally think critically about information presented to me, regardless of the source of information, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. But not everyone is like that, many people will believe what they read in newspapers and on social media etc, and read it as gospel, and I guess therein lies your point.

I'd advise people against believing what they see when it is written. Faith and critical thought is far more useful than belief in the majority of situations even outside of football.

Evertonians as a group I'd say are more cynical and discerning than the next person. Scousers generally look down upon those we see as "soft" or gullible and we've been lied to by the club plenty of times in the past few decades.

I'd say I got sucked into believing that the 100 million transfer budget was a possibility last year. It wasn't immediate though as my initial reaction was traditional Evertonian cynicism though when one of my Canadian converted brethren excitedly told me about the links to Witsel and Mata(players within the scope of his limited cross section of knowledge of Everton players and decent players on FIFA) which I responded to by immediately telling him it was a load of BS from the usual rags and "wait until they hold up the shirt" etc.

Over time, probably influenced by things read on here and in the papers repeating those claims, I wanted to believe that it was true. That we might actually be in for Witsel and Mata or Koulibaly. You're right to preach the importance of critical thinking and discerning the reliability of the information presented to you. Sometimes that can go to pot, especially when the message is something you want to be true as that bias can affect people's critical thinking abilities as it probably did mine that summer. Being continuously exposed to a message can also alter people's acceptance of it, this is one of the key principles of propaganda and marketing/branding. Additionally, people's perception of the validity of the message can be affected by their perception of the validity of the source. All of those were probably factors in me putting aside my cynicism and wanting to believe the 100 million quid transfer kitty and Witsel and Mata rumors.

I think this all relates to one of @orly 's points. Not only should there perhaps be some concern that Everton is expressing a desire to exert some influence over the independent sources of club-related information, but there should be even greater concern at the scope of the net they're casting. There's a lot of different representatives on those team sheets that collectively make up a good portion of the media covering the club. Since those members of the independent media are not the club they don't necessarily raise those feelings of distrust some Evertonians associate with Everton's PR/media dept and as a result those Evertonians probably place more trust in information coming from those sources outside of the club, rightly or wrongly believing it to be free of the club's influence.