You may have seen the (re)launch of flattr this week, a service which has just becoming bigger and better from the idea first proposed in 2010. The basic concept is that, providing there are the (pre-paid) funds to do so, anyone viewing a post, a picture, a blog, or a video can give the creator of the material a flattr credit by simply clicking an icon - essentially heralding the era of microdonations. The service is compatible with nearly all major platforms, including Instagram, flickr, twitter, Facebook and various blog platforms.

What this means is that there is, perhaps, finally a small scale monetisation opportunity for everyone creating fresh, engaging content, through a broad all-encompassing service - such a reach that means the reliance on individually monetised silos could be obsolete. This has long been one of the biggest challenges for content creators in the social era; how do you make yourself profitable as a blogger or occasional commentator?

This 'Oyster' card approach is one which could become hugely effective in that it could break down the barriers to siloed content - you can't help but wonder whether if newspapers got together and created a similar approach they'd be able to monetise their content collectively rather than in individually subscribed services.

If you could pre-pay to read a finite amount of content across a variety of news sites (which then divvied up the proceeds based on reader behaviour) then you'd browse more. As it is, the increasing number of subscription-based models merely means people get tied to one title only - or, as seems to be the case, simply find the news for free elsewhere rather than pay multiple subscriptions to be able to browse multiple sites. There's power in working together.

For individual bloggers, it provides a nice opportunity to see tangible rewards for your work (albeit rewards that are unlikely to allow you to retire), as well as be able to give flattr credits to others you enjoy reading, watching or reposting. It's a novel idea, and it'll be interesting to see it progress.

@wonky_donky

Well, thank goodness for that. I couldn't stand another day looking sadly at my iPad, wondering how to make the background more feminine and trying to work out how to download some apps on cooking and yoga, the only things that I or any of my female friends are interested in. But now I won't have to, with the launch of the ePad Femme, the "world's first tablet made exclusively for women". Oh, goody.

There's been a lot of coverage on the ePad Femme which suggests that the tablet is pink, although I've struggled to find any indication of that online. Actually, I don't have a huge problem with pink products - I like the colour and used to love my hot pink LG Chocolate. The ePad Femme isn't patronising because it may or may not be pink. It's patronising because it assumes that we ladies can't quite cope with the complexities of "settings" and "apps". They're just so... technical. And there are no kittens involved.

The ePad Femme (which, incidentally, sounds disconcertingly like a hi-tech sanitary product) comes pre-loaded with a number of apps concerning yoga, grocery shopping, weight loss, and cooking, because that's really all us ladies need. And that's just as well, because the manufacturers, Eurostar Group, don't think we're quite able to get our pretty little heads around the complicated concept of downloading apps. While promoting the product as a Valentine's Day gift, Eurostar associate vice president of marketing Mani Nair said that the tablet "makes a perfect gadget for a woman who might find difficulties in terms of downloading these applications."

So if you're a lady who has to ask a male friend to help every time you want to download an app to help you with your diet, or change the background of your tablet to pink because anything else is just too darn intimidating, this is the product for you. And if you'd like to communicate with your fellow ladies (maybe to send them that cupcake recipe you've just perfected) and that still sounds too complicated for you, never fear. You can just use your Bic For Her pen instead.

@rebeccataylorpr

Last night saw the launch of the new Samsung Galaxy S4 - according to media sources, it was a lavish affair in New York and this morning's coverage of the launch has been extensive, with some great write ups from TechRadar, PC Pro (check out their 'as it happened' summary), The Telegraph and Sky News.  Reviews seem to be mixed (if mainly around the showbiz nature of it), with some big fans and very vocal critics taking to social media to voice their opinions on this latest entrant to the smartphone battle.

Whether you love it or hate it, the launch is the talk of the tech community…and as a recent convert from BlackBerry, and one of the 40 million Galaxy S3 customers worldwide, I was interested to see what all the hype was about.

What was immediately noticeable was the buzz around the Samsung S4 launch - it felt akin to an Apple launch, with media and social platforms abuzz with rumours and predictions about the technology, the look and feel and the launch event itself.  As the launch went live, Samsung and the S4 were trending worldwide…and social media was alive once more with all the latest views, opinions and photos from those who were lucky enough to be invited to the launch.

Historically, this type of excitement has only really been seen for Apple launches.  Perhaps the recent BlackBerry 10 launch whipped us all into a smartphone frenzy, but Samsung certainly seems to have moved from being perceived as a challenger to Apple, to a major contender, giving Apple a run for its money in terms of its brand, technology and media coverage.

So what's so special about the S4? Well for starters, you can use it without actually having to touch it!  Yes, that's right…it's the ultimate hands-free phone, operated by using 'Smart Pause', the user can pause a video by looking away from the screen.  And it's 'Smart Scroll' software analyses the user's eyes and wrist to scroll through emails and other content.  Pretty cool eh?!

According to a BBC interview with Ernest Doku from uSwitch.com, "The debut of nifty eye motion-sensitive controls to allow users to pause video and scroll through pages using eye movements alone is smart…For commuters crammed in trains - or just those who love a bit of futuristic tech that makes their lives easier - this novel feature will really help the Galaxy S4 to stand out."

It also seems to have some very cool functionality, including: an in-built translator, which can translate text or voice into any language; sensors that monitor your health throughout the day, adjusting the display and volume to ensure the optimal experience; and a dual camera function that can take two pictures at once - in fact, you can take photos or videos using the front and rear cameras, and merge them into one picture, meaning the photographer never misses out from being in the shot!  It's also stronger, lighter and thinner than the last version (how thin can these things get?!).

The S4 goes on sale in the UK on 26 April, with Samsung expecting to sell 10 million of the new handsets each month…whether it will hit this aggressive target remains to be seen, and as for who will be crowned victor of the smartphone war, it's all to play for, but Samsung certainly seems to have become a credible alternative for the iPhone brigade.  What do you think?  Would you switch to the S4?  Let us know your thoughts…

@LauraSlade

I headed along to a First Tuesday lecture and networking evening this week featuring a Q&A with Paul Forster, Co-Founder of Indeed.com - the #1 job site worldwide. Paul gave a very considered and pragmatic view of what it takes to start up a new venture and take it from concept to trade sale - with minimal investment funding (just $5m in first round funding and a reported sales figure of $1bn).

So, if you want to make it as an entrepreneur, here are my top 10 takeaways from Tuesday night.

1. Contrary to what Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Michel Dell might lead you to believe, you don't have to drop out of college to become a successful entrepreneur. A degree from Oxford, a masters from Cambridge and an MBA from Insead are all pretty helpful

2. Entrepreneurial skills can be taught. But desire and risk are core attributes which a successful entrepreneur needs, and they are instinctive

3. Find a partner with complementary skills to your own. Life for a start-up is much easier if there's two of you

4. You can be successful with a 'me too' product but it's much easier if you have some genuine differentiation in the market

5. First mover advantage is important, but no guarantee of success

6. Just because Google moves into your market, don't panic. Google doesn't always succeed - e.g. property and job classified ads are just two areas which Google hasn't successfully moved into

7. Develop in a lean way - too much investment too soon dilutes your business and long-term returns. Only raise what you need

8. Focus your initial spend on getting the product right, not on business development or marketing. These are irrelevant if the product isn't spot on

9. Be ready to adapt for mobile - it's the biggest game changer right now

10. You don't have to go to the US to succeed (albeit that's what Paul Forster did) - what matters is that you choose a location which offers a mix of access to the right skills, employee base, funding, customers and economic conditions

@StephenDSSmith

I noticed recently that pretty much the only adverts I ever see on television these days are those awful betting ones in between the football matches that my husband forces me to watch. (Ray Winstone constantly telling me the 'bet in-play odds' is starting to get really annoying, and don't get me started on that Italian guy from the Ladbrokes adverts!).

I don't watch these adverts out of choice but because football is always watched live (in our house anyway) it means we can't fast-forward through the ads like we usually do. Like 50% of UK households we own a digital video recorder and it means that we hardly ever watch live TV anymore. We have even been known to purposely put something on pause for 15 minutes at the start of a programme just so we can skip the ad breaks.

According to Thinkbox, the marketing body for TV advertising, a record more than 10 per cent of TV programmes were viewed on a "time-shifted" basis last year, taking into account both on-demand viewing (BBC iPlayer, 4oD, etc) and digital recordings. The rise in services like LoveFilm and Netflix also mean that fewer people are watching live television.

So, what does this mean for advertisers? As recorded content continues to rise people will increasingly skip through television adverts. One result of this is that we will start to see adverts appear in our on-demand services - but will we be able to skip these as well? Who knows?

Another possible outcome is that companies will start to rely more heavily on other methods of reaching their target audience. For example, online banner advertising, display or good old-fashioned print. I also think this creates an opportunity for companies to integrate alternative marketing strategies such as PR, sponsorship deals, social media or direct mailer campaigns, as they look for more creative, innovative ways to influence their audience.

One thing's for certain, this is definitely not a trend companies can ignore.

@CarolannG_85

Every time a new method of digital communication enters the scene, the same thing happens. There are those that wait patiently in the wings, carefully considering the role they would like to play. Others who have a quick dress rehearsal before even attempting to learn their lines. And those who choose to improvise using every available prop at their disposal.

This is the fairest assessment I can give when it comes to Vine; an application launched by Twitter allowing users to record and share short video clips. As someone who works in integrated comms, I am always quite fascinated by the way in which people interpret the opportunity a new medium presents. In my first encounter with the new app, however, I was confronted with a man attempting to sing 'I will always love you', concluding in, what can only be described as, the regurgitation of an Orange. Not pretty.

Thanks to YouTube, we are all used to the weird and wonderful things Joe Public likes to film. And I'm as guilty as the next person who, out of sheer curiosity, can't help but click on the videos even if I know they are only going to make me squirm. In fairness to 'Orange Man', he achieved in excess of 3,700 'likes' of his gif! But therein lies the opportunity for brands and comms professionals.

Earlier this week I read a Metro In Focus feature by Ross McGuiness which looked at what we share on social media and why. According to a survey by BrainJuicer, 75% of content we share is intended to make the recipient feel happy or to surprise them. This is further evident in the incredibly varied videos people are filming using Vine - they are either cute and fluffy or weird and disgusting.

Finding new and exciting ways in which to engage a target audience is, of course, a large part of our jobs. But rather than focus on the desperation of being touted as the first viral Vine, understanding how it's used and what makes a Vine popular is what will set the lead roles apart from the understudies.

Of course, those that are quick to jump into the limelight may well be lucky, but there is an element of trial and error which is part and parcel of the lifecycle of a new form of digital communication. After all, brands are still learning how to get to grips with Twitter and Facebook, and the usefulness of Pinterest and Instagram remains heavily debated.

What we do know is that we are a nation of sharers, 12 million adults in Briton share and receive content every week - this includes everything from pictures to web links. So it's our responsibility to advise our clients on how best to develop content that will be liked and shared. It's not about being the first to use a new medium, or doing it for the sake of it. It's about being the first to do it well.

by @1KatiePotts

My Top 3 Vines

I will always love you (Orange Man)

Caped Crusaders

Duckie's Morning

During my lunch time browse of the Daily Mail, I stumbled across a rather horrifying article that told of a couple that had found a dead bird in their £1.50 bag of Tesco salad. What's even worse is that this is the second time a dead bird has been found in a Tesco's salad packet in the last 15 months. Let's not even go into the praying mantis that jumped out of a ready-made stuffing mix!

As an apology, the supermarket offered a £200 gift card by way of compensation. The couple in question commented that they found the supermarket's gesture offensive. I can't say I disagree with them.

I would be put off from shopping at a supermarket altogether if I discovered a dead bird amongst my salad, and I'm pretty sure I am not the only one. So why do companies continue to offer monetary compensation that can only be spent in the shop where the incident occurred?

And so it got me thinking. How can brands say sorry better?

In this instance, what about a meal for two at a glitzy restaurant to make up for the meal that was ruined? Or an all-expenses-paid spa weekend to help the unsuspecting customer relax after the shocking realisation that a five-inch bird was on offer for dinner? It could be as simple as offering a gift card that can be spent in numerous outlets. I'm certain that this way of saying sorry would be better received by consumers who have had a bad experience with a brand and that a more personalised and thought through apology is likely to encourage consumers to shop again with a particular company.

There are a number of examples of companies who are getting this right, apologising effectively. Earlier this year Mini Cooper sent unique gift boxes that included a can of spam, letter of apology, chocolate rose and duct tape after accidentally spamming a number of its consumers' inboxes with reportedly hundreds of emails. Another example is Bodyform's personal response to a Facebook rant posted by an irritated boyfriend. Instead of a simple Facebook response, the company provided an apology via a spoof YouTube video. Both brands received positive coverage following their apologies, turning potentially damaging stories into positive brand-building opportunities. Tesco could learn a thing or two.

What do you think? Could brands say "sorry" better?

@beccakennett

Once again, Twitter is in the news, and this time, it's because of hacking. Both Burger King and Jeep have seen their accounts targeted in the last couple of days, with hackers claiming the brands have been bought out by respective rivals McDonalds and Cadillac. A social media disaster in many ways, but there has been a bright side - Burger King gained 30,000 followers as a result.

We can only assume that this is what MTV had in mind when they decided to fake a hacking last night. Their Marketing Director tweeted "Everyone watch @mtv right now... #MTVHACK" four minutes before the first "hacked" @MTV post. Putting aside how ridiculous this is - if my client got hacked, I certainly wouldn't be directing people to it, I'd be sorting it out - it's just not a good idea, on any level. Brands who successfully interact with consumers through social media do so because they are bright, engaging, interesting and, crucially, because they have integrity. No-one likes to feel that they've been duped.

My overwhelming thought on this is that it's just very naїve. You don't need to have been working in PR for even a decade to remember the ruckus around "astroturfing", where brands were faking grassroots PR online by posting reviews and blog comments under pseudonyms.  This is exactly the same, just using a different channel. The internet is no longer a new and mysterious channel, and we all know consumers are getting increasingly savvy - there's no getting away with this type of behaviour. I'd have hoped that as an industry, we'd have all grown up a bit.

If you want to read more, it's also worth checking out Forbes' views for a slightly different take on the situation.

@rebeccataylorpr

As soon as something newsworthy (or not in some cases) takes place, Twitter will have covered it. One of its 200 million users will have tweeted about it. And then it begins. The retweets, the unanswered questions, the conversations, the hash tags and the arguments over opinion. It doesn't take long before the item is trending. But just as quickly as it all started, the trend can be gone. New events will have taken place and something else will be the topic for discussion.

Where am I going with this you might ask?

Well, Twitter recently announced improvements to its search capabilities that could have a huge impact on breaking news. Twitter knows what terms and topics are popular but it hasn't previously known what they mean - this is something its algorithms alone can't answer and so Twitter has come up with a solution. It's built in a 'real-time human computation' engine to help identify search queries as soon as they're trending and make sense of them.

Twitter firstly monitors what search queries are currently most popular. This could be anything - we've all seen the ridiculous things that can trend on Twitter (NO JOKE: Justin Bieber is trending as I type. Give me strength). Then when a new popular search query is identified it is sent to Twitter's human evaluators who are asked a number of questions about the query - their job is to make the trending topic more relevant to readers. After an evaluator responds to the query with additional insight, information is pushed out so that the next time a user searches the query this information is utilised with relevant ads, tweets and topical news. This will help piece the query together and provide a more relevant and up-to-date story of the trending subject.

What does this mean?

It means that Twitter could potentially have the upper hand on breaking news stories. I am increasingly turning to Twitter to find out the latest on celebrity gossip. The items that appear from a Google search can be outdated; whereas I know I'll find the most up to date information on Twitter. The only issue I have with Twitter is if the insight is trustworthy. I know if I read an article on The Times or The Telegraph I can take the information and know that it's come from a trustworthy source. However, Twitter's new search capabilities will make search queries more relevant and easier to determine how truthful the information is.

What are your thoughts? Do you turn to Twitter to search for news?

@beccakennett

Keeping abreast of the news agenda is obviously crucial to any PR or comms professional. But when I came across this headline the other day I was quite literally stopped in my Google News tracks. Firstly I felt quite apprehensive for 3.30pm on Wednesday to roll around - note to self: apply some anti-wrinkle cream on Tuesday. Secondly, I felt excited at the prospect of a romantic Thursday and a fun Friday…

…Or did I? No, of course not. Instead I felt quite the opposite. Seriously, what is the world coming to? And more importantly, how is this actually deemed to be newsworthy?

Headlines like this are all too familiar. Research related or otherwise, here are a few classics.

- Playing computer games can help beat childhood obesity, study finds

- Norway goat cheese fire closes tunnel

- Could just one can of diet fizzy drink make taxpayers' money impotent?

We're not foolish, (well most of us aren't) obviously headlines are there to reel us in. And, to give this particular story some credit, I did read on. But the more subtly ironic headlines I read, the more I wonder if they are now actually intended to be taken seriously. For instance, take the computer game example. I had visions of a child sat on the sofa, barely exercising their thumbs, however, upon reading the full story it became apparent that actually it's the dance mat games that help beat obesity. Obviously, I should have known - *slaps forehead with palm*.

As the integrated world of media and communications continues to evolve, research and striking headlines all form the basis of a strong and engaging story. The media landscape will always be littered with questionable headlines, some of which we struggle to find any sense of purpose - we can't (and shouldn't) stop that. But what we can do is ensure that those we create are insightful and engaging, without bordering on useless or downright ridiculous.

@ZoeBevis