After a few tweets, for some misguided reason they thought that putting popular trending hashtags at the beginning of their tweet would be a good idea. This is usually done by spammers so that people searching for a popular keyword such as iphone will see their message. And so, Habitat began sending out identical tweets with hashtags such as #Apple and #iPhone at the beginning. From the looks of it, this carried on for about 8 Tweets.

Yes, it was misguided, yes it was a mistake, but it does not have to be a big marketing disaster. It is certainly not up there with Motrin or Dominos disasters.

Habitat most probably gave their account to someone who knew very little about how Twitter works. I can’t imagine the decision to spam on an Iranian election hashtag was made by anyone particularly high up or with an ounce of sense at the company.

So what has gone wrong here and how can it be fixed?

Habitat have already pulled the offending tweets. Someone has obviously realised their (or someone elses) mistake and got rid of them. This is a start, and although bloggers are noting they can still be found in Twitter Search’s cache, they’re down on page 15 where no one is going to see them.

Habitat also appear to have thrown their hands up in the air and admitted their mistake stating “it is important to us that we always listen, take on board observations and welcome constructive criticism… We will do our utmost to ensure any mistakes are never repeated.”

I think this is the best thing they can do. Everyone makes mistakes in social media, as with anything, it is the only way we can learn and progress. It also goes to show the importance of strategising your social media apporach, as it can go so easily wrong.

There are endless blogs out there that advise on how best to use Twitter but I thought I’d add my two cents:

1. It is essential that a company gives an official Twitter account to someone that is already familiar with and using the service. This would not have happened if a seasoned Twitter user, that knows the etiquette had been given control of the account.

2. Engagement is more important than broadcasting offers. Twitter should be a customer support and engagement tool first and a marketing device second.

3. Give your Twitter followers something extra. No one wants to hear offers being constantly repeated that they can read about on the brand’s website in the first place.

4. Clearly define what you want to achieve with your Twitter account. Is Twitter the right tool for your brand? Jumping on the bandwagon is not the reason for beginning to use Twitter. Can you add something extra for your cutomers by using Twitter.

A Facebook software engineer, Ari Steinberg commented that “We’re certainly not opposed to enabling you to export your own content (in fact, we’re always trying to work on ways to make that easier), but exporting all your friends’ content to a totally public place without their permission isn’t cool.”

This is an interesting development as it shows that Facebook clearly saw it as a serious breach of their privacy controls. How they didn’t see this happening when they opened up the feed in the first place is curious.

RWW comment that “The wall that keeps Facebook user data in and private by default feels too contrary to the fundamental nature of the internet for it to last”, but I believe this case was different. Most Facebook users would have no idea that their data was being exported and it could have caused a serious trust issue between Facebook and the user.

What do you think? Were Facebook right to shut down the NewsFeed application?

If you’re not up to speed on this story, we’re talking about William Gillis, a unhappy iPhone customer who has filed a lawsuit over claims by Apple in their ad’s that the iPhone 3G was “twice as fast for half the price”.

Wired report that Apple have come back with a rebuttal that essentially claims that,

1. They’re not lying, and
2. You’re not supposed to believe what you see in ads anyway. And if you do, you’re not a “reasonable person”.

As worded by Apple:

“Plaintiff’s claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple’s statements as claims of fact,”

Despite Apple’s claims that their ad’s are works of fiction, Gillis’ lawyer claims their case has “teeth and legs to it” and they’re fighting it to the end.

Apples response to the lawsuit is slightly contradictory to what the ASA ruled about the adverts here in the UK. They have recently decided that Apple’s claims about the speed of the iPhone in ad’s are likely to mislead and so the ad’s were pulled.

These reports come just after the Simpsons release an episode with a very tongue in cheek take on (m)Apple. Is Apple losing a hold on its holy, do-no-wrong image?

Research published earlier this month suggests that ethics are increasingly trumping price when we’re deciding where to shop and what to shop for, even though consumers are curbing their spending.

The research found that 76% of consumers are basing more of their buying choices on the ethical stance of brands than they had been 5 years previously. The figures keep on coming: 70% of respondents cited the quality of the goods and the trust in brands as their buying criteria and 39% said they purchase based on the ethical reputation of a company.

This stance can increasingly be seen in the blogosphere with consumer and ethical bloggers throwing their weight behind the research, announcing their support for ethical brands and persuading their readers to do the same. Henna at the Canadian Beauty Blog has done just that with an excellent post promising prizes for her readers that publicise their green habits. Similarly, team Treehugger have suggested some great tips to be green whilst shopping for beauty products.

More so, social networks are becoming a soap box for consumers that want to declare their ethic-savvy shopping habits and their support for ethically sound brands.

Industry insiders are claiming that it is vital for the retail world to sit up and listen to this increasingly powerful group of consumers. If we do, then it seems it will be a win-win situation for everyone with consumers, retailers, suppliers and of course, our planet benefiting.

However, this research comes at a difficult time when some commentators are talking about the potentially harmful effects of things like buying organic and forestry conservation and others questioning our influence on climate change. These conflicting opinions just go to show the importance of debate around the whole topic.

Well, the people up in arms may not be you or I but it has certainly ruffled the feathers of Privacy International who are currently known to be seeking out more information on the details of the project from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

There was a bit of an outcry a while back when Google was sending out its spyvan-cam on its home turf. It has now begun blurring people’s faces in the pictures it took then and plans to do the same for the snaps it takes in Europe. Google will also blur out vehicle number plates and has already put in place the technology to do so. It recognises faces and number plates and works to blur them out.

So far the Google spycar has been spotted in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff, proven by a snapshot of the Google Street View car by the Register. A bit like taking a picture of your friend taking a picture.

Facial characteristics are compared with images in a database of over 100,000 people, and if the machine deems the customer to be well over 20 years old (Japan’s legal age for smoking), it will complete the sale. Fujitaka, the vending machines’ creator, has claimed that the technology is 90% accurate.

However, as Techdirt notes, there’s a reason that face-scanning technology was given up by scientists attempting to create new security measures following the September 11th attacks – it just doesn’t work! This has been demonstrated by a reporter for Sankei Sports who discovered how easily the high-tech machines could be fooled just by holding up magazines before the sensors. Judging from this, the software cannot even detect whether input is two- or three-dimensional. Understandably, this has somewhat diminished its capabilities in fulfilling the task for which it was created.

The reporter tested several types of image, including a six-inch headshot of Bruce Willis and a three-inch picture of a female celebrity in her thirties. Both trials were successful. He also attempted to purchase cigarettes using an inch-wide photograph, but this was rejected.

The system was created in response to the dubious success of the RFID readers that require the insertion of the consumer’s Taspo age-verification card. This hasn’t proven to work very well: last month, a man attached his own Taspo card to his vending machine to try to encourage consumers unwilling to use their own cards back into his custom. He also attached a note to the machine that read ‘This is a Taspo ID card exclusively for this vending machine. Minors are not supposed to use the card.’

A spokesperson for the Tobacco Institute of Japan said: “It is an act that erodes the age-verifying system and the public’s confidence in the tobacco industry.” In any case, it looks like it’s back to the drawing boards for Fujitaka. Perhaps the next models will actually be able to perceive depth and they’ll learn from these humiliating mistakes.

Maybe the next time Bruce Willis tries to purchase vending machines cigarettes in Japan, he’ll be disappointed.