大象传媒

What can music teach telly?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 28 Aug 09, 13:40 GMT

What can the television industry learn from the music business as it wakes up to the threat from file-sharing?

That's the subject of . A cynic who learned about this sent me this message:

"Music biz teach TV? Greed, backwards thinking and lack of respect for the end consumer."

Someone else said:

"How to alienate its customers by treating them all as likely criminals."

But that's unfair to the people who are appearing on my panel.

, is a big thinker about what the music industry has got right and wrong over recent years - and where it's heading.

Peter Jenner, legendary manager of Pink Floyd and former economics lecturer, is not a man to toe the music industry party line.

And , the media measurement business, has some fascinating data about the patterns he's spotted in unauthorised online access to both music and video.

Chatting to all three in advance, I think they have a few simple lessons that both industries can learn about dealing with a digital world.

Popular is popular

If you've got a popular product - whether it's Lady Gaga, Top Gear, or Heroes - it's going to be popular on all sorts of platforms. And that includes unauthorised places where fans go to share what they like.

Does that mean you end up earning less from legitimate outlets?

Maybe, though it's hard to get figures. But all that pirated material floating around and being talked about could also be seen as free marketing, sending paying customers your way.

They want it now!

Once your product becomes better known, consumers will want to get it straight away - so you had better make sure that they can get it legitimately before the bootleg version is available.

Look at U2's much-anticipated No Line On The Horizon, leaked online before its launch. Hundreds of thousands of fans got a free copy. Some saw that as clever viral marketing - but it looks as though it damaged sales.

And look at Eric Garland's . It's a popular show in the United States, but there's a big gap between its broadcast in the UK and its arrival on 大象传媒 America. In the interim, impatient fans rush to torrent sites to find it.

The 大象传媒 appears to be learning that lesson - the recent Torchwood series was broadcast in the US shortly after the UK saw it and fans of the cult series were able to get their fix.

Live works

The music business has to live gigs, finding that fans who wouldn't pay 拢15 for a CD are happy to pay 拢50 or more to see their favourite band live - and to shell out more on merchandise.

And while Hollywood and the TV industry are looking in despair at the huge numbers downloading the likes of Heroes or Watchmen for free, the extent of piracy of live shows is relatively small.

Millions watched May's Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United live, earning TV stations big advertising revenues - but hardly anyone bothered to go online to grab it the day after.

Try everything

is often cited as an example of advanced digital thinking - and the fact that most fans chose to pay very little is flung back by the cynics.

But Radiohead also managed to sell lots of CDs and got a lot of fans to hand over 拢40 for a deluxe edition of the album. Smart band.

Record labels, and television executives will realise that there are still plenty of ways of extracting cash from people who really want your product. Mind you, if it's rubbish, you will get found out very quickly.

Don't worry, be happy

There's something akin to panic in the boardrooms of TV firms and Hollywood studios.

They're convinced that the wave of internet piracy which has swamped the music business is now going to capsize them too.

But Eric Garland has a message for all those anxious executives: calm down, dears.

TV in particular has a range of business models - unlike music which was wholly dependent on selling circles of pressed plastic in high street stores.

Live television is still watched by millions for many hours each day - and that will continue to make it attractive for advertisers.

So instead of pulling their hair out, smart folks in TV will take a look at the music industry's experience and adapt rapidly to a changing world.

• Permalink
• Comments

Who is batting for file-sharing proposals?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 25 Aug 09, 15:39 GMT

"Peter just doesn't get the internet..."

That was the instant reaction of one person I spoke to this morning about - and Lord Mandelson's part in them. And this was not someone from or from an internet service provider, but a political insider from the same party as the business secretary.

The reaction to tough new proposals which could see those who repeatedly indulge in illegal file-sharing have their internet connections suspended has not, it's fair to say, been universally positive.

An executive from a major software business, who did not want to be named, rang me within hours of the announcement to express astonishment."What are they doing?" he asked. "It just won't work - when so many people have unsecured wireless networks, how are you going to pinpoint who the file-sharer is?"

Another critic was not so shy about coming forward. TalkTalk, whose boss Charles Dunstone has long made clear his distaste for anything that would force his business to police its own customers, put out a humdinger of a press release.

It accused the government of a U-turn and said Lord Mandelson had "caved in under pressure from powerful lobbyists in the content industry." And the company emphasised again that this policy would not work and would be strongly resisted. Other ISPs joined in the attack, albeit in more restrained a manner than TalkTalk.

Who, then, was batting for the proposals? Well, obviously the music and video industries, but even they seemed somewhat cautious in their support for what are seen as pretty radical measures. "We don't want to be seen as crowing," one spokesman told me.

It's important that this should be seen as the latest battle in the war between the content industries and the ISPs for the government's support on the file-sharing issue, with this proving a rare victory for the media barons. My understanding is that the original draft of did contain some strong anti-piracy measures, but that Lord Carter stepped in and toned them down.

Now Stephen Carter has left the government and it appears that Lord Mandelson has tipped the balance back towards the interests of the entertainment industries. While much has been made of - the government insists they never even mentioned Digital Britain - there has also been plenty of high-level pressure from the UK film, television and music industries. They sincerely believe that a vital part of our economy is under threat - and that the issue was not taken seriously enough in the original report.

But this battle isn't over yet. By lunchtime, the Department for Business was putting out a new statement stressing that the government does not believe that "taking tough action against consumers is the right approach in every case" and even suggesting that "we have not changed our policy from the Digital Britain report".

The message seems to be that in the battle over anti-piracy measures, there's still plenty to play for. And if Lord Mandelson really "doesn't get the internet", you can be sure that there will be plenty of people now offering to educate him.

• Permalink
• Comments

Anonymous on the internet

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 25 Aug 09, 13:58 GMT

This morning, the Today programme featured a debate on the question of anonymity and blogging, made topical by a couple of cases where bloggers have had their identities revealed against their will.

It featured (aka Paul Staines) and , a University of Kent academic who studies the blogosphere.

I was asked by the programme's producers to write an audio essay which would act as an introduction to the debate. Here it is:

"According to a famous New Yorker cartoon, .

There are two views of that anonymity which has been an essential characteristic of the online world.

Either it allows the free expression of all sorts of interesting and subversive voices that would not otherwise be heard.

Or it makes the web a playground for every noisy and offensive bar-room bore - who doesn't even have to put a name to their ill-considered views.

Now it's becoming evident that this anonymity is, in any case, pretty fragile. Two cases have highlighted that fact.

First there was the police officer behind the award-winning NightJack blog>, revealed as Detective Constable Richard Horton after the Times persuaded a High Court judge that bloggers had no absolute right to keep their identities secret.

Then there was the unnamed female blogger who .

A New York judge ordered Google, which hosted the blog, to unmask Rosemary Port after the model Liskula Cohen sued, arguing that the comments were defamatory.

Now Google is on the back foot, accused of violating the blogger's privacy .The search company insists it does care about anonymity, and will only provide information about a user in response to a court order.

So, on both sides of the Atlantic it appears that the law is giving little protection to those who believe the internet should be an anonymous space.

There is too a growing momentum in the blogosphere behind the idea that those who want the world to hear their very strong opinions should have the courage to identify themselves - just as they would in a letter to a newspaper.

But - as recent events in places from Iran to Burma to China have shown - for some people, ."

What I didn't discuss is an issue that sometimes occupies the writers of this and other 大象传媒 blogs - who exactly are the respondents who contribute their views on our posts, and should they remain in the shadows?

For instance, I'd love to know more about people like "ravenmorpheus" or "synthil", "hackerjack" or "mighty morfa power ranger".

Now anonymity is a valuable, indeed vital protection for junior staff inside corporations or public bodies, or people from countries with repressive governments, who would otherwise feel unable to contribute their views or provide valuable information to blogs like this.

But doesn't "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" have more credibility if she writes as Josephine Bloggs of Acacia Gardens?

I'd love to hear your views on this matter - and of course if you wish to remain anonymous, that's your choice.

• Permalink
• Comments

Spinvox saga: What was the staff told?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 24 Aug 09, 18:02 GMT

There have been more twists and turns in the saga of Spinvox, the leading British voice-to-text service that isn't quite as high-tech as it claims. We know that the company has had to employ thousands of call centre staff to transcribe voicemail messages - what's become clearer is the rocky state of the firm's finances.

Last week, a filing at Companies House showed where the company had gone to raise the 拢15m it found it needed at the end of July after apparently getting through the $100m (拢61m) it raised in March 2008. The filing showed that Tisbury Master Fund - an existing backer - had provided a loan, or rather what's known as mezzanine finance, but with some serious strings attached. Tisbury can now demand to be repaid a total of 拢30m - it looks as though an existing loan due for repayment next July has been rolled up with the new money - by Christmas this year. Finding that money could prove quite a challenge.

As if to emphasise just how difficult it will be, showed that Spinvox's losses had climbed 30% to 拢49m in 2008, with revenues of 拢10m, far short of what the company's co-founder Christina Domecq had claimed last year would be achieved. A few days ago, I sat down with someone who has intimate knowledge of Spinvox's finances, and after a few rapid sums on the back of an envelope, he too came up with an estimated loss of somewhere around 拢47m. Spinvox's new PR firm is Brunswick, which I learn was called in by John Botts, who as chairman of both Tisbury and Spinvox, now appears to hold the future of the company in his hands. Brunswick has not sought to deny the story in the Sunday Times.

But here's an interesting question. What were the employees of Spinvox told back in July when they were encouraged to invest in their own company? They were told it was vital that they should swap part of their pay for July and August for share options, in order to see the company through to profitability. But did they know about the document sent to investors making serious allegations about financial mismanagement?

No, says the Spinvox PR team. And did they know about the accounts showing their company had made a big loss in 2008? No again - though they were given monthly updates about the company's progress. I've been looking back at some notes from the 20 July when I spoke to the Spinvox co-founder Daniel Doulton about the share offer to staff.

"We offered staff the opportunity to buy stock now before the next big (investment) round where our value increases by orders of magnitude and they're going to benefit," he told me. "It's only fair that we share the upside with our staff and don't keep it all to ourselves." So it appears they were told that the outlook was very bright.

The week before, Spinvox's Head of Social Media James Whatley, responding to a blog post about the employee share offer, :

"I'd really like to clarify some things:
1) Headline of piece:
'SpinVox Paying Staff In Stock To Save On Costs' Well, no. Not really.
'SpinVox Offers Staff *Opportunity* To Be Paid In Stock'... is closer to the truth, i.e.: it's the truth.
Remember, the important parts here are 'offers' & 'opportunity'. While this may well be part of a longer term to save money - it's actually a bloody good offer (one that I've taken up myself)."

Mr Whatley, you may remember, wrote describing the 大象传媒's original story as "a veritable maelstrom of accusations, misapprehensions and sometimes just plain lies". But today, . Like many of those who have left, he has apparently signed a non-disclosure agreement, so he won't be talking about his experiences at the company.

So we are unlikely to find out soon whether he still thinks that he and his colleagues were given a "bloody good offer" back in July.

• Permalink
• Comments

Teenage hackers: Making a better world

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 24 Aug 09, 08:17 GMT

What kind of image does the phrase "teenage hacker" conjure up? A spotty, unfit adolescent, with poor social skills, trying to break into the Pentagon's network from his bedroom? Well, on Saturday, I found out just how inaccurate that is.

I had to pop into central London to get a new passport - and then wait around to collect it. So I went on to a "popular social network" (I won't name it, don't worry) and asked for suggestions as to how I should use my time. Someone pointed out that at Google's offices, around the corner from the Passport Office, an event called was taking place.

I dropped in - and was confronted with a remarkable sight. Around 70 teenagers had gathered for this weekend event which is the brainchild of - an organisation thinking of clever ways to free up public data.

The young hackers - I know that word once had negative connotations, but it's how the organisers describe them - were male, female, from near and far, and from all kinds of backgrounds. One wore a "Future Millionaire" T-shirt, others appeared to have their headphones surgically attached to their ears. Some described themselves as hardcore coders, others as web designers, and quite a few already seemed to have part-time jobs in the software industry.

But what they had in common was that they all seemed well-adjusted, sociable and incredibly smart. They split into groups, with mentors from Google and Rewired State, and set about their creative mission to come up with something useful by the end of the weekend. I wandered among the different groups as they spread themselves across the third floor of the Googleplex, taking advantage of the free wi-fi - and food - laid on by the search company.

One group was seeking a way to scrape bus timetable information from the Transport For London website, another was trying to give learner drivers easier access to the DVLA's theory test questions, and in another corner an earnest gathering was looking at a flipchart with the heading "Mapping Prison Capacity", and talking about how you put together a Google heatmap.

At lunchtime, they mingled, discussed software, the rights and wrongs of file-sharing, how to get free access to Spotify's premium music streaming service - and how they'd found out about the event through a friend or some enthusiastic teacher. At one point, a girl rushed up to the group I was with and said "we got some data!" - the sheer enthusiasm about the task in hand was infectious.

Then on Sunday afternoon, they presented their ideas to a panel of government officials and web luminaries. Among the winners was that group trying to free up London bus data - TFHell won the "Most Likely to be Bought By Google" award. One of the judges, Ben Hammersley of Wired UK, said he "found the standard of the work produced by 15-18-year-olds in many cases infinitely superior to that produced by government professionals."

Now, you could put a negative spin on all this. On a lovely sunny weekend, dozens of teenagers spent all their waking hours indoors, staring at computer screens and "hacking" into government databases, while munching pizza. But that, like so much written about young people in Britain, is a parody. Meeting the Young Rewired State participants brightened up my weekend - and made me realise there's a generation now growing up determined to use their computing skills to make all of our lives better.

• Permalink
• Comments

Read the manual? Never!

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 21 Aug 09, 08:21 GMT

Ever been on an online discussion forum to inquire about some technical problem you're trying to sort out? Then it's quite likely that after a while you will have received a terse message from some smart-alec, which will end with the acronym RTM, followed by a number of exclamations marks. That apparently stands for Read The Manual! - and in fact the acronym usually includes the letter "f" placed before the "m" to supply added emphasis.

Well, sorry, I'm not going to read the manual, as I explained to the makers of a charming Radio 4 programme which you can hear this morning at 1100.

"How to Write An Instruction Manual" is presented by an engineer from King's College London, . He's also written about the man behind the Haynes Instruction Manuals, regarded by many as the works which define the art of describing in painstaking detail just how something works.

Now if you were acquiring a second-hand car 20 years ago, and were expecting to do your own maintenance, then one of these manuals would have been just the ticket. But, as I told Mark when he came to interview me for his programme, the world has moved on. The whole point of modern devices - from cars, to mobile phones, to wireless routers - is that they are designed for idiots like me who don't even know how to lift the bonnet, and wouldn't know how to proceed if they could. We want to take things out of the box, turn them on and see them leap into action without having to read anything.

There is a serious point here. These days, good product designers know that they must ensure that extraordinarily complex devices can be used by people without any kind of specialist knowledge. When I was at school - oooohh shortly after the last war - there was one computer in the science block. It was attended by what seemed like a team of engineers, feeding tickertape into it, and only physics students wearing white lab coats - I kid you not - were allowed to approach. Now, when I acquire a new laptop, I open the box, chuck out any accompanying paper, and power it up. There may be the odd on-screen instruction but that's your lot, and I often feel I can use my computer without wearing a lab coat.

And if I get sent a new mobile phone to try out, and find I actually need to open the chunky instruction manual in seven languages, I put it back in its box and return it to its makers. Good products today combine excellent technology with an intuitive user interface - and if they don't they are likely to fail.

Dr Miodownik seemed slightly crestfallen at my lack of enthusiasm for manuals. He fears that our impatience with instructions is a symptom of a throwaway society where products become obsolete within months.

I understand why an engineer might feel passionate about what are sometimes rather lovely products in themselves. On our bookshelves at home we have the Eagle Annual of the Cutaways, a collection of beautifully executed drawings from the boys' comic of the 1950s and 1960s explaining the workings of everything from a VC10 aircraft to a "do-it-yourself" petrol pump.

It may be sad that we no longer seem to have that thirst for knowledge about how things work. But I'm afraid I'm just not going to start reading the manual.

• Permalink
• Comments

Mapping the Afghan elections

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 20 Aug 09, 13:16 GMT

Yesterday, my colleague Jonathan Fildes about the way text messages are being used to help monitor .

A project combining two technologies developed for use elsewhere in the developing world, and Ushahidi, is enabling people in remote areas of the country to send in reports of incidents or vote-tampering so that they can be plotted on an online map.

I wasn't the only person interested - Jon received an e-mail last night from , the American government development agency, praising his piece and describing a similar project.

They've joined up with the likes of Google and GeoCommons to map all kinds of trends and data connected to the elections. So far, they've come up with showing everything from polling station locations to levels of violence and opium poppy cultivation.

The project started as an initiative of MIT's - a department of the American university which describes its mission as exploring:

"[H]ow the content of information relates to its physical representation".

They set up a hard drive in a hotel bar in Jalalabad, where people could come and upload their data in return for a beer.

That data was then mapped for everyone to share. A Fablab team is now back in Afghanistan to collect and map more data, working with the Alive in Afghanistan project described in our article.

Using online mapping as a way of picturing what's happening during crises or elections is a growing trend, used already in countries like Angola, Kenya and India.

Maps have always been important - look at the history of cartography and you'll see what an effect it's had on politics and economics.

So it will be fascinating to see how the Afghan projects develop over the coming days - and whether they do add another perspective on the elections to that provided by traditional coverage.

Update, 09:20: US Aid have been in touch to say they mistakenly credited the wrong organisation with initiating the Afghan election mapping project. They say it wasn't MIT's FabLab but something called the Synergy Strike Force which first set the ball rolling.

And as for the beer for data offer in a Jalalabad hotel bar (comment 2), I too thought it sounded culturally unlikely. But, as you will see from comment 4 below, there is an explanation.

• Permalink
• Comments

The watchphone: Gadget or gimmick?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 20 Aug 09, 10:43 GMT

Whenever some shiny new plaything arrives on the scene, it's worth asking one question: is it a gadget or a gimmick?

And when a nice man from Orange turned up in my office earlier this week, I quickly decided that what he was carrying was little more than a gimmick - albeit an expensive one.

What he'd brought with him was described as "the world's first touchscreen watchphone".

It's made by LG and Orange has the exclusive deal to sell it in the UK on a pay-as-you-go deal for a mere 拢500.

You can make calls just by tapping on the watchface - I found it pretty awkward - but it comes with a Bluetooth headset which does at least make it easier to receive calls.

It's not really a smartphone - you can't, for instance, surf the web or navigate your way around town with it - but it does have video calling.

We tried it and I was reminded once again why this supposed "killer app" of 3G communications never took off.

You don't really want to stare at the person you're calling, unless you're sitting down at the computer for a long chat with someone far away.

Of course the video calling helps the watchphone achieve what must be its primary aim - to make the wearer feel like a rather retro action hero from a spy movie. James Bond? The Saint? Or maybe Austin Powers?

The trouble is, that if you'd had one of these phones in the 1980s, you might well have been the object of wonder and admiration as you dialled up Mission Control from your wrist, or spoke to Miss Moneypenny.

But I can't help feeling that anyone seen staring at their chunky LG wristwatch as they make a call is more likely to be a figure of fun.

In short: a gimmick, not a gadget.

But just as I was explaining all this to the man from Orange - while he listened with a fixed smile - a colleague stepped in.

He was a cameraman, with a mild interest in gadgets, but a more pressing need to make his working life easier. "That's the future," he enthused. "I'm carrying all sorts of stuff with me, and just having the phone in a watch, rather than a separate piece of kit, would be a life-saver."

While he blanched at the price, he said he was sure that would come down, and that the watchphone would catch on.

So maybe I'm wrong. But I still think that, like the Sinclair C5, the internet-connected fridge and the Amstrad e-mailer, the watchphone will turn out to be a gimmick rather than the must-have gadget of 2010.

• Permalink
• Comments

Whatever happened to public wi-fi?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 19 Aug 09, 16:07 GMT

What's your biggest technology disappointment? For me, it's pervasive public wi-fi.

Only a few years back a whole host of commercial and community schemes were underway in the UK and elsewhere which promised to blanket towns in free - or very cheap - wireless connectivity.

But as I wander round Britain or visit the United States - I rarely find wi-fi that is both easy to use and affordable.

I'm far more likely to get on the internet on the move using either a 3G phone, or a USB mobile broadband dongle (not cheap either - but easier) and given the soaring data traffic across mobile networks, I suspect that's the same for many people.

Municipal wi-fi, which attracted a lot of interest and investment in the early part of the decade, has proved something of a "bubble" phenomenon with many projects abandoned and others failing to deliver a return for their investors.

I put my view that public wi-fi has been a huge disappointment to Dave Hughes, director of Wireless Broadband at BT Retail.

He'd come on the phone to trumpet BT's announcement that it had now built half a million wi-fi hotspots across the UK, and to set a target of hitting a million by next February.

So naturally he disagreed with my diagnosis - he felt the wi-fi revolution was marching forward.

But eventually we found some common ground. He accepted that wi-fi in the open air had its limitations - and I agreed that in hotels, cafes and airports (when you can find it - it usually offers a much better connection than 3G).

Mind you, I've still not used a wi-fi connection indoors in the UK to make a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) phone call - one of the most attractive uses of the technology - whereas I have downloaded web pages using 3G, despite the cost.

So for now wi-fi appears to have retreated from the park and headed back indoors, to cafes and public buildings. But Mr Hughes at BT isn't giving up.

He says the technology is moving forward and the demand for mobile connectivity is growing exponentially. That's obviously true - the question is which technology will triumph.

It could be Wimax - although this "wi-fi on steroids" technology is doing better in the developing world than in places like the UK.

It looks more likely to be new flavour of mobile network, whether it's called 4G or LTE (Long Term Evolution). Users won't really care, as long as they can get online anywhere at a reasonable price.

But it matters for businesses which will want to offer customers a seamless broadband experience at home and on the move. Mobile operators - already offering broadband at home - will believe that they have the most complete wireless technology offering.

BT - which doesn't have its own mobile network - will be wondering whether it's wise to keep on betting on wi-fi as its solution.

• Permalink
• Comments

The surfing day

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 19 Aug 09, 08:53 GMT

Those of us who contribute to this website are very happy if stuff we write gets posted first thing in the morning. Why? Because that, we believe, is when most people log on for a quick scan of what's new, and if an article pops up then we believe it has a good chance of building an audience as we approach our peak hour, around lunchtime.

But that may not be entirely true, according to , which monitors internet traffic. They've set about comparing usage patterns in the US and Europe. They've found similarities - but also some striking differences.

Just as my colleagues and I surmised, it does look as though we start going to our computers at around seven in the morning - I have to confess to starting even earlier myself. But traffic carries on building through the day, and it appears to peak on both sides of the Atlantic at around dinnertime - 7pm. By the way, the graph below has brought the US and European timelines together, so 7 pm GMT is 7 pm EDT - or New York time.

But here are the two big differences - according to this research at least. The Americans - whisper it not in London or Paris dining-rooms - are more proper and polite about surfing over dinner. There is a noticeable dip in US traffic between 6pm and 8pm, when Americans sit down to eat. Whereas in Europe, surfing doesn't tail off until around 8pm - but it then keeps on falling pretty sharply.

As Arbor points out, it appears that Europeans just don't use the internet much at night. While Americans seem to stay online into the small hours, with traffic still at 90% of its peak levels at midnight, it's down to 60% in Europe by then.

Mind you, as a number of commenters on the blog have pointed out, treating Europe as an amorphous mass may not be very useful. We dine at different times - it's hard to get dinner in Spain before 9pm - and we have differing levels of web access. So I'm not quite sure what the lesson is for those of us writing for the web. With a bit of luck this blog post will be posted around nine in the morning - so here's a question. Are you there? Hello? Don't tell me, you're updating your Twitter status.

• Permalink
• Comments

Spinvox: Why it matters

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 18 Aug 09, 13:07 GMT

I've spent the last two weeks without the web, occupying myself with little more than beaches, books and barbecues on a Balearic island. But - and sadly, in my family's view - I did take an e-mail device and was surprised to see how many technology stories were breaking in the dog days of August.

Among those which caught my eye were - which, just as Microsoft is getting its search act together, is apparently going to bash Bing. Then there's and a new improved way of searching for what your friends are doing - which some seem convinced will allow Facebook to bash Google. And there was to put Office on Symbian phones - which could allow both to batter Apple in the smartphone market.

But I was most gripped by the continuing saga of Spinvox, which began nearly four weeks ago with rather than on speech-recognition technology. While I've been away, there have been a couple of developments.

First, the company invited a number of journalists and bloggers to its Marlow headquarters for a demonstration of its technology. From what I've read (for example, and ), the demonstration only succeeded in proving one thing - that the majority of voicemails received were indeed converted to text by humans rather than by machines.

Then Spinvox announced that it had received another 拢15m in funding - though it's not clear which of its investors have stumped up more cash. And finally, it emerged that a letter had been sent to the company's shareholders making some serious accusations about its management. I've now seen a copy of that letter, which stretches to six pages and goes through the company's finances in some detail. The letter appears to have been written some months ago - it's not clear how long it has been in the company's hands.

Spinvox has commenced an investigation into the allegations, carried out by a law firm and by its auditors Deloitte. But the company's board has also employed the top City PR firm Brunswick and got its lawyers Pinsent Masons to send a stiff letter to various bloggers warning them of dire consequences if they were to consider publishing the document. I understand that at least one former employee has received a letter accusing her of a breach of confidentiality, and threatening her with legal action.

But why, you may ask, does any of this matter? After all, it's a private company, and if its investors are happy to see their money used up very rapidly, that's their business. Well, there are two reasons we should care about the Spinvox affair - and both are connected to the reputation of Britain's technology sector.

First, this could make it harder for many of those eager young technology entrepreneurs I meet in places like London and Cambridge to get their ideas funded - the kind of people who scrimp and save, and sometimes bet their house or their overdraft on the hope that a venture capitalist or business angel will eventually back them. Let's hope then that Spinvox does eventually give the likes of Goldman Sachs, GLG and Toscafund Asset Management a return on the large sums they've invested. If not, they aren't likely to give much of a hearing to the next technology hopeful who comes along with an idea that will change the world.

But more serious, in my view, are the allegations relating to the way that Spinvox appears to have handled many of the call centre staff in places like Egypt, Pakistan and South Africa, who have done much of the work to make the business grow. When our first story about the company appeared, a number of people purporting to be present or former Spinvox employees at call-centres popped up on blogs to describe the call-centre operation. They all made similar allegations - that Spinvox had set impossible targets for its various call-centres, then abandoned them, leaving disputes about unpaid bills in their wake.

Now, anonymous internet users may not paint a fair picture, and we have no way of knowing whether these allegations are true. However, the same story has been repeated time and again and accords with evidence gathered by the 大象传媒.

I forwarded one typical post making these accusations to Spinvox's PR team at Brunswick, and asked them whether it presented a true and fair picture of the way the company operated.

When they came back, it was with this statement:

"SpinVox has an established and confidential procedure for handling any commercial dispute process, and therefore does not comment on allegations made in public forums. We are committed to treating all our suppliers fairly and ensuring the highest quality of service for our customers."

The reputation of a company that, just a few weeks back, was seen as a standard-bearer for UK start-ups has taken quite a battering over recent weeks, for which it blames a smear campaign by former employees.

But reaffirming its original status will require Spinvox to show that it is a firm which relies more on cutting-edge British technology than on transcribers around the world.

• Permalink
• Comments