How should vendors sell to you?
Community halls are cold places at the best of times. The hard, hollow flooring, bordered by dull, white-washed walls. The strip lighting, harsh with the occasional flicker, bathing the room in a sickly yellow hue. These are cold places for cold people, those with problems. Those people with a confession to make.
The refreshment table was laden with extra bitter coffee, like it alone could cleanse the souls of those within its reach. The biscuit tray lay beaten, already pummelled into submission by the gaggle of desperate looking zombies who filed into the room slowly, sullenly. The chairs creaked and squeaked against the hard floor as people took their seats in the circle. It was time. I rose to my feet, hesitant, but expectant as to the relief that would follow my confession.
“My name is Ben” my voice trembled. “And I’m a Vendor”…
——————————————-
It’s not easy to admit it, but give me a chance and I will sell you something. Whilst I am also an academic researcher, my job first and foremost is in the retail of E-learning products and services.
One of the toughest aspects of my job is working up decent sales leads. I myself loath cold callers. I hate advertising. Networking is painful. Events are boring. But come what may, it’s still got to happen somehow.
Today I’ve seen loads of tweets passing my eyes on the subject of social learning software and how to be weary of vendors selling you snake oil (see Harold Jarche, Jane Hart and Jay Cross). There’s a similar theme elsewhere too.
The bottom line is, vendors talk a lot of shit and generally screw up a good idea.
I can’t disagree, it’s true.
But vendors still need to appeal to consumers in ways that differentiate themselves from the competition. If I tell you that my social learning software is great, but it won’t create a culture of informal learning without a massive behavioural change effort and that, at best, you’ve got maybe a 25% chance of seeing a return, I’m not going to be in business long. So how can I get noticed without the hyperbole, without the empty promises?
We’re in the midst of developing a new piece of software which we are all quite excited about. It’s not going to “formalise informal learning” or anything like that. It certainly won’t transform your workforce into a legion of web 2.0 advocates, blogging their way into profits. But it will look to abandon the old “E-learning Course” structure, encourage users to connect concepts together and add new learning objects to create a unique learning environment. Engage, Connect, Contribute. That’s our tag line for it. Catchy eh!?
But we’re already following down the same path as those vendors which went before us. So how can we do it differently?
• Cold calling doesn’t work for this sort of thing; no one has a clue what you are talking about and the number of “shots on goal” you have to make before you score is absurd.
• Advertising is expensive and poorly targeted.
• Expensive networking events are generally snake oil in and of themselves.
• Exhibitor events are full of vendors shouting about their informal, formal, social wiki, learning enterprise platform.
So what’s left? Where do I submit my software for independent, transparent review which can be trusted? And how could I get the PR required to get my software reviewed without resorting to hyperbole?
The bottom line is this: Given that there is an outside chance that my products could significantly alter your organisation for the better, how should vendors, like me, sell to buyers (or potential buyers), like you?
The Hierarchy of Acceptability and other mind farts.
I’ve just come back from holiday and whilst away I’ve developed a few thoughts that I thought I would share. Consider yourselves positively blessed. It’s a bit of a stream of consciousness, so forgive me, but I think it works better just getting this stuff down on the page!
Thought 1: The Hierarchy of Acceptability
Hierarchy of Acceptability
I’m sure someone will have documented this phenomenon before, but why is it that, socially speaking, we find some activities more acceptable than others? Who came up with the notion of “fresh air”? Is the air in my living room less ‘fresh’ than that in my front garden, next to the road? How is reading a book a more socially acceptable past-time than interacting with my friends online? Is it really as simple as a lack of understanding, or is it something deeper?
For many people, the notion that kicking a ball around is somehow ‘better’ than playing a computer game is common sense. I can’t see the sense in it at all.
Thought 2: The Underpants Gnomes and Cumulative Advantage
Underpants Gnomes
If you haven’t seen the Underpants Gnomes episode of South Park, shame on you. It’s a nice little skit taking on the business models of web 2.0 enterprises. The fundamental premise is this; Gnomes are stealing underpants as a part of their business strategy to get rich quick. Their plan comes in 3 stages. First steal the pants. In stage 2 something will happen (not sure what yet, doesn’t matter) and stage 3 is all profit. Sound familiar yet?
However, whilst I was away I read a bit on cumulative advantage, which suddenly legitimised the business model of every world dominating web 2.0 website. In the olden days it used to be that Cumulative Advantage was all about the rich getting richer. Money was the commodity and if you had a lot of it, you could pretty much rule the world. Of course the same holds true today. But what web 2.0 companies like Facebook, Twitter et al are doing is the same thing. They are just replacing the commodity – exchanging lots of money for lots of users, lots of tweets, lots of anything.
The principle is, if you can reach a critical mass in something which eventually proves to have value, you are laughing. Knowing what exactly people will choose to place value in is an entirely different story. But pants aren’t a bad start.
Thought 3: Why am I so bothered that I can’t come up with a 3rd point?
Nearly all of my postings come with a number of points. They are always odd numbers, 3 or 5 normally. Not being able to come up with a coherent third point for this post has really bothered me. If anyone knows anything academically about the rule of 3, I’d love to hear from you!
The problem with E-learning games
A little time ago I was presenting to a group of academics when I was posed a question which I really should have answered better than I did:
How do you define a game?
I trotted out something along the lines of objectives and rules, but I knew I’d copped out of the definition really. So I spent a bit of time researching and it turns out the question has been raised once or twice before. Who knew!
Of all the definitions I came across, one really stood out for me. Now I must preface this with the comment that I don’t necessarily agree with every element in the definition, but it is by far and away the best definition I’ve come across when trying to put games into context. Allow me to present, for your viewing pleasure, Chris Crawford’s Taxonomy of Creative Expressions:
Chris Crawford's Taxonomy of Creative Expression
Crawford’s taxonomy offers a simple to apply rule-set, but is written from the Video Game designer’s perspective. To suggest that all of the criteria above must be adhered to in order for a “game” to be created is perhaps too narrow a view. In fact, the weakest link in the suggested taxonomy comes first in my opinion; the contention that Creative Expression can be defined into that which is designed to make money or that which is simply used to create something beautiful. This is a large generalisation and one I would take issue with. Where Creative Expression is used to educate, entertainment can also be the result. Of course, education may eventually lead to money (whether in increased productivity to an individual or organisation, or into the trainers back-pocket), but then so may Art.
This aside, I think it’s brilliant. A little further explanation to the diagram perhaps…
Crawford identifies that where Entertainment includes Interactivity (stepping beyond videos, books and so on) we encounter “Playthings”. Where goals are included as a part of the Plaything a Challenge is created. Challenges played without Competition are defined as Puzzle’s. Typically, this is where the majority of E-learning games and interactions lie. Whilst many of these E-learning objects are goal orientated, they do not actively present a competitor for the user to play against. Crawford defines this competitor as “an active agent against whom you compete”. Where this agent is apparent we have defined a “Conflict”. Conflicts in which you cannot interfere with your opponent’s performance are defined as “Competitions”. This would typically be exemplified by a running race – you are competing, but you cannot directly influence your opponent’s ability to win. Where Interference is allowed, what Crawford defines as “attacks allowed”, the conflict becomes a Game.
So it is not until all of these criteria have been fulfilled that a true Game has been created. I’ve thus far struggled to come up with any piece of E-learning that I’ve seen meet these criteria. I think this definition perhaps helps to exemplify my issues with topics such as Second Life for E-learning. I’ve no problem with people using it, but calling it a game simply isn’t true. In most circumstances it is used purely for Entertainment purposes, with some interactions stretching it into a Plaything. The most ambitious examples of Second Life “games” I have seen stretch as far as puzzles. But this is no further than a typical “drag and drop” exercise on a web page would take us. It just looks different.
Equally important in Crawford’s definition for me is the idea of a “conflict” being necessary in order for a game to be created. Where competitors play each other in a teaching environment, it is common to see examples of co-operative play. That is, helping one-another to achieve the goals of the scenario. The video game world is the exact opposite of this; it is far more common to blow the heads off your opponents than it is to work with them to reach a common goal.
There are examples of where this is not the case, but overwhelmingly this is where teaching games and video games go their separate ways. Somewhere in the middle of this is E-learning.
I feel that, at the present time, we in the E-learning world are rather avoiding this issue by falling some way short of creating true “games” for learning online. I’m keen for examples to prove me wrong, so please do comment with anything that meets these requirements. In the meantime I’m off to research Game Theory – I feel the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” will be at the heart of my findings…
A first crack at my abstract for ALT-C submission
This year will be the first one which I aim to hit both conferences and journals in anger. ALT-C is a good place to start, not least because the closing deadline is soon! The theme of this years conference is “Into something rich and strange” – making sense of the sea change. I can’t help but feel that the whole nautical metaphor is somewhat let down by being held in Nottingham, but you can’t have it all!
I really wanted to put forward our Curatr software in a paper for the conference as I really believe it has great potential to change things quite radically, but I’m simply not going to have the quantitative or qualitative data required of a credible paper. What I do have however is the results of a project that has been running for just over a year near, A.C.E. the Adaptive Case Engine. This is a project we’ve been developing alongside Pearson Education and it has some great potential to knock down the barriers that stop complex simulations being created quickly and easily.
So with that in mind I’ve knocked together a short Abstract as my starting point for the paper. I realise I’m working backwards; it’s not the only work I’ve got in progress so it all makes perfect sense to me! This is all contributing towards my EngD, but I’ve been told on several occasions that the ability to get papers in at peer reviewed conferences (and perhaps even the ALT-J afterwards) will stand my doctorate in very good stead. So here goes nothing….
Abstract:
It has been established that three key issues, Time, Cost and Quality, constrain the capabilities of corporate E-learning initiatives. These factors are related and a frontier exists between them which constrains the characteristics of the E-learning. The limitations introduced by these factors have a direct effect on the overall success of E-learning implementations.
Simulations and games are attracting increased attention in corporate E-learning circles. The effectiveness of teaching games is thought to be high; however the cost and time of development is often restrictive. Recent surveys suggest that the average time to develop a complex simulation is around 800 hours. A new solution, designed to cut this development time whilst maintaining the quality required of a complex simulation, has been developed. The Adaptive Case Engine (ACE) allows for complex, adaptive case studies to be created “in the cloud” and then played either online or offline.
In order to test the effectiveness of our new solution, an initial prototype was developed using more traditional development methods. The development time for this project was circa 200 hours plus initial authoring time of around 40 hours. The same case study was subsequently developed within 3 hours using the new ACE system.
So what do you think? Want to know more? Would you read that paper?
Your organisations next Facebook policy
1.a. If at any time during your working day you find yourself with a free moment, it is company policy that you MUST logon to your favourite social network and have a play about. Do this until more work arrives. No exceptions.
I’m getting increasingly frustrated by the attitudes of a wide-range of people when it comes to accessing websites like Facebook at work. Forgive me for incessantly saying Facebook – interchange it for your favourite social network if it makes you feel better – but it is the most popular.
Andrew McAfee, speaking at the DevLearn 09 conference yesterday*, commented that we need to stop jumping on the risks associated with Web 2.0. Currently, in order to get close to any of the benefits that a website like Facebook could provide your company, you first have to jump over all of the associated ‘risks’ that get thrown at you. It’s nearly impossible to do this and even if you do succeed it will be a watered down and caveat-filled experience. Why?
It’s a mindset, one of a previous generation.
Recent UK figures have shown nearly 2.5 million people are out of work in this country. There is significant evidence that being unemployed long-term has severely detrimental effects on both family life and health. People are generally happier when they are in employment. So, reading between the lines here, we all have an inherent will to work. We go into the world of work essentially happy. Then work breaks us down, infringing on the liberties which we take for granted outside of the workplace, for no other reason than to mitigate risk. This sucks.
Eschew risk, embrace opportunity; what’s the worst that could happen?
Browsing social networks is just one liberty that the next generation of worker is going to be denied by most organisations they go to work for. Access to Facebook might not make you happier, but blocking it will almost certainly make you less happy. Social Networks are rapidly becoming a hygiene factor in the minds of new Gen Y workers.
So then let’s look to embrace the opportunity that providing access to Facebook will give us. I’m going to go beyond the normally recognised benefits (of which there are many) and move the discussion to one key area of objection: Time-wasting. If we allow workers access to Facebook they are doing personal stuff on business time and this is wasteful. Yep, I think even I can agree with that.
But let me ask you this; how are you currently measuring employee waste in your organisation? The principles of Lean operations are present in many organisations throughout the world (and many more are paying millions to develop such ideas). The central pillar of this initiative is the cutting out of waste. Some waste is easy to identify. Some waste cannot be avoided. Other waste is difficult to track, like the amount of time a worker involved in a process is not fully utilised. So then, let’s turn the tables on the software packages which track websites visited and time spent. I refer you back to my new policy:
If at any time during your working day you find yourself with a free moment, it is company policy that you MUST logon to your favourite social network and have a play about.
So we insist people use social networks and then we track usage levels to use as Management Information, tracking waste. At the same time as offering great quantitative information with regards to the amount of waste and the times at which it occurs, this system also offers a great visual aid to waste on the shop floor. If you’ve got Facebook open you’re not being utilised. How easy is that from a Line Managers point of view? What a fantastic measure of waste that would be.
Stop evaluating Web 2.0 tools from a risk point of view and start evaluating the opportunities.
*By the way, I did not attend DevLearn 09, all I had to do was follow the Twitter hashtag for a running commentary on McAfee’s keynote.
Harnessing the Tipping Point to embed E-Learning in your organisation
Embedding E-learning into your organisation is not just a technical problem, far from it. At its heart it’s a process of change; specifically a behavioural change in the way employees train and learn. Changing the behaviour of workers in your organisation is a notoriously difficult task. But it is a challenge you must be willing to take on if you really wish to evolve your company into one which embraces an E-learning culture.
My MBA dissertation centred on the concept of the Tipping Point and behavioural change. Organisations with experience of behavioural change often report that it takes a long period of time to try and change people’s actions. The Tipping Point, as described by Malcolm Gladwell, offers a theory of enacting rapid change. Gladwell’s book is more about hindsight than method and as such we looked at identifying a usable method to try and create a “Tipping Point” in a process of organisational behavioural change. We identified a series of five levers which could be used to enact behavioural change:
• Walking the Talk
• Influencing the Influencers
• Sticking the Message
• Rewarding the Behaviour
• Embedding the Understanding
None of these are groundbreaking on their own, but what we did develop was a piece of academic research (derived from over 700 respondents to a questionnaire) that showed these levers to be direct influencers on exactly how much an employee adopts a new behaviour or practice. Allow me to elaborate…
Walking the Talk: An oldie but a goodie. If you want to embed E-learning in your organisation, leaders have to embrace it first. You need to be the first person through it and you need to make sure others know that. It is often said that employees will copy your worst trait as a leader. You cannot tell your employees how important E-learning is whilst you ignore it. They won’t change and perhaps more importantly, they’ll think you’re a bit of an idiot.
Influencing the Influencers: Leaders aren’t the only source of influence within an organisation, far from it. Others within your organisation will wield the power to influence others, regardless of the presence of any legitimate power. They might be the loudest person, the oldest person, the youngest person, the coolest person. Whatever, when they talk, people listen. You will know who these people are. These are the people you need to be your evangelists for change. In some organisations there exists a culture that acts like an opposite force to management direction; whatever you say, they do the opposite. It is these influential’s who hold the key. Identify them and put them in a pilot group, you need them on board.
Sticking the Message: Again, this is simple. Your change needs an identity and its sticky message will be it. Your change initiative will need a name and an elevator pitch. Think Martin Luther King Jr – “I Have a Dream“. That was one hell of a sticky message. Come up with the message and then make sure it is everywhere – notice boards, walls, emails, mugs, mouse pads, whatever. When you’re enacting behavioural change you need to make sure that no-one can blag that they “haven’t heard about it”. If you can’t see a poster with your changes name and tag line on from wherever you’re sitting the job isn’t done yet.
Rewarding the Behaviour: This can be a tricky issue, mostly because people think it involves money. It doesn’t. When an employee starts to show a new behaviour you need to be quick on the draw with the reward. If they go so far as to actually do what you want, they need praise heaped upon them from a great height. In these circumstances, emotional reward is more important than monetary reward. For all but the most menial of tasks, money is not a motivator. Remember that. Little touches will reward behaviour suitably. If you send an email out to your team requesting they complete a piece of learning, or use a new tool for capturing learning you need to follow it up. The first person who does as you wish needs to be identified and then praised publicly. Follow up your first email with a group email that says “Big thanks to John for being the first person to use our new tool, a great example for others to follow”. Equally important here is the issue of medals. Everyone likes a medal. Make sure that completion of any formal course of E-learning comes with a certificate – a printable one. And make sure that any record of informal or social type learning is captured and look to reward suitably, consider Whuffie for example. There could be financial rewards here and do reinforce these where they appear (think pay rises dependant on a good Personal Development Review), but money is not sustainable or effective as the cornerstone of your reward package.
Embedding the Understanding: Knowing the tag line of a change process is not enough. For it to really embed within the organisation over the long-term, workers must understand why the change is better than the current situation and what the change really means for them. Take John Lewis (a major UK retailer) for example. Their sticky message is “Never Knowingly Undersold”. Ok, so I know the tagline, but what behaviours does this drive? As an employee, what is my reaction when a customer comes to me with a lower price from a competitor? This is more often than not a case of formally training employees. Assuming that people will “figure it out” isn’t enough – so what if they can use the features of a tool, they need to know how and why this is better and why it improves their life. Understanding the need for change is the single most important driver of embedding a behavioural change. Don’t leave it at an intuitive interface; people need to know how it is going to improve their lives!
Using these levers it is possible to influence the rate of change within an organisation. You need to lean on them all, but in doing-so it could be possible to enact change more rapidly than otherwise thought possible. Perhaps the most important lesson here is to realise the significance of using E-learning within your company. It’s not a nice little initiative that’s going away. It’s going to be a major part of working practice for decades to come. So do the groundwork now and you might find your people are much more open to innovation and new technology in the years to come…
Working Towards a Shared View of Quality
One major issue that faces the E-Learning industry as we look to grow and consolidate is the issue of Quality. Ask two E-learning professionals for what amounts to “Quality” E-learning and you will probably get two very different responses.
Broadly speaking, there are two views on Quality. The first is pedagogical. If a piece of E-Learning is pedagogically sound then some would argue the presentation of this information, so long as it’s usable, is largely irrelevant to the measure of Quality.
This is a view largely taken by higher education institutions; I’ve spoken to rather a lot of them and all of the internal E-learning departments at universities appear to share this view. Of course they would, it is at the heart of any universities core competence to know pedagogy. This approach is not limited to a specific media (say PowerPoint, or HTML) and can be used in more social learning frameworks, but never-the-less, presentation is barely a part of the Quality measure. Here it is more of an order qualifier; is it usable? Yes, tick, done.
At the other end of the scale are those with little to no interest when it comes to pedagogy in E-Learning. Here it is all about style over content; making sure it wows the audience and captivates the imagination with little thought as to the learning framework itself. Sometimes this doesn’t matter; a bite-size piece of learning which is tightly focussed and lasts 10 minutes is quite likely to hit the nail on the head without any in-depth analysis as to the pedagogical nature of the learning. Sometimes it doesn’t. I saw a great looking E-learning demo the other day, nice dashboard layout, hand-drawn images to complement the content and lots of interactivity. The questions were awful, they had little consistency in the approach and the feedback was completely nonsensical. The E-learning looked great, but I would have soon resorted to just hitting the “next” button to get through things as reading it was largely pointless.
It’s worth pointing out at this stage that rapid authoring tools often miss both of these measures of Quality. As these two views stand you either look good, or read good (forgive the expression). So unless you are a designer flexing their muscles into the world of E-learning, or a teacher who knows their online teaching techniques, you aren’t likely to create a piece of Quality piece of E-learning. This assumes that you have the ability to manipulate these rapid and easy authoring tools at all. Whilst the tools are increasingly easy to use for someone like me (you know the type, the one that always fixes the TV/DVD/VCR for the extended family) they remain fairly complex for those whose software experience is largely limited to the Office family of products. But that’s another story.
It would be easy to think that these two views on Quality, whilst fundamentally different, are easily reconcilable. Let’s just make a piece of E-learning that has pedagogical foundations that would make Oxford proud and then get 2Advanced studios to knock it together. Your first issue here is that those ingredients alone aren’t enough to make a great piece of E-learning; both parties need to know something of the others world. But your bigger issue, expense aside, is that the proponents of these two views on Quality often believe they are not reconcilable at all.
The arguments are thus:
“Pretty pictures take away from the real purpose of the product and actually detract from the learning experience”.
“Pedagogical frameworks are out of date, hugely restrictive and make any piece of E-learning long-winded and largely dull”.
Solving this issue will take movement from both sides. Pedagogy will need to evolve (it is, see Connectivism) to take into account the ways in which people are now learning online. Its proponents will also have to step outside of their core competence and realise that creating a piece of E-learning with engaging looks and increasingly complex interactions will only add to the value of the end product, if done correctly.
Equally designers need to be much more than their job titles suggest. They need to develop an understanding of teaching online and to realise that style does not trump substance, it merely augments it.
Developing a shared view on Quality will help the E-learning industry to evolve its next-generation of content and learning. At the moment these two polar opposite views don’t sit well together and present a confusing front to end-users. You might not dare to question the authority of an austere institution telling you that their learning experts will ensure quality learning transfer, but how many words will it take to explain that to your boss, who thinks the end product looks awful?
The corporate E-learning world is a little different to the world of higher education. When you attend a university you are there to learn. When you go to work, sitting through a training course is not at the front of your mind. It’s a job to be done, probably a monotonous one. E-learning needs to reach out more to this audience, to appeal, to make the user want more. Or perhaps less ambitiously, just to avoid pissing people off.
Both sides have good arguments. We need to move to a situation where people realise they can and should have it both ways. Anything less is failing to make Quality E-learning content.
A response to Blake Lapthorn, acting on behalf of PowWow Water
Please note for context purposes that the below blog is the full transcript of a letter I have today sent in reply to correspondance received from Blake Lapthorn Solicitors, acting on behalf of PowWow Water. I received correspondance from them on September 11th, 2009, in relation to a blog post (see: http://www.ht2.org/ben/?p=17) on this website, which claims that certain comments (appearing after the blog post itself) contain defamatory remarks towards both individual employees of PowWow water and the company itself.
Blake Lapthorn requested that their letter should not be published and I respect this decision. However, I believe it to be in the interest to those individuals who have responded to the post that my response should be available to them, in full.
Reference: PowWow Water Blog
FOR PUBLICATION
Dear Sirs
Thank you for your letter, dated 11 September, 2009 and received 14th September, 2009, with reference to the blog post found at: http://www.ht2.org/ben/?p=17
I must admit I was not surprised to receive correspondence from PowWow addressing the issues raised in this blog post; however I am disappointed that the first approach to me has not come from the company itself, but from you its instructed solicitors, Blake Lapthorn.
By way of background, I thought my blog post the last point of call in my attempts to contact PowWow in regards to the poor customer service I had received (and which I still face today). Throughout the blog posts existence I have sought to be fair and even-handed in the moderation of the general public’s comments, which today numbers over 140 comments. It had been my hope that perhaps PowWow senior management would seek to engage with me to deal with the issues the blog highlights. However, the only engagement that was forthcoming appears to be the fraudulent posts of staff members purporting to be customers (in direct violation of EU law).
Firstly allow me to correct a small issue with your correspondence. The website www.ht2.org does not host a blog where customers can post comments about PowWow. The website hosts the personal blog of I, Ben Betts, which is clearly focussed on the E-learning industry. This blog can be found on the url www.ht2.org/ben and is quite separate to the root www.ht2.org website. Within this blog there is a post, referenced above, upon which it has become popular for members of the public and members of your clients organisation to post their opinions in response to my own. You will also note that my own opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my company (HT2), as highlighted on the “About” page – http://www.ht2.org/ben/?page_id=2
Your letter first advises that some comments from the general public contain personal mobile phone numbers of various PowWow executives and that these numbers are currently subject to abusive phone calls. You list 4 current male employees for whom this is a problem, but then go on to state that these calls are frightening for female personnel. I do have to question the legitimacy of the claim that these are “personal” mobile phone numbers belonging to 4 male workers if female employees of the company are frequently answering the calls.
However, I do not wish to perpetuate any calls which could be thought of “harassment” and as such I have taken measures to remove all mobile phone numbers from the general public’s comments, in complete compliance with your letter. It should be noted that I first solicited confirmation that these were “work” numbers before they were allowed to be posted in the first place (see post #25, September 4th, 2009) and that I have deleted other comments which made no such efforts.
The second part of your letter comments on the so called “Defamatory Comments” made by “alleged former employees, current employees and customers”. You note that these comments extend beyond the company towards individuals, suggesting that “Mr Parks and Mr Kitley are bullies, Mr Parks is dishonest, aggressive and abusive and that Mr Kitley is spineless and ineffective”. You also later draw attention to a comment which states that Mr Parks has a “**** winky” amongst other allegations.
You will of course be aware of recent High Court Judgements made in similar cases to this, such as Smith v ADVFN PLC, where Mr Justice Eady found that Bulletin Board comments made by the general public were “when considered in the context of defamation law…much more akin to slanders”. As your letter takes no issue with the original blog post itself, only with the comments which appear in a “Bulletin Board” fashion, it is fair to assume that this ruling is applicable in these circumstances. Further to this Mr Justice Eady found that in the case of the general public posting to a bulletin board, “opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held” in order for the comments to amount to “fair comment”.
As such, I do not accept that these comments amount to the defamation you claim. However, as earlier demonstrated, I am more than willing to comply with your demands despite this complete lack of grounds. Your letter goes onto list 14 comments to which you deem defamation has taken place. For confirmation of actions taken (or to be taken), I list these comments below. Where discrepancies appear I would appreciate further confirmation of your requirements. By making these amendments I offer no admittance of guilt (either on my behalf, or that of other authors) to the allegations.
1. Comment by “ex-emplyee”, 24th August, 2009 – Last 18 words
This comment has now been edited as required.
2. Comment by “Huey”, 25th August, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.
3. Comment by “Baz”, 26th August, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.
4. Comment by “Current Employee”, 27th August, 2009 – “The phrase beginning at the end of line 8,and ending after the first word of line 11”
I assume that ‘the phrase beginning at the end of line 8’ might also be considered ‘line 9’, which states: “As has already been mentioned a good few times, jim park is *** a **** man. In so many ways he’s almost like a **** **** *******, and it would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the” – is this the phrase you require removing?
5. Comment by “ex-employee2”, 3rd September, 2009 – “The sentence beginning at the end of line 13 and ending at the beginning of line 14”
I’m sure you realise the above statement makes no sense, however the sentence which fits the bill closest is “It’s not looking **** for powwow”. Is this the sentence you sought to be removed?
6. Comment by “Saddended”, 4th September, 2009 – “The last 4 lines”
This comment appears to have no defamatory remarks in it, only remarking that:
“I hope Jim Parks & everyone that has bullied & shouted & screamed at decent human beings trying to make a living in a place worse than hell gets their comeuppance soon”. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence as to the nature of “hell”, I would suggest this is personal opinion and therefore fair comment.
7. Comment by “ex-employee”, 4th September, 2009 – “The last three lines of the penultimate paragraph”
I assume that you wish the reference to “their lovely PA Sarah Howes” to be included in the defamatory remarks to be removed?
8. Comment by “MW ex-employee”, 7th September, 2009 – “The last sentence”
Do you also wish for the following link (http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/tullibodyandsauchie/articles/2008/07/09/26064-tribunal-awards-manager-11000/) for the article “Tribunal Awards Manager £11,000” as published by the Alloa Advertiser to be removed?
9. Comment by “ex-employee”, 8th September, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.
10. Comment by “ex-employee”, 8th September, 2009 – entire comment (#46)
This comment has now been removed as required.
11. Comment by “Big Billy”, 24th August, 2009 – “The last line of paragraph 5”
The last line in this comment is “Possible not”. Might I rather assume that you seek the penultimate sentence, “Is an organisation that has over 100 case awaiting an employment tribunal sticking to these policies”, to be removed? If this is the case could you please inform me as to the number of employment tribunal cases outstanding so that I might confirm the defamatory nature of this remark?
12. Comment by “Taste The Difference”, 27th August, 2009 – “Paragraph 5”
I am again unsure as to the defamatory nature of this remark (with the exception of the phrase “**** water in ***** bottles”, which has been edited). The post does make mention of price increases in percentage terms which could be defamatory if found to be inaccurate. As such I would appreciate your confirmation of price rise figures.
13. Comment by “Ernie”, 27th August, 2009 – “The penultimate sentence”
This comment has now been edited as required.
14. Comment by “Big Billy”, 4th September, 2009 – “The first two sentences of paragraph 3”
I am unsure as to the defamatory nature of this comment as it would appear that the weight of comments held within the blog would uphold this comment to be true.
Further to your demands for the above edits/removals of comments, you ask for, “an apology and retraction to Mr Park, Mr Kitley and PowWow water (our client) to be agreed and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or similar allegations” to be submitted within 7 days from the date of your letter.
Firstly I am unsure as to which “allegations” you refer?
Secondly, you earlier highlighted in your correspondence that your issue was with postings made by persons other than myself. Of course, I cannot apologise on their behalf. You suggest that I am the owner of these defamatory comments, which I am not. The copyright of these comments remains with the person(s) who originally authored and posted the comment. As a means of contacting these individuals it is my intention to publish this letter, in full, on to the blog post. The individuals in question will then be in a position to take the demanded action, should they so desire.
Further to this information, please confirm the addresses or other means of contact which you wish the individuals in question to use in submitting their apology. Many appear to have difficulty getting in touch with your clients senior management and as such a reliable means of correspondence would be a welcome move.
Finally your letter lists 13 anonymous users and tells me that I should provide you with the IP addresses of those individuals, under threat of further action. You refer to these individuals as bloggers which is incorrect. These users are not bloggers (which can be defined as: ’a person who keeps a Web log (blog) or publish an online diary), they are merely commentators on my blog.
How ironic that you have probably come to the conclusion that I am in possession of individuals IP addresses having seen the screenshot of a Murray White worker passing themselves off as a customer in clear violation of False Representation laws. I reserve the right to pursue further action in respect to this violation, should I deem it appropriate at any time in the future.
Users post under anonymous identities for precisely that reason; they wish to remain anonymous. Whilst it has yet to be decided in a UK court of law that an IP address is definitively a piece of “personal identifiable” information, there is significant precedent both in court rulings (Sheffield Wednesday vs Owlstalk) and UK/EU legislation (Data Protection Act & EU Article 29 Working Party discussions) to suggest that this can only be decided by a court of law.
As such I will not release the IP addresses of those users without the order of a Court Injunction.
I am sure you will appreciate that seeking such an injunction would bring unnecessary media attention to this situation. We are in somewhat a “grey area” of the law as it is tested thus far and as such any coverage on this story would likely be significant.
Thus far I believe I have shown good faith above and beyond reasonable measures. I have replied informally, without the involvement of my solicitor. I have acquiesced to your demands on the mobile phone numbers and I am willing to edit the comments you have highlighted to your requirements, despite no wrong-doing having occurred. Furthermore, I will endeavour to prevent personal, defamatory comments from publication to the blog post in question where possible.
As such, I politely request that you withdraw your demand for commentators IP addresses immediately and submit that any apologies your client is lucky enough to receive in light of your request will be the only ones you shall seek, regardless of further action.
An urgent response is required. I reserve all of my rights in respect of this letter and do not acknowledge any wrong-doing. Further to this I once again indicate that the blog in question represents my opinion and not that of my company. I reserve the right to publish this letter as widely as I deem appropriate.
Yours Faithfully
Ben Betts
E-Learning Sucks by Red Magma
These guys really hit things on the head with this excellent little presentation. A company after my own heart – great presentation skills coupled with an opinion which matches my own. AND they referenced Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. We thought we were the only ones…
Put the Hammer down: The bottom line on why you should leave E-learning to the experts.
It doesn’t seem to matter how many years tick by in this industry, by far and away the most common phone call I get is from companies looking to run E-learning pilots, or prototypes, or anything else in the “just getting started” framework.
It’s not a criticism of the clients, far from it; I’m delighted to be the person who helps to mould the minds of newcomers to the E-learning genre, call me anytime! But doesn’t it strike you as odd, in an industry that’s now 15 years old, that everyone else is still getting started?
I’m not alone in my sentiments, just this morning I retweeted a link from Clive Shepherd – “What every learning and development professional needs to know about e-learning”. Indeed, there are two burning questions that all clients (both new and old) want to know when I speak to them; how much is it going to cost and why shouldn’t I do it myself?
My contemporary, Karl Kapp, actually beat me to the punch on this one with his post “How much for that E-learning in the Window”, but I’ll let him off as he referenced me so nicely. He referenced a few other places but most telling was his link to Intellum, a state-side competitor to HT2. They have a great bit on their website which gives you a ballpark figure on what your E-learning will cost which I strongly suggest you check out as I feel its quite representative of the market place.
A recent study by Defelice & the aforementioned Mr Kapp, (brought to my attention care of Michael Hanley and Brandon Hall), showed a new set of figures for how long it currently takes to develop 1 hour of E-learning content. Keep this table of figures in your mind, as I’m going to use it over the rest of this post.
The metric of “1 hour of E-learning content” is important to us in the E-learning industry so you might want it in your arsenal of questions to ask an E-learning developer when you phone them. Most companies will give you a ball park figure on how much 1 hour of E-learning content development is. This figure will range widely but typically I’d be expecting to hear anything from £5,000 per hour up to £40,000 per hour plus.
This is quite a range. And unfortunately we hit the same sort of stumbling blocks as we did with LMS pricing – not all E-learning is born equal! However, if we dig into the figures a little, we start to get an idea of where these numbers come from.
An experienced and professional E-Learning development company, like HT2, who specialise in bespoke content development will probably use software like Articulate or straight Adobe Flash to create their content. So if we take the mean average time it takes to develop 1 hour of E-learning, with limited interactivity and no animations using this sort of software and we multiply that by a typical “daily rate” figure, we can estimate how much an 1 hour of this sort of content should cost.
So:
(94.5 [hrs mean development time] / 7.5 [working hours in a day]) x 400 [typical daily rate] = £5,400 for 1 hours basic E-learning content.
This about tally’s up with the bottom end of my earlier estimate.
Now let’s look at the option of not hiring a bespoke content development company and doing it yourself. You probably won’t be using the move advanced tools like Flash and Articulate, so we’ll look at the figures for easier tools, such as Captivate. I’m also going to estimate that the internal cost of a days development is half that of the external company, £200. I’m also not adding in the cost of training individuals, which will probably run to a few thousand.
(241.5 [hrs mean development time] / 7.5 [working hours in a day]) x 200 [typical daily rate] = £6,440 for 1 hours basic E-learning content.
What we’re saying here is that, even at the bottom end of the scale in terms of complexity, it’s worth your money to hire in the experts. Not only could it be cheaper; it will also take less time – half in this case.
It’s not so useful to measure up the scale of interactivity/animation in this manner as it becomes less likely your internal functions could produce the graphics, sounds and animations that accompany more complex E-learning. Here you really will need to call in the experts to get the job done.
I realise I still haven’t told you come how you will get quotes in the £20k plus range. Well let’s look at the other end of the scale, a fully interactive Simulation:
(525.5 [hrs mean development time] / 7.5 [working hours in a day]) x 400 [typical daily rate] = £28,024 for a 1 hour Simulation on “Softskills”.
Again this is a big estimate – as your learning becomes more complex, it requires more specialist development skills. And the more people are involved, the more difficult it is to project manage. The rise in cost of truly high-spec E-learning development is almost exponential.
There is a pitfall in my cost saving argument for using the experts to develop your E-learning and that is this:
Experts almost certainly won’t recommend an hours worth of E-learning with limited interactivity and no animations.
In our experience this sort of material will not hold the learners attention in a corporate environment. It might work in a Higher Education setting, where your whole motivation is based around learning, but where your learners have a day job that isn’t learning, you need to engage them on a whole new level.
In the end using experts might not be cheaper than doing it internally, but it is certainly comparable and you will get a lot more for your money. Not to mention the fact that your learners will potentially take a lot more away from the experience, which is kind of the point in the first place!
-
More on E-learning:
