UNIVERSITY OF Enter details here SURREY Session Here: Thursday 15th March 10am-13.00 and 14.30-16.30 Friday 16th March 10am-13.00 and 14.30-16.30 Mini bloodmobiles to be parked in the Pay & Display car park. Sessions by appointment only. Please phone 0300 123 23 23 to make an appointment
Editor: Jack White The Stag | 6 th March 2012 OPINION & ANALYSIS 11 Opinion & Analysis BUSINESS The Internet Barometer By Peter Bailey As memes abound will tell you, students are adept at plumbing the internet for information with remarkable frequency and assurance. A moment <strong>of</strong> uncertainty is all it takes for a hasty Smartphone Google search, or a cheeky Wikipedia reference. With a world <strong>of</strong> information at our fingertips it is both simple and effective to lean on the internet and its bounty <strong>of</strong> searchable information for any occasion. And this is not necessarily a bad thing in society (be it as a student or otherwise). It embodies a clear human need to grasp information, and with it, the power that information can provide to an individual. For Businesses it provides an interesting challenge in how to best seep into the fabric <strong>of</strong> such internet trawling. There is a fine line between a company with a message forcing your way into the free information party bristling with paid ads and pop-ups, and subtly colouring the water <strong>of</strong> the information landscape with your own particular internet presence. The two-way relationship between consumers and brands has become far more <strong>of</strong> an even fight in recent years. An internet user is hugely empowered by the ability to command an array <strong>of</strong> information simply by inputting a search string. Everything from exchange rates and product comparisons, to “hot or not” and social trends can be estimated in seconds. So what did we do before the digital “finger in the air” which many a student has relied on for a casual filler reference or rough-shod cost estimate for their Business plan? Well some say that the way we recall information has changed with the predisposition to simply lean on always-on internet connections for the answer in a flash. Without needing to remember things, some people argue our range <strong>of</strong> available information is now much larger, but the information available for mental recall grows smaller by the day. So what does this mean for Business? Well ultimately it will probably benefit those who cotton on to the concept <strong>of</strong> the “Google test”. Every search we submit is imbued with a yearning for a quick and simple answer. Realistically the Business that can give that answer is likely to get the attention (and potentially trade) <strong>of</strong> that individual at some point in the future. The trader who stalks social trends and matches his production and supply operations accordingly is likely to get one up on his competitors. And the service provider that flips searches on their head and reads them as a wish list from potential customers, is going to be able to <strong>of</strong>fer the panacea for all their problems with their next release. This goes beyond the maturing concept <strong>of</strong> paid search and SEO; it’s about Businesses understanding that the next generation <strong>of</strong> computing users can report on anything, anytime. It’s about more than just being given the answer by a Business or anyone else; it’s about seeing how that answer fits into the landscape <strong>of</strong> information and then stealing our own answers from that context. Buyer and Business beware, we have never had such an honest metric at our disposal and it grows more scathing by the day. Has The Sun really changed its ways? Daniel Stevens Sunday 26 th February saw the launch <strong>of</strong> the first Sunday edition <strong>of</strong> The Sun, which is estimated to have sold around 3.26 million copies across the country. The launch was seen as an opportunity for News International to move on from revelations about phone hacking, with Rupert Murdoch promising that the organisation has changed the way it works. Coincidently, the launch <strong>of</strong> the new weekend tabloid came on the day <strong>of</strong> the Carling Cup Final between Liverpool FC and Cardiff City – two clubs whose fans have severed ties with the newspaper in response to its unique coverage <strong>of</strong> major stories. Liverpool fans boycotted the newspaper in April 1989 following the paper’s coverage <strong>of</strong> the Hillsborough football disaster where 96 men, women and children lost their lives. The paper’s then editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, ran a story entitled ‘The Truth’ which accused Liverpool fans <strong>of</strong> stealing from the dead and urinating on police <strong>of</strong>ficers attempting to save the lives <strong>of</strong> the injured. The boycott remains strong, with most Merseyside newsagents still refusing to stock the paper. Cardiff City’s boycott <strong>of</strong> the newspaper is more recent, beginning last September following the murder <strong>of</strong> Welsh fan Michael Dye outside <strong>of</strong> Wembley Stadium. The club branded the paper’s treatment <strong>of</strong> the story as unfair and referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission. For many Cardiff fans, the episode suggested that little has changed in the decades since Hillsborough. Although 3.26 million copies sold on Sunday 26 th February, there remain hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> people who will never buy The Sun. The paper claims it has changed, but these claims can only be tested over time. Even if it has changed, some will never be able to purchase a paper which has caused so much pain to so many people, and I think that defiance is admirable. Court Life Mentoring: scrap it and give cash direct to students in need Matthew Barker Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information A request response shows that for last year, Court Life Mentoring cost over a quarter <strong>of</strong> a million pounds – the request shows that for the year 2010/11 the cost <strong>of</strong> the scheme was £258,393.97. The response also showed 4,822 students lived in Courts in 2010/11, giving an effective cost <strong>of</strong> £53.58 a year per student. Given the choice, would you pay £50 a year for that weekly knock on the door? I’ll take an educated guess and say, for most, the answer would be no. I’d also hazard another guess and say most students wouldn’t choose to hand over a fiver for it. It’s not worth the cash, so it should be scrapped. Instead, we should give the cash direct to students through financial assistance schemes like the hardship fund and bursaries: students could get more money according to need, there would be more money students could access without taking time away from study, and we could help those suffering most from rising living costs. The counter-arguments that satisfaction with mentoring is high and that mentors make a difference to some are just not good enough. Satisfaction rates, one mentor tells me, are as high as 96%. This is meaningless; students are not going to complain about something this parochial when they don’t have to personally hand over cash for it. Satisfaction here means mass indifference, which is not a measure <strong>of</strong> success. On the second point, I do not doubt mentors help some. If you ask everybody on campus how they are doing on a weekly basis you are going to find somebody to provide a listening ear to. Helpful though this is, the benefit most students receive makes the price tag unjustifiable; we can deliver more welfare with the same money. Let’s scrap Mentoring, and give cash direct to those in need to address the growing problem <strong>of</strong> declining living standards. Got an opinion or analysis to share? Email us! Send ideas and articles to: editor@thestagsurrey
Change language