Should organisations Twitter or not? If so, why and how? We’re trying to find answers to questions like this. What’s the best business use of Twitter? Who’s using it in the most innovative way?

We’ve produced a guide to corporate Twittering — it’s very much a work in progress, so your suggestions for additions, changes or new links are all welcome.

Take a look — and don’t forget to let us know what you think!

Part of a package of new regulations designed to enhance consumer protection across the EU, it’s this one which has received the most attention from the blogosphere — with popular examples being drawn from Sony’s ‘All I want for Christmas is a PSP’ campaign and Wal-Mart’s unfortunate encounter with an Edelman-driven campervan.

However, the full range of newly prohibited practices reaches far beyond the blogosphere. While cases like those mentioned above were simply too ill-conceived to escape public scrutiny, and so resulted in public humiliation for the organisations involved, the new legislation should provide a simpler recourse for those less-public instances of unscrupulous or dishonest trading.

In the consumer sphere at least, a genuine victory for transparency.

Here’s the full list of prohibited practices for those who are interested — there’s also some further analysis on Andy Beard’s blog:

1. Faking credentials — Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not.
2. You’re not who you say you are — Displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation.
3. Your endorsement is not real — Claiming that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body which it does not have.
4. Not being true to the terms of the endorsement — Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when he/it has not or
5. making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.
6. Unbelievable price, literally — Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he/she will not be able to offer for supply or to procure another trader to supply, those products or equivalent products at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the product, the scale of advertising of the product and the price offered. This is known as bait advertising.
7. Luring people in with a product you don't have — Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price and then: (a) Refusing to show the advertised item to consumers; Or (b) Refusing to take orders for it or deliver it within a reasonable time; Or (c) Demonstrating a defective sample of it, with the intention of promoting a different product (known as bait and switch)
8. Limited time only — Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice.
9. Illegally selling goods — Stating or otherwise creating the impression that a product can legally be sold when it cannot.
10. It's not right — Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer.
11. Scare tactics — Making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family if the consumer does not purchase the product.
12. Over promise, under deliver — Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations.
13. Creating extra paperwork — Requiring a consumer who wishes to claim on an insurance policy to produce documents which could not reasonably be considered relevant as to whether the claim was valid, or failing systematically to respond to pertinent correspondence, in order to dissuade a consumer from exercising his/her contractual rights.
14. Being honest about advertorials — Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion (advertorial) without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer.
15. Faking goods — Promoting a product similar to a product made by a particular manufacturer in such a manner as deliberately to mislead the consumer into believing that the product is made by that same manufacturer when it is not.
16. Closing down sale? — Claiming that the trader is about to cease trading or move premises when he/she is not.
17. Pulling the wool over their eyes — Passing on materially inaccurate information on market conditions or on the possibility of finding the product with the intention of inducing the consumer to acquire the product at conditions less favourable than normal market conditions.
18. Forcing the deal — Including in marketing material an invoice or similar document seeking payment which gives the consumer the impression that he/she has already ordered the marketed product when he/she has not.
19. A wolf in sheep's clothing — Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his/her trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.
20. Advertising to children — Including in an advertisement a direct exhortation to children to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them.
21. Pyramid schemes — Establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.
22. You can't promise a win — Claiming that products are able to facilitate winning in games of chance.
23. Winner takes nothing — Claiming in a commercial practice to offer a competition or prize promotion without awarding the prizes described or a reasonable equivalent.
24. Is it truly free? — Describing a product as 'gratis', 'free', 'without charge' or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.
25. No win situations — Creating the false impression that the consumer has already won, will win, or will on doing a particular act win, a prize or other equivalent benefit, when in fact either: There is no prize or other equivalent benefit, or taking any action in relation to claiming the prize or other equivalent benefit is subject to the consumer paying money or incurring a cost.
26. Forcing the sale — Creating the impression that the consumer cannot leave the premises until a contract is formed.
27. Overstaying your welcome — Conducting personal visits to the consumer's home and ignoring the consumer's request to leave or not to return except in circumstances and to the extent justified, under national law, to enforce a contractual obligation.
28. Pestering the consumer — Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified under national law to enforce a contractual obligation.
29. Using guilt to make sales — Explicitly informing a consumer that if he does not buy the product or service, the trader’s job or livelihood will be in jeopardy.
30. Asking for payment when they didn't ask for the product — Demanding immediate or deferred payment for, or the return or safekeeping of products supplied by the trader, but not solicited by the consumer except where the product is a substitute supplied in accordance with regulation 19(7) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (this is known as inertia selling).
31. Misleading after sales information — Creating the false impression that after-sales service in relation to a product is available in a European Member State other than the one in which the product is sold.
32. Talking the same language — Undertaking to provide after-sales service to consumers with whom the trader has communicated prior to a transaction in a language which is not an official language of the European Member State where the trader is located and then making such service available only in another language without clearly disclosing this to the consumer before the consumer is committed to the transaction.

— from ‘The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations: A basic guide for business’ (PDF)

But one thing not mentioned was the commitment made by the players to charity, community and social marketing work.

This work gets little play in the media, but it is seen by children, parents, fans, NGOs, LEAs and charities on the ground. And it counts. It is a key driver of reputation for the players as personal brands. It is a tangible demonstration of their social and ethical values (and those of their clubs as corporate citizens) and it is one of the fundamentals underpining their value to brand or social marketers.

Most of the players, owners and coaches recognize this community work is one of the factors which differentiate them as a brand and which makes their people and their game more valuable to fans, sponsors and other stakeholders.

Which is why they are consciously managing it.

Which is also why, alongside the growth in the use of players for brand endorsement, there has also been a 100% growth in the use of rugby players and clubs for social marketing purposes since the game went pro ten years ago. Many clubs have Foundations dedicated to working with national and local sponsors from the private and public sector (for example, the National Sports Foundation is part funding with EDF Energy the rugby based National School Sports programme and the players and volunteer staff clocked up north of 100,000 hours per annum on delivering social marketing and community programmes. See the work go to www.rugbyinthecommunity.com

OK, so Glasshouse Partnership is now on Twitter.

Despite some tremblings the other week as Hugh MacLeod deleted his account on the grounds that it made him lazy, I think there’s a lot of potential to be had in 140 characters. Steve Rubel’s more confident, and (I hope) for the right reasons.

Glasshouse Partnership’s motivation to sign up is neatly encapsulated in Sam Lawrence’s post over at Go Big Always:

Twitter is nice because it strips everything away and focuses 100% on people and the economy of interaction.

And that’s what we hope to do. It’s not some part of a big masterplan. Not an aggressive sales strategy. Not even really a collaborative social interaction facilitation exercise, much as we’d secretly like to make it one. Just an opportunity to share our thoughts and collective personality with the world.

The fact that we have a collective personality, of course, is perhaps a little scary. In fact, it’s something we’re rather proud of, and that’s why we’ve gone down the ‘corporate’ Twitter route. Some of us have our own accounts too — see if you can stalk us down — but the Glasshouse tweets will be our home for everything brand, marketing, reputation and CR related, with a healthy dose of cynicism and irreverence thrown in for good measure.

Head over to Twitter and follow us — you wouldn’t want to miss out…

If you’re wondering what Twitter’s all about, then Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian has the basics covered. If you’d like to get our updates to your mobile without signing up, just text follow glasshouse to +44 7624 801423. If you later decide you can’t stand us, you can unsubscribe by texting leave glasshouse to the same number.

Asia and USA will be the leading geographies for innovation and micro and low payments will be the areas of greatest innovation investment. The results came from an ‘Global Innovation Jury’ of industry experts led by Glasshouse Partnership chairman John Chaplin, an acknowledged expert in the payments sector. You can download the report above.

However the power of media has waned and the power of ‘intermedia’ (retailers and infobrokers) has grown. That rather extended pull just isn’t reliable any more. Data now suggests that as much as 70% of purchase decisions are now made in-store. The battle is on to dominate the attention of the shopper directly. For brand owners this means developing persistent experiences which appeal at point of purchase but also linger on to engage the end consumer. They need fester power and this means becoming more like media themselves. Brand owners think of this as shopper marketing. i think of it as developing ‘intramedia’ - building a relationship channel which is remotely constructed, but then has persistence beyond the immediate shopper into the consumer community that shopper responds to.

Just as retailers (from Tesco to McDonalds) have thrived, or survived by becoming ‘intermedia’ (sharing data, selling real-estate, encouraging subscriptions, offering broader and broader range of propositions, choice and value options). In the intermediary retailer, category-wide search, rather than shopping lists or brand search will be the default approach. In this environment, brand owners will increasing see their product categories, and eventually individual brands as intramedia channels.

To a very significant degree cereal manufacturers are already there as intermedia (their brands carry endlessly flexible messages and promotions which appeal more to the shopper than to the end-consumer – the inversion of pester power into ‘fester power’.

What they presently lack is the ability to change the product formulation at point of purchase and to connect that decision-making to end consumers.

However the idea of a Kelloggs on-demand, in-store self-service cereal stations doesn’t seem to me beyond the realm of possibility…technology permitting. And it doesn’t seem unreasonable that end consumers could pre-order their cereal blend through some sort of shopping decision aid. And it doesn’t seem unreasonable that Kellogs would then expand is lifeshare into other breakfast services…as it would then own the breakfast choice intramedium…

But Crop to Cup is working to take the subject of fair trade a step further by introducing platforms which allow consumers to interact directly with growers in developing countries and ask them questions and learn about their farming practices directly and in richer detail.

As global markets become more transparent and interactive, technologies such as these seem poised to break open the opacity of supply chain and give end consumers greater ability to access work and environmental conditions for themselves.

As Tom Watson, the technology literate partliamentary secretary at the cabinet office has indicated:

The idea that citizens know what would benefit them most, and suit them best, leads naturally to the idea that they should have some say in how their services are shaped. To allow ‘everyone to improve’ something, the necessary information must be shared.…

Bring on open source solutions, problem solving communities and intention-based local service provision…