View a full range of our ebooks

View full library

Explore

Our Location

The PHA Group
117 Wardour Street,
Hammer House,
London,
W1F 0UN

0207 0251 350
info@thephagroup.com
PHA Digital Studio
Fourth Floor,
47 Dean St,
Soho,
London,
W1D 5BE

0207 0251 350
info@thephagroup.com
PHA Finance Department
117 Wardour Street,
Hammer House,
London,
W1F 0UN

0207 0251 350
info@thephagroup.com

The millenial issue: how charities can connect and make an impact

The millenial issue: how charities can connect and make an impact

Millenials get a fairly bad rep in today’s media. We’re all aware of the widely purported stereotype: a self-centered and entitled generation with a penchant for self promotion on social media and a reluctance to buckle down to a hard days work.

Sigh.

You’d be forgiven, then, for assuming that millennials are not pre-disposed to charitable giving. Even if you don’t buy into the above stereotype (good for you), there is no escaping the fact that millennials are, if nothing else, fairly strapped for cash and often struggling with large amounts of student debt.

Taking this into account it seems surprising that, contrary to the above, a hefty 84% of millennials made a charitable donation in 2016 according the the Millennial Impact Report.

In addition to this Blackbaud’s Annual Giving report states that overall giving grew by 1% in 2016 and, on average, millennials gave an average of $481 annually.

So, if the impulse to give is there, why is it that many charities find themselves struggling to connect with this audience?

Getting online

Millennials are a huge disruptor in the world of charitable giving. The same annual giving report that identified the growth in overall giving also identified a 7.9% increase in online donations in 2016 with #GivingTuesday online donations increasing by 20% over the same year. It also found that nearly 17% of all online donations were made on a mobile device.

It’s an online world and the growth of platforms such as JustGiving and crowdfunding sites along with online charity iniatives from #charitytuesday to social media campaigns such as the infamous ice bucket challenge only proves this further.

With that in mind it feels particularly shocking that during a recent in-house study conducted by Charity Checkout of 500 recently registered charities from May/June 2016, it was found that only 60% had a functioning website.

Of that 60%, 45% were not mobile responsive. And over 85% lacked an attractive and professional design in the view of the assessor.

Finally, 62% of the charities examined did not have a regular giving option within their online donation system.

When you look at it like that it seems clear how charities are potentially missing out on all important donations.

So, it seems that knowing your audience has never been more pertinent. But that isn’t limited to how they like to donate but also what motivates millennials to part with their hard-earned cash.

Tapping into their motivation

The Millennial Impact project has identified that getting involved is one of the top motivators for charitable giving. Rather than simply donate to cause on a monthly basis, Millennials thrive off volunteering and raising money through events. In fact 70% said they’d rather fundraise through an event than just donate. It seems involvement is the key word here and gone are the days when a charity could attract donations through its reputation alone.

It’s not just about the money. Millennials, more than any other generation are motivated by tangible results. They want concrete evidence of impact and regular updates about successful projects and programs. 43% said they’d want to hear from a charity monthly. 79% wanted updates on programs and services, 70% volunteer opportunities, 56% info about fundraising events and 56% events and activities for young professionals.

Sharing is caring

“It might seem like Generation Y hasn’t been as involved in social issues. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Generation Y’s social presence doesn’t begin with marches—it begins with 140 characters.” Complex.com

Whilst it might feel like a giant cliché, social media is something that charities simply must engage in if they hope to harness the millennial market.

If we take into consideration the findings above about millennial’s being motivated by tangible results, social media is merely an extension of this. Along with wanting to see tangible results there is a desire to share these results far and wide. Run a marathon? Raised £1k at your office bake sale? Tipped a bucket of ice cold water over your head? Best share it with your friends, work colleagues and that person you went to school with 10 years ago.

On a serious note, online identity has become more and more prevalent in recent times and millennials in particular want to share the causes they care about with their friends.

Whilst this might seem like a vanity exercise, it is worth remembering that millennials also discover causes online. If done in the right way, social media can help charities drastically increase their followings and reach a whole new audience.

The No Makeup Selfie might have seemed vacuous however it raised over $8 million in just a week. The Ice Bucket Challenge not only brought awareness to a previously little-known neurodegenerative disease but also raised $115 million for the cause. The institution that is Movember has gained 55.7k followers since 2003 and raised $559 million to date.

In summary there’s plenty of potential for charities to harness the power of millennial donations however they must be prepared to offer:

  • sleek, up-to-date online giving,
  • concrete results through stories about successful projects and programs,
  • encouragement to share the results of their contributions with friends and colleagues

Jared O’Mara and the Unforgiving Eternity of the Internet

Just cos he writes about gayness and gay issues, doesn’t mean he drives up the marmite motorway.’

‘I just think that this story is much more poignantly romantic than fudge packing Jake.’

‘A rhythm section that’s tighter than your mother was when I took her virginity all those years ago.’

You could be forgiven for reading the above statements as the deranged blabbering of a sulky, and confused teenager. If only it were so. Instead, they represent the historic online comments of elected Labour MP Jared O’Mara.

O’Mara made headlines in the snap election when he displaced Nick Clegg from his seat of Sheffield Hallam. He was seen as a candidate who was very much carried along on the crest of the Momentum wave.

That was June, this is October, and O’Mara has been suspended from the party following a string of vile revelations broken by Guido Fawkes, a right-wing gossip blog infamous for exposing the worst digressions of Members of Parliament.

O’Mara’s ire was not limited to homosexual people, or other people’s mothers. ‘Fat’ people, women, Spaniards, Danes and teenage girls have all felt the sting of O’Mara’s vitriol over the years. Angela Rayner, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, defended O’Mara by claiming that these comments were made a long time ago, and that his opinions had evolved. This is a pretty weak defence, and weaker still given that we can simply check the dates of his comments in an online forum and ascertain that he was 21-years-old.

Now, I’m 23, and as vulgar and detestable as my colleagues might find me, I would argue that I know that referring to teenage girls as ‘sexy little slags’ is not the social norm, and I would also have known two years ago that it was unacceptable.

While it would be easy to sit here and pull apart O’Mara’s views, and the sub-standard Labour vetting process that allowed him to contest a seat, the best lesson learned for figures of public prominence is the damage that the digital world can wreak on a reputation. O’Mara is 35-years-old now, and is perhaps one generation too late to have truly grown up with the internet.

But given the way he is now being torn to shreds in the media, this raises an interesting question over whether this is something we can expect to see more of, as more public figures who have grown up with online forums, Facebook and Twitter come into the spotlight.

This can at times be a source of amusement. The SNP’s Mhairi Black was just 20 when elected (you may have seen her, in a blinding lack of self-awareness, lamenting ‘career politicians’ recently), and some of her old tweets from her teenage years were dug up after her selection. They were quite funny to the casual observer, and rather embarrassing for Black herself.

 

 

 

Andre Gray, the Premier League footballer, had a more sobering experience when explosive homophobic tweets from his past were pulled up. He faced FA disciplinary action as a result. 

Trial by social media is not a new phenomenon, but as those who have grown up hand-in-glove with the internet move into positions as MPs and figures of public influence, there could be much more scandal yet to come.

Being cautious or vigilant in the here and now is clearly not enough. Do people remember all that they have done and said in the past? Should they continue to be made to atone for it? Is the best course of action to completely erase your digital footprint?

Online is forever, and as Jared O’Mara is finding out, there is no hiding place once all is revealed.

Just how many more skeletons are there in how many more closets? Halloween is on the way, so another fright may be just around the corner.

 

The end of The Independent: has print lost its place?

After 30 years, one of the nation’s most well-known newspapers has announced it will be ceasing print; the final issue of The Independent will be published on 26th March, with The Independent on Sunday’s final issue appearing the following day.

The Independent is renowned for its vivid front pages and campaigning tone. Most recently, its sensitive and compelling coverage of the European migrant crisis starkly communicated the gravity of the distressing situation. Its now-famous front page depicting the lifeless body of Aylan Al-Kurdi highlighted the reality and desperation of the crisis, engaging directly with every individual who saw that image.

Newspaper stand, closure of Independent

Image courtesy of Scorpians and Centaurs on Flickr

With this in mind, we have to wonder what the paper’s final front page will look like. How to sum up 30 years in one issue? A copy to look forward to that is for certain.

Of course, the digitalisation of a national newspaper automatically calls into question what this means for print media as a whole. This discussion is not new and has been going on for a lengthy amount of time. However, now The Indy has taken this step, these conversations will no doubt amplify.

Breaking news is now available at every second of every minute of every hour of every day, with alerts set up so we receive the stories directly to our phones.  We digest news quickly and in bite-size chunks, reading a feature during our mid-morning coffee break, an article during a lunchtime browse, scrolling down the news feeds on our train journey home. If a paper has an exclusive, it is increasingly difficult to keep this under wraps before it is released to the internet, where it becomes old news within seconds.

Therefore, does print news still have a place in our society? Is it an out-dated legacy of a time before life online?

Front page of the Independent

Image courtesy of At-Ram on Flickr

We have to wonder whether The Independent is acting as a trailblazer, ensuring the way we digest news is compatible with the modern person. Alternatively, is its decision to end a sign of defeat (which its reduced number of readers might suggest)?

There is already a nostalgic element to turning the pages of a paper or a book, with the new generation now exposed to digital, as opposed to being gradually introduced like generations of previous years. Yes, the world of digital brings exciting opportunities, with the ever-changing social climate allowing us to engage like never before. Yet, there is something different about picking up a physical paper copy of a paper. You may be encouraged to read stories you would simply glance at online or spend your time reading the whole piece instead of scrolling to the end. A paper is a curated collection of news, features and articles that are deemed the most important that day and should be considered as a complete package.

Although modernisation is important, I for one will be sad to see The Independent go and wistfully hope the others will not follow suit.

 

Hate Seeking Missiles: The Rise Of The Professional Troll

In the last few years the professional troll has arisen, not designed to anger you about a subject, but at the person saying it. We now have celebrities designed just for you to venomously despise, not because you disagree with them, but because they’re simply horrible people.

It’s clear that people are getting harder to shock, meaning that celebrities have had to resort to even more daring ploys for attention. In the last few years, we have seen sex tapes, meat dresses, award ceremony invasions, all deliberate attempts to raise awareness of a product or person. Shock PR tactics are evolving to ludicrous and downright offensive levels. We are seeing a generation of celebrities who are not only controversial but downright horrible, who are famous for making you hate them.

The media is now plagued by commentators who spew offensive comments just to get a reaction from the public, behaving in essence, like a troll.

For those living in a cave (or more suitably, under a bridge), a troll is a nickname for those who roam social media, upsetting people to evoke a reaction. This can include sexism, racism and even threats of sexual abuse or death. Thankfully this is being cracked down on but the scale of the problems means very few have faced convictions thus far.

Dapper Laughs was recently criticised for his offensive approach to women.

Dapper Laughs was recently criticised for his offensive approach to women.

The professional troll is successful due to their simple strategy. Nasty comments by celebs (usually on Twitter) get picked up by the media which are then shared countless times across social media like the online equivalent of cholera. The celebrity’s reputation can’t be harmed because it is built on these principles. Anyone voicing their disgust further spreads the celebrity in question’s name so you can’t really win, by responding you are merely fuelling the fire.

Vine video host Dapper Laughs is a great example. For those that missed his fortnight of fame, the alleged ‘comedian’ revels in making crude, sexists jokes at their expense. A real gent. Another famous member of this new generation is the Scottish ghoul Frankie Boyle, famed for making comments about Jimmy Saville and Princess Diana.

Thankfully, it seems that these people do have expiry dates.

They say there is no such thing as bad PR, but it does often have repercussions. Dapper Laughs, for example, has pretty much been killed off after the horror show that was his TV show and general national condemnation. Frankie Boyle’s antics, while initially making the headlines have faded away and now is so despised by the media, he’s unlikely to ever work on terrestrial television again.

It’s evident that eventually these celebrities will go away if they are starved of the media attention that they need to thrive.

The message is clear, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

#JeSuisCharlie and the Twitter bandwagon

Last week’s attacks in Paris were sickening, of that there is no doubt. The fallout, many innocent people are dead, world leaders are doing their best to be seen to support their French allies and millions of tweets are being sent bearing #JeSuisCharlie.

This isn’t a blog looking at the wider repercussions of the attacks, that’s something far too large to do here, or in any single blog – to look at the rising anti-Muslim agenda, scaremongering and media misreporting, but what can be assessed is the role social media plays in these instances.

Since last week’s attacks, I’d be keen to bet that #JeSuisCharlie has trended consistently. A hashtag which aims to show solidarity towards the victims, defiance against terror and a pro-free speech outlook – big objectives for a mere 13 characters.

Millions show their defiance against the Paris attacks.

Millions show their defiance against the Paris attacks.

The main reason social media, particularly Twitter, is able to spread this feeling of support and defiance is that, simply put, it’s quick and easy to do so – a great advantage. Yet this ‘click and forget’, ‘like and leave’ mentality is its own worst enemy. Take the previous example of #BringBackOurGirls, a hashtag supported by the likes of Michelle Obama to raise awareness around the Boko Haram kidnapping of 300 girls in Nigeria. Remember that? Outraged at the time? Perhaps you even shared the hashtag. But what then?

Social media, of which I like most people am a big fan, makes news quicker, more interactive, and affords people the opportunity to share their opinion. But when it’s just as easy to back worldwide disgust at a terrorist incident as it is to show your enjoyment of a picture of a cat dressed as a lion, in many ways it cheapens the message.

The nature of social media, particularly Twitter, is transient and perhaps the wider question is can a campaign be sustained through this channel and if so, how?

Yes, being able to say X million people worldwide have backed #JeSuisCharlie is powerful in itself, it is a message that society won’t be defeated, but surely a much more powerful measure of impact, of our resistance, is to ask people a month down the line who still really cares? This may sound blunt, but the news agenda moves quicker than ever before and most stories are forgotten.

The Paris attacks perhaps are (and should be) too large to fall into this category, but only time will tell.

Greggs show the importance of social media during a potential crisis

Twitter and Facebook are the first places many people take to when angry about something these days. Gone are the days of sending angry letters or emails and people have certainly lost faith in customer services over the phone. With thousands of others able to see your comments instantly and jump on the complaining bandwagon with their own experiences, social media platforms rightly seem the best way to get a message across to a brand quickly and get a quick response.

The channels, which started off as luxuries for brands enabling them to communicate with a whole load of potential customers quickly, easily and for free, are now one of the biggest methods of direct customer conversation and complaints. The individuals behind these channels spend their days responding to tweets and Facebook posts directed at the brand, making sure the consumer leaves happy in the end and no further negativity about the brand is spread.

There are numerous examples that show the true power of these platforms, the most recent being yesterday’s ‘Google Greggs’ campaign. If you currently type Gregg’s into Google, the first thing to appear is numerous news articles regarding a prank played on them via Google. No one knows whether this was a substantial fail on Google’s behalf or an extremely clever viral marketing campaign but contrary to what the ‘prankers’ aimed to achieve when changing the brands logo to read “Greggs – Providing sh*t to scum for over 70 years”, all the coverage is positive and their SEO ratings will have gone through the roof. It may not have been planned, but the way Greggs responded was turned this into great PR for the brand.

So how did this prank backfire and why have Greggs come away as the good guys? Well, instead of trying to speak with Google to get the logo changed asap and trying to brush what had happened under the carpet, their social team very cleverly decided to converse with Google via Twitter only, using a bribe of delicious fresh doughnuts to get them to prioritise this task. They created the hashtag #fixgreggs, with Google quickly responding with, ‘Sorry @GreggstheBakers, we’re on it. Throw in a sausage roll and we’ll get it done ASAP. #fixgreggs’.

Greggs then went on to reply to all concerned customers who had been talking about the logo through Twitter as well, having banter along the way and making light of a bad situation. One tweet they replied with for example was, ‘@joannaroberts_ what? Has something happened? ;-)’.

The problem was soon resolved and all that has been left is positive news coverage in numerous outlets including Sky News, the Telegraph, Evening Standard and Independent.

Another example of social media not only saving the day but greatly enhancing positive awareness of a brand is in the case of O2 whose Twitter account became swamped with negative tweets about poor service by frustrated customers during a large network crash.  Instead of responding to all complaints with the same standard corporate jargon, they too responded to each tweet individually in an honest and light-hearted manner. Customers found this human touch refreshing and emotions quickly changed as a result.

It was the opposite case for HMV however, whose staff took to social media to vent about their frustration of losing their jobs. Instead of the marketing team foreseeing this and planning a good way to disperse the situation, they got worried and started deleting comments as they came in. To the angry staff, this was probably the most annoying thing they could have done and it showed complete lack of control on HMV’s part. This only created more negative press around the company.

These examples show just how powerful a tool social media can be, both in making and breaking the image and trust in a brand. In this day, all companies should have a social media crisis plan, whether deciding how to respond to negative comments in line with the brand’s personality or how they plan to apologise to customers should something go wrong. People naturally like to feel cared about so as long as that comes across through all channels, a bad situation can quickly be resolved.

Music streaming: Are songs becoming too accessible?

The Official Charts Company announced earlier today that songs played on streaming services such as Spotify will be counted as part of the Official Singles Chart from the beginning of next month. This decision marks the first time that chart positions could be affected without fans paying for the most popular songs.

The move comes in light of the continued popularity and growth of music streaming where an average of 260 million songs are currently streamed per week. The Official Charts Company boss Martin Talbot justified the decision by stating that the changes are about “future proofing the charts.”

“So far this year we’ve seen nine tracks which have been streamed more than one million times in a week,” Talbot explained. “Last year there were only two tracks that had reached that kind of level.”

Music sharing sites have recently been criticised by artists.

However, in order to ensure that users are unable to hugely influence the chart by streaming one song constantly throughout the week, 100 streams will be the equivalent of one single purchase or download and only ten plays will count per user, per day.

The move clearly reflects the new ways in which people are digesting and listening to music in this day and age where access to content is so freely available. However, it remains to be seen if the artists will be fairly remunerated for their content on streaming sites, and how this decision will affect the direction of the music industry as a whole.

While up and coming artists may potentially see an increase in their chart positions as users of streaming sites can easily experiment with new sounds risk-free, the decision to count streaming data could be controversial amongst established artists who have accused Spotify and other streaming services of exploiting their music and paying them tiny royalties in return.

Writing in the Guardian last year, David Byrne, former lead singer of Talking Heads, said the amount paid to artists per stream was “minuscule… if artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they’ll be out of work within a year.”

It’s clear that if the new generation of fans were to begin solely using music streaming sites the music industry would need to have a serious rethink about the platforms on which songs are available. Therefore, music bosses need to hope that the inclusion of streaming data will add variety to the charts rather than favour ease of access listening over buying songs, which could heavily impact the royalties that artists receive for their talent.

Heartbleed bug causing reputational damage to infected businesses

The Heartbleed bug is one of the biggest online security threats to date. The name alone sounds serious, like a tropical disease crossed with a Taylor Swift song. But apart from scaring us all into changing our passwords from ‘password1’ to something a little bit more secure, what is the Heartbleed bug and why should businesses be concerned?

The bug exists in a piece of open source software called OpenSSL which is designed to encrypt communications between a user’s computer and a web server. It is one of the most widely used encryption tools on the internet, believed to be deployed by roughly two-thirds of all websites. If you see a little padlock symbol in your browser then it is likely that you are using SSL.

It allows anyone to read the memory of the systems protected by the vulnerable versions of the OpenSSL software. In layman’s terms, this means that usernames and passwords, as well as other confidential data, could be read by cybercriminals.

The Heartbleed bug has caused a crisis of confidence amongst consumers.

The Heartbleed bug has caused a crisis of confidence amongst consumers.

Half a million sites are thought to have been affected including online banking, shopping websites and email accounts. Since the vulnerability has been in OpenSSL for about two years and using it leaves no trace, it is safe to assume that your accounts may be compromised.

Companies are rapidly patching up their systems to secure against it and because so many businesses have been affected by this including Google, Tumblr and Instagram, being infected by the Heartbleed bug does not mean the end of your business.

However, companies that have not been compromised are coming out on top. Apple has been praised for their robust iOS operating systems and has confirmed that all of its devices and web services are safe from the bug. In fact, its devices never used the problematic software in the first place. This foresight will no doubt win Apple more brand advocates.

So whether you are a business or an individual, you should change your online passwords, especially for services where privacy and security are major concerns. Changing passwords is worth doing, and to be honest, it is something you should probably do every six months or so anyway. It is a pain, I know, but it is better to be on the safe side than catch the Heartbleed bug.

What this story does go to show is how important trust is for consumers, particularly when dealing with firms with a strong online presence. They are aware their data is being used and when they feel it may be compromised – particularly with something as sensitive as bank details – they’re likely to get very nervous very quickly, and rightly so.

What this recent news has shown from a PR point of view is that sometimes the most powerful way to influence customers and win business from rivals is to perform particularly well during a crisis, rather than simply pushing positive PR messages.

Mozilla CEO’s resignation shows a fortnight is a long time in PR

There is no greater hindrance to business success than complacency. One minute things are going well, the next you’re facing a public crisis – just ask Brendan Eich.

It was today announced that the Mozilla chief executive would step down from his position after public outrage at his support of a California bill to ban gay marriage. In addition, he also resigned from his seat on the board of the non-profit foundation which owns the company.

Last week three members of the Mozilla board resigned after Mr Eich was promoted – it’s safe to say he’s had a nightmare fortnight.

Mozilla CEO stepped down due to views on gay marriage

Mozilla CEO stepped down due to views on gay marriage

So how did Mr Eich get to this unenviable outcome? Simply due to the weight of public outrage at his personal views on whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.

With growing transparency amongst businesses, the people who run them, and the public, facilitated by an extraordinary rise in the popularity of social media, it has never been more important for companies to stand for something real – something people can get behind.  Mozilla do this well and for many have been viewed as the good guys, waging war on the corporate behemoth that is Internet Explorer. A fun, inclusive company which champions service and enjoyment – and certainly not one at which a CEO would have prejudice views on who should and shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Modern business PR is all about delivering a clear, consistent and believable message so whilst a company can do one thing, if a senior employee does the opposite this disconnect is leapt upon in a second and in short you can be thrown to the wolves. In this case, Mr Eich’s comments were the equivalent of a Greenpeace representative supporting a bill for lessened regulation on seal clubbing.

All companies, regardless of size need to continually reinforce the importance of a united front and message to all of their employees, particularly visible senior ones otherwise a brand image which has been carefully crafted over a number of years can come tumbling down in one speech, one tweet, five seconds.

The company did the right thing to distance itself from his stance, exposing it as a rogue view rather than a company one, however as they conceded, ‘We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.’

Politicians are regularly told to tow the party line and perhaps Mr Eich should’ve done the same at Mozilla rather than letting his personal views cost him his job and Mozilla some of their credibility.

Mail Online crosses the Atlantic

The Mail Online has announced its switch from a .co.uk homepage address to a .com domain, in recognition of its increased international readership and to boost its global traffic.

It is reported that negotiations between US paper the Charlestone Daily Mail, occupiers of the dailymail.com address for 18 years, and Daily Mail & General Trust have resulted in the latter paying in excess of £1m to secure the valuable domain name.

It seems that Mail Online has reached a point of saturation amongst its UK audience, and recognises that the one factor preventing a further increase in the already huge portion (70%) of monthly traffic from outside the UK, has been the .co.uk domain.

The site recently announced a switch from a .co.uk to .com domain.

The site recently announced a switch from a .co.uk to .com domain.

It is thought that DMGT missed their revenue target of £45m last year, but have set themselves a target of achieving £60m-worth of revenue in 2014, they clearly recognise the growing importance of international markets to Mail Online, especially growth in the US, if ad sales and resulting revenue are to increase.

There wasn’t a huge reaction in the UK – I can’t say I noticed – when theguardian.co.uk made the switch to .com mid-way through last year, but having seen their left-wing cousins reap the financial benefits of the lucrative US market, Mail Online has seized its opportunity to add to its 161 million monthly unique users and boost its global PR appeal in the process.

Rarely has a news outlet been able to spark public debate by doing its job properly. It baffles me how well Mail Online appeases our appetite for easy reading, yet people feel the need to pick holes in every story in the comments beneath and accuse them of lazy journalism. I certainly look forward to hearing the reaction of Mail Online regulars to this particular story in the coming weeks, not that any criticism is justifiable.

Is the Mail Online’s infamous layout and homepage one of the reasons for British readership waning slightly over the last year? Even if we are losing interest in the website in this country, Mail Online has already been extremely successful in the US by segmenting the placement of stories relevant to that particular audience, and this looks only set to continue.

I should think that, as was the case with the Guardian, the switch will have a temporarily negative impact on traffic to Mail Online, but not for long. After the initial short-lived backlash from the UK-centrists, normal service will be resumed and the site will flourish once more.

The real question is whether the Mail Online’s political focus will change, in parallel with the new domain. Will the MO continue to be politically UK-focused and celebrity-focused internationally? I shouldn’t think much will change, and looking too much into it defeats the purpose of the switch in the first place. Simply, global traffic to the site will increase, it’s just how the internet works.

Despite the 70 percent of website traffic coming from overseas already, Mail Online will have to be wary of ensuring that their content caters to an increasingly diverse international audience. Maintaining a balance between news for traditional readers and celebrity updates for more casual visitors will continue to be necessary, but at the same time, the .com domain may even give the MO scope to, as the site continues to grow, incorporate auto-generated home pages based on the user’s location.

Most importantly, however, wherever it goes, the Mail Online will always be there for us at lunchtime.