Aaron rules Malaysia's Twitter land

By HARIATI AZIZAN sunday@thestar.com.my

Tweet

Aaron Lee may call himself an average Joe but this student is Malaysia's top Twitterer.

OUR Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak may be the leader of the country but in twitterverse, another Malaysian rules the roost: Aaron Lee.

Err.. who, you ask? Better known as Ask Aaron Lee on the social media network, the international marketing student from Universiti Malaysia Sabah has notched a total of 169,056 followers 60,409 more than Najib, according to twitter counter Twitaholic.com.

The self-proclaimed Average Joe is quick to put things into perspective when the issue of his popularity is broached, though.

“Well, I guess that is only true (that I'm more popular than the PM) in Twitter because I have the time to manage my account more actively . . . since I don't have a country to manage!” he quips, before adding “As we all know, our PM is much more influential.”

Still, Aaron admits that he relishes being at the “top”. “It is definitely a nice spot to be in, although there are more accounts catching up like @AirAsia.”

Of course there are sceptics. First, there are the “Never heard of him” reaction when his name is mentioned.

Then there is the fact that the number of followers does not necessarily equal influence.

Huge following: Aaron at the recent global digital media conference iStrategy Singapore with friends Stephanie (left) and Amelia.

 

As fellow twitterer G. Yeoh highlights: “Twitterers who follow massively insane amount of people, and then get followed back doesn't count as popular'...” (Aaron follows 131,738 twitters).

Grey, another twitterer, nonetheless notes that “Aaron does have a lot of followers, including a few of the social media people in town... so maybe he is genuine.”

Crucially, before one dismisses him as a narcissist who cannot stop broadcasting what he had for breakfast and lunch or a shameless fame-seeker, it must be recognised that Aaron's tweets mainly deal with queries on social media hence the moniker Ask Aaron Lee.

He receives various questions from social media network problems to latest tech and business trends.
He points out that Twitter allows him to do the two things he likes connecting with people and learning new things, especially about social media.

“When I started using Twitter, I only wanted to connect with people. I love connecting with new people and engaging. I also love to learn and one way to learn is to read and tweet about it.”

The social media advice he offers is based on his own experience, he adds. The most common question people ask him, he shares, is “how do you build your followers?”

“Second question would be are you a celebrity?', which I usually respond with I wish' and a big LOL'.”

The strangest question he has ever been asked, he reveals, is What is the meaning of life?'

“Of course I didn't know, so I used Google and found out that the answer was the number 42' which appeared in the movie The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.”

Aaron says he started tweeting in March 2009. “I actually stumbled onto Twitter by accident. I posted a link of a blog and I got curious about the site. I searched around and saw people talking; so I followed them and responded to them, and a few minutes later they responded back! Then I realised I had stumbled onto something big because it was something I couldn't do on other sites like Facebook.”

Now, he says, Twitter is his favourite social media network, Hands down.' What he likes most about Twitter is how fast it moves compared with other social networks.



“Stuff goes viral instantly, just like the news on the earthquake which hit Japan recently, and it allowed me to keep up-to-date with real time information from people on Twitter. So happens, one of my followers was from Japan, and I was able to get real time information from him quicker than a lot of people.”

Malaysians, however, generally prefer Facebook to Twitter, he concedes. “I think they feel more connected on Facebook as their friends are already on it. Not many Malaysians like to tweet, I guess.''

Still, he believes that Twitter is growing in Malaysia and this year could probably be the year (it explodes here).”

Unlike many social media proponents and observers, Aaron feels that Malaysians are not ignorant about the safety and privacy issues of social media.

“Most people around the world aren't really aware about their safety and privacy on Facebook anyway. Last year, someone from the US was fired because she posted something bad about her students in school. It shows how open Facebook or Twitter is.”

His advice to them to keep safe: “I would recommend thinking twice before you say or post something on social networking sites or set the privacy to be closed to the public. Today, even employers are online and they will monitor their employees' account.”

As for the use of social media among Malaysian politicians, Aaron feels there is a lot of room for improvement.

“I've seen improvements over the past year but I wish more of them would be more personal and more responsive. I notice there isn't a lot of two-way communication online.”

He says our PM has the best online profile and the best strategies on the social media network.

“Our Prime Minister created #TanyaNajib and allowed people to ask questions on Twitter and he would answer them on a video. I do hope in the future, he would take in more serious questions and stream the answers live on the Internet.”

He counts himself lucky to have the support of his family and friends.“At first they were sceptical about me being on Twitter but today they are extremely supportive.

“My brother is on Twitter too but he is not as active as I am. My mum and dad don't tweet but my dad is on Facebook and he has been extremely supportive, reading my feeds and liking' them.

“Some of my friends do poke fun at the nickname @askaaronlee just for laughs but my close friends are extremely supportive of what I do online,” he shares. Living in Sabah, Aaron shares that Internet connection can get testy but he is not deterred.

“The reception here is not good in certain parts of the state, I depend a lot on 3G so that I can bring my social networking' with me most of the time. And when the reception is not as good, I just land line (streamyx) when I get home.

“It's tough for me not to be online as most of my work requires me to be online. When I am not online, I am either reading a book, out with my friends or attending classes at my university.”

What is certain is that Aaron cannot imagine life without social networking, especially Twitter.
As he puts it, Twitter has changed his life completely.

“Three years ago I was on Facebook playing games and today, I am connecting with amazing people around the world like Alyssa Milano who is following me on Twitter.

“Last year, I was invited to attend a social media conference in Singapore because I connected with the creative director of Philips, @thomasmarzano, one of the speakers of the conference on Twitter. Today we're good friends.

“In April next year, I'll be hiking the Himalayas for charity with people whom I've connected on Twitter.”

LinkedIn IPO to value firm at $3.3bn

Tweet



LinkedIn's IPO in New York next week is expected to spark a gold rush of social networking flotations

Josh Halliday and Dominic Rushe,guardian.co.uk

Inside LinkedIn HQ, Mountain View, California. The firm expects to raise up to $274m in the first IPO for a major US social networking group Photograph: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg News

LinkedIn, the social network for business professionals, will be valued at $3.3bn (£2bn) when it floats on the New York Stock Exchange next week, setting off a multimillion-dollar gold rush of social media companies.

The nine-year-old social network plans to float on the NYSE on 19 May and said it could raise as much as $274m. In January the firm said it was looking to raise $175m in the initial public offering.

The firm is cashing in amid an increasingly frenzied investor appetite for the next generation of internet firms. It will become the first major US social network to go public and follows the float of Renren, China's version of facebook, which saw its stock soar 40% in its first day of trading on the NYSE earlier this month.

LinkedIn's float is expected to be followed by a wave of flotations including those of Groupon, the online discount business; Zynga, maker of the Cityville and Farmville online games, and Facebook. Facebook's valuation has soared in recent months as investors clamour for shares in the privately held company. The company was valued at $50bn when investors put in more cash in January but its privately held shares have since traded at prices that suggest the firm could be worth more than $70bn.


Analysts said LinkedIn's flotation would be seen as the first real indicator of investor appetite for US social media firms. Colin Gillis, internet analyst at BGC Partner in New York, said: "Renren had everything – it's Chinese and it's social networking. LinkedIn is going to be the first real indicator of demand for the US social network firms."

LinkedIn has about 100 million users and turned a profit of $15.4m on revenues of $243m in 2010. Though other social networks are far larger, notably Facebook with about 700 million users worldwide, the business orientation of LinkedIn's members make them potentially more valuable to advertisers. The company managed to grow through the recession and turned profitable last year having made operating losses from 2007 until 2009.

At $3.3bn, LinkedIn would be priced at 13 times last year's revenues of $243m – a lower multiple than its peers. Facebook has a multiple of 32 times its estimated 2010 sales, according to Nyppex, a private-share market.

The company will offer 7.8m shares at $32-$35 each – the top of its previously expected price range. It said it intends to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, including working capital, sales and marketing, general and administrative matters and capital expenditures.

Reid Hoffman, co-founder and chairman, and the chief executive, Jeffrey Weiner, are selling a small number of shares, less than 0.5% of the company. They will join the company's other shareholders, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs and McGraw-Hill, in selling 3m shares in the public offering. LinkedIn will offer a further 4.8m shares.

Other major investors – Sequoia Capital, Greylock Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners, which together own about two-fifths of the company – will not be participating.

Unlike more mainstream advertising-supported social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, LinkedIn has a "freemium" commercial model, offering premium services to paying customers, while basic features and registration are free.

According to its flotation prospectus, filed in January, revenue from paying users dropped to 27% of overall revenues for the first nine months of last year, down from 41% in the previous year. Job listings and recruitment contributed 41% of net revenue in the same period, up from 29%. Advertising revenue remained steady at 32%.

Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JP Morgan are LinkedIn's three lead advisers.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Apple bumps Google as most valuable brand

by Don Reisinger

Tweet

Chalk another one up for Apple.

Apple is the world's most valuable brand with a value of $153.3 billion, according to Millard Brown Optimor's annual "BrandZ: Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands" study released today. In just one year, Apple's brand value has increased by 84 percent, the study said.
Google, the leader in the study for four years running, was knocked down to second place this year, losing 2 percent of its brand value to end up at $111.5 billion.

 

(Credit: Millard Brown Optimor)

IBM, McDonald's, and Microsoft rounded out the top five with brand values of $100.8 billion, $81 billion, and $78.2 billion in brand value, respectively.

The marketing and advertising industry, not surprisingly, believes strongly in the importance of brand value. "Strong brands, while not immune to the vicissitudes of the market, are more protected, prepared, resourceful and resilient," David Roth of WPP, parent company of Millard Brown Optimor, said in a statement.

If that's the case, Apple's ability to insulate itself from market issues has exploded over the last several years. Millard Brown Optimor said Apple's brand value has increased 859 percent since 2006--the first year of the BrandZ study. Moreover, Apple's year-over-year growth has easily overshadowed the rest of the market. According to the study, the top 100 brands have seen their combined value increase by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion since last year.



Apple wasn't the only fast mover in the study. Facebook's brand value jumped to 35th place, increasing 246 percent year over year to $19.1 billion. China's biggest search engine, Baidu, saw its brand value increase by 141 percent year over year to $22.5 billion, which gave it 29th place.

Such companies have helped tech lead the way in brand value. The researchers said tech companies make up one-third of the top 100 brands worldwide. Amazon.com was also able to beat Wal-Mart to become the most valuable retail brand with a value of $37.6 billion.

Emerging markets are playing a bigger role in the top 100 list. Back in 2006, just two companies from emerging markets made the list. Last year, that tally reached 13. And this year, 19 of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets.

Millard Brown Optimor's BrandZ study is derived from both financial performance and "in-depth" interviews of consumers about their perceptions of brands and why they choose a specific product over another. The company's database includes 2 million such interviews from 30 countries.

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, posting at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Targeted killngs, a human rights concern?

Tweet

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR



The killing of Osama bin Laden, the bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s house and the deaths of civilians by drone missile attacks are some incidents that highlight the many questions of the legality and human rights in the issue of targeted killings.

THE killing of Osama bin Laden was undoubtedly the biggest news last week. While the shooting of the al-Qaeda chief filled the headlines for days, the confusion over what happened and questions over legality of the killing had taken over the discussion soon after.

United States officials had originally announced that Osama was killed in a firefight in the house in Pakistan he was occupying, and that he used his wife as a human shield.

A few days later, it was admitted he had been unarmed, and there was no use of a human shield. Instead, there was no firing on the US forces, except for one person at the initial stage.

The death of Osama came a few days after the Nato bombing of the house of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which the Libyan authorities said had killed his son and several grandchildren.

This raised the question of whether it is legal for one state or states to kill persons, including political leaders, in other states.

These two events, in Pakistan and Libya, highlight the issue of targeted killings carried out by a government agency in the territory of other countries.

For example, drones controlled by operators thousands of miles away are increasingly being used to fire missiles at buildings and vehicles in which the targeted persons are believed to be in, with high “collateral damage”.

Drone attacks killed 957 civilians in Pakistan last year, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. This was almost as many as the 1,041 civilians killed by suicide bomb attacks in the same year.

The high civilian deaths and casualties by US drone attacks have caused great public resentment in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the leaders in these countries warning the United States to control or curb the attacks.

As worldwide public clamour increased last week for more information on what really happened during the raid on Osama’s house, United Nations human rights officials also called on the United States to disclose the full facts, including whether there had been plans to capture him.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for light to be shed on the killing, stressing that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.

Last Friday, a joint statement was issued by Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Both report to the UN Human Rights Council.




They said that in certain exceptional cases, deadly force may be used in operations against terrorists.

“However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment,” they added.

A Reuters report from New York on Thursday said: “The legality of the commando killing of the al-Qaeda leader is less clear under international law, some experts said. President Barack Obama got a boost in US opinion polls, but the killing raised concerns elsewhere that the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world’s most wanted man.”

The German newspaper Sued­deutsche Zeitung expressed misgivings about the legality of the killing.
“Which law covers the execution of bin Laden?” wrote its senior editor Heribert Prantl.

“US law requires trials before death penalties are carried out. Executions are forbidden in countries based on rule of law. Martial law doesn’t cover the US operation either. The decision to kill the godfather of terror was political.”

In May last year, the issue of targeted killings was addressed in a landmark report to the Human Rights Council by Philip Alston, who was then UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Alston, who is a law professor in New York University, criticised the CIA-directed drone attacks, which he said had resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of civilians.

“Intelligence agencies, which by definition are determined to remain unaccountable except to their own paymasters, have no place in running programmes that kill people in other countries,” the report said.

Alston suggested that the drone killings carry a significant risk of becoming war crimes because intelligence agencies “do not generally operate within a framework which places appropriate emphasis upon ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law”.

More generally, the report said that in targeted killings, there has been a highly problematic blurring and expansion of boundaries of the relevant legal frameworks – human rights laws, laws of war and use of inter-state force.

“The result is the displacement of legal standards with a vaguely defined “licence to kill” and the creation of a major accountability vacuum,” said the report, concluding that many of the practices violate legal rules.

It warned that whatever rules the United States attempt to invoke or apply to al-Qaeda could be invoked by other states to apply to other non-state armed groups.

The failure of states to comply with their human rights law and international human rights obligations to provide transparency and accountability for targeted killings is a matter of deep concern.

In light of the increasing use of targeted killings in recent weeks and years, the issues and proposals raised in the May 2010 report should be seriously followed up.

Britain's super-rich get even richer!

Tweet



Britain's richest people got collectively wealthier by 18 percent as the rest of the country weathered harsh government cuts, according to an annual list published Sunday.

Indian-born steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal retained the top spot in The Sunday Times Rich List for a seventh straight year, despite seeing about £5 billion ($8 billion, 5.7 billion euros) wiped off his fortune.

The 1,000 richest people in Britain saw their wealth continue to bounce back from the recession and increase to a collective fortune of £395.8 billion.



The number of billionaires in Britain now stands at 73 -- up from 53 last year and almost matching the record of 75 set in the list of 2008 before the financial crisis. Forty are British-born.

Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov moved from sixth position to second spot in the list after adding £7.7 billion to his fortune, which is now worth £12.4 billion.

Usmanov owns a large stake in Russian iron and steel firm Metalloinvest and recently courted controversy in Britain by trying to build up a controlling stake in English football giants Arsenal.

His bid was thwarted last month when US sports tycoon Stan Kroenke took control of the Premier League side.
Meanwhile the fortune of Mittal, the London-based head of ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel maker, fell by around 22 percent to £17.5 billion in the past 12 months, the biggest drop on this year's list.

The huge fall in the 60-year-old's wealth was driven by a plunge in the share price of ArcelorMittal as the global steel industry struggled to cope with costly raw materials and slow demand.

The highest new female entry is Chinese businesswoman Xiuli Hawken, 48, who made her fortune converting underground military shelters in China into underground shopping malls. She was ranked 61st, with a fortune of £1.06 billion. She lives in London.

Another new female entry is Mary Perkins, who founded the chain of glasses shops, Specsavers, with her husband Douglas. Their wealth has increased 42 percent since last year and stands at £1.15 billion.

The increased wealth comes as most of the country faces harsh austerity measures introduced by the coalition government to cut Britain's record deficit.

The list, which is for those who have Britain as their home or main base of operations, is based on identifiable wealth such as land, property or significant shares in publicly quoted companies, and excludes bank accounts.

- Britain's top 10 billionaires in The Sunday Times Rich List 2011 (last year's rank in brackets):

1. Lakshmi Mittal -- steel -- £17.514 billion (1st)

2. Alisher Usmanov -- steel -- £12.4 billion (6th)
3. Roman Abramovich -- oil, industry -- £10.3 billion (2nd)
4. The Duke of Westminster -- property -- £7 billion (3rd)
5. Ernesto and Kirsty Bertarelli -- pharmaceuticals -- £6.87 billion (4th)
6. Leonard Blavatnik -- industry -- £6.237 billion (15th)
7. John Fredriksen and family -- shipping -- £6.2 billion (16th)
8. David and Simon Reuben -- property, Internet -- £6.176 billion (5th)
9. Gopi and Sri Hinduja -- industry, finance -- £6 billion (new)
9. Galen and George Weston -- retailing -- £6 billion (7th)

© 2011 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.
 

Newscribe : get free news in real time