What's in a Twitter name?

When I started on Twitter, as I explained here, it was to keep in touch with my children while they were abroad. However, I had in mind that it would also be a useful way to promote this blog, so I chose a Twitter name that tied in with this blog’s name – as to the “rationale” behind the blog’s name, see here . “Abaddon” was already taken as a Twitter name so, as Abaddon was the angel of the bottomless pit, I chose "Abaddons Pit" - or, to avoid a space, “Abaddonspit” - as my Twitter name.

This was all fine and good, and provided an ice-breaking conversation topic at the first Tweetups at the Hoodeners Horse in Great Chart – wonderful food, beer and atmosphere, by the way. Two of the Twitterers I met there and followed decided to change their Twitter names to their real names: @romanythresher from @DirectAssist and @AngusWillson from @Pannage. This prompted me to do the same – after all, Twitter is a conversation, and using a false name in a conversation is a bit creepy. Also, it is well known that anonymity in Internet discussion forums breed bad behaviour. Further, more and more commentators are recommending use of real names by Twitterers – eg: Scott Williams.

So, I decided to change my Twitter name. I found out how to do it – a slightly unnecessarily complicated way, but it worked; this is an easier way - but found that @JustinNelson and @Justin_Nelson had already been taken, but @_JustinNelson had not, so I changed the name from @Abaddonspit to @_JustinNelson (after a brief trial with @JustinPHNelson, which was less memorable, I feel, than @_JustinNelson.

All seemed fine on Twitter itself and using TweetDeck – “Job done!” I thought. I then found that I was unable to get photos sent via Twitpic to appear in my timeline. Suspecting that the leading underscore was the problem (no idea why, just a hunch), I changed my name back to @JustinPHNelson – and found myself locked out of the account. Too many name changes? Twitter hated the “PH” bit, too? I have no idea – Twitter have treated my help requests as feature requests (ie: binned them) or as instantly resolved and closed (ie: binned them), so I guess I will never know.

This happened last Sunday (less than a week ago as I type this), and the aghast, sinking feeling I had when I realised that I was Twitless is fresh in my memory. Knowing that Twitter would be at least 36 hours away from returning to work, I gave up my futile attempts to re-access my account and resigned myself to a period of Twitlessness.

Horrifyingly, by the Wednesday (after only four days’ inability to Tweet or – worse – follow Twitterers) I decided to give up on the hope of re-accessing my original Twitter account. After checking that @JustinNelson_ could successfully send Twitpics, and launched that account on an unsuspecting world, and started re-building my follows and followers. I started with the local Twitterers – helped by the very useful Twitvite list for the extremely well-attended Tweetup at the Hoodeners Horse yesterday. Today, my aim is to re-connect to the follows I had further afield.

One mistake I will not repeat from my very first foray into Twitter: I will not automatically DM a standard “welcome” message to each new follower I get, but will send a custom message instead. The minimal extra effort involved has to be worth it if I am to build a network of friends, rather than mere connections in the ether.

The only remaining problem that I have is that my mobile phone number is still associated with my old Twitter account, so until that account is unlocked or deleted I cannot use SMS messages for Twitter - a relatively small difficulty that I hope will eventually be overcome - Can you hear me, Twitter?

Do banks seek revenge?

last year, Barclays would not increase my overdraft racility to £60,000 - to get me through the credit crunch - pending the maturing of a life policy for that amount. HSBC were happy to offer that arrangemejt, so I switched. It was a matter of commercial life or death, as Barclays well knew.

Anyway, nine months after the switch and I am ready finally to close the Barclays accounts - any unpresented cheques have been replaced with cheques drawn on the new accounts.

Because it is forbidden to mix clients' money with my own, I asked Barclays to send me two cheques: one for the balance on my clients account with them to pay into my new clients account, and one for the balance on my office account ...

Instead, Barclays transferred the clients' money into my office account and sent me a single cheque. It ia as though they are trying to get me struct off!

Anyway: my annual audit starts tomorrow, so I will make a clean breast of it to the auditor and take what comes. Wish me luck!

What's in a (Twitter) name?

I was going to blog about why I have changed my Twitter name recently, but as I seem to have broken Twitter by changing too much, I had better wait until it is fixed!

I will re-visit this subject soon, I hope!

Meanwhile, I seem to have locked myself out of receiving Tweets, so I will see if I can at least send one to explain my lack of conversation

Why use Twitter?

Speaking only for myself: I started using Twitter as an easy way for my children to keep me reassured as to their safety while they were abroad - Emily in Colorado at university and Alex in Australia and Thailand on a gap break

It grew from that to an easy way to make contact with local Twitts and to stay in touch with them (especially through the Tweet-ups) - also as a way of picking up snippets from journalists, comedians, etc, that I wanted to follow.

The beauty of Twitter is its -

• freedom: each user chooses who to follow: they are not restricted to following Twitts who follow them, and are not forced to follow their own followers, either
• flexibility: you can use Twitter on the Web, by SMS, through email, etc
• simplicity: the 140-character limit could hardly be easier!
• fun: try it and see!
  

Engineers or insurers?

One way of comparing lawyers is to classify them as "engineers" or as "insurers": engineers try to set up a contract, transaction, etc, that suits the agreed requirements of the client; insurers tend to use an established precedent that is designed to cover all possible circumstances, avoiding the risk of omitting something not currently foreseen but possibly required in future.

I tend to be an "engineer": I try to look after my clients as if they are close friends or family members:
• I give punchy, practical, jargon-free and actionable help
• I aim to keep clients' legal difficulties and expenses to a minimum
• I use my knowledge to benefit my clients

The "insurer" type instead (in my view) tells the client "not to worry about the law", and uses a "blockbuster" precedent intended to smother the problem rather than engineer a solution.

The engineering style is, in my view, better for the client and more enjoyable (though also more testing and, perhaps, risky) for the lawyer - I suppose its a case of quality -v- safety

This distinction is particularly clear in the context of -

(a) leases: in my view, as long as it covers the client's requirements, less is more: a 10-page lease that the parties can understand is (in my view) better than a 50 page lease (covering everything including lift maintenance in a ground floor lock-up shop) that the clients treat as an un-readable brick

(b) enquiries before contract on leases and property purchases: using wide-ranging standard enquiries before contract sometimes means more salient points are overlooked

(As an aside, the distinction between engineer lawyers and insurer lawyers brings to mind Kingsley Amis's classification of two distinct groups in debates over the use of language: berks and wankers. "Berks are careless, coarse, crass, gross and of what anybody would agree is a lower social class than one's own; wankers are prissy, fussy, priggish, prim and of what they would probably misrepresent as a higher social class than one's own" - Not one to hold back, old Kingsley!)

Making a rod for your own back

Pursuing a service standard of "Excellent" is definitely a case of making a rod for your own back

In my business, I strive for a truly excellent standard of service and, inevitably, I do not always achieve it. When I fail, I feel mortified, but (illogically) I also slightly resent it when clients point out how I have failed to achieve the standard I try to set - I feel unfairly treated, in that I know that even my slightly-less-than-excellent standard is better than most solicitors ever achieve, so why am I being criticised for being "better-than-most"?

The answer is that I am not: I am, quite properly, being criticised for not achieving the "best", as that is the standard I have chosen to set: I am not average - I aim to be the best; if I miss that target, I have failed, even if I am still better-than-most.

I today had a glimpse into how it feels from the other side: from the viewpoint of the customer/client. I took my family (this time, with mother-in-law as well) again to the Hoodeners Horse at Great Chart, Ashford, Kent. On the basis of my earlier visits, I promised m-in-law "the best chips ever", etc. For completely understandable reasons relating to seasonal potato varieties, different cooking requirements, etc, the chips today were perfectly good but just not quite truly excellent. As a result, I was disappointed, but it would not be fair to criticise: dealing with the real world (eg: proper potatoes) can never be a uniform experience - and, if it could be, it would not be such a thrill to discover true excellence.

I will keep going back, and keep trying the chips, but will not expect always to have excellent chips - I will be very happy on the occasions when I do.

In a service industry like mine, it should be different: we do not depend so heavily on the quality or type of a raw ingredient that is laregely outside our control; we depend instead on rigorous processes and motivated and well-trained staff. On that basis, we should be able to produce "an excellent chip" every time. In the catering industry, they can do their best, but cannot guarantee results

Andy: Sorry if I appeared to be complaining. I was so impressed by the "world-famous Hoodeners Horse chips" on the first few occasions, that it blinded me to the practical impossibility of always repeating that experience. I will instead be grateful for 99% success rate, and tolerant of the 1% "nearly-but-not-quite-excellent" times - but in my own business, I am still aiming for 100% excellence, as everything should be within my control!!

As always, the beer - St Austell Tribute, for me - and service - thank you, Sally - at the Hoodeners Horse were excellent: everyone came away happy and well-fed and watered

Right to (car) Repair Choice campaign

Keith Robles, a member of Wealden Business Group gave a presentation today at the group's breakfast networking meeting. Keith buys and sells used cars, but also is involved with a local independent garage on the servicing and repairs side (as well as sales). His presentation was about the "Right to Repair Choice" campaign

Very briefly, at present the European Union obliges motor manufacturers to provide technical and other information about their cars, so that independent garages can access that information to enable them to service and repair those cars.

The manufacturers have lobbied the EU to remove that obligation to disclose information, on the basis that cars are becoming too sophisticated to be capable of proper servicing and repair except at the manufacturers' main dealerships, which can afford the progressively more expensive diagnostic equipment that is required.

That lobbying is on the brink of being successful, so the independent garages are fighting back, through this campaign, pointing out that, if the manufacturers can withhold technical information, car owners will indeed be forced to use the main dealers, resulting in -

• increased charges for services and repairs
• longer distances to travel to get a car serviced
• the destruction of the independent sector
• car owners delaying services to save money and travel, resulting in poorly serviced cars being more common

There are arguments on both sides, but what is especially noticeable is that governmental dogma that "competition is always good in all circumstances" is again being brushed aside when it suits big business