Re Daniel Pearl post on the BBC editors blog. He discusses the way consumers are now changing TV by using new technology to have their say on what they like and dislike. Both email and blogging are key channels used by the BBC to check the consumer pulse. What is fascinating is the immediacy of the effect of this social media influence.

"In some ways the biggest change is how much closer we, as programme makers, are to our audience. If you email us during the programme the chances are that, if I'm editing, I'll read your message almost instantly..."

Daniel also makes some interesting observations about some online publishers, who talk about  progammes and offer their opinions freely, but feel threatened when they are responded to personally by the editor.

"I recently came across a comment claiming Jeremy disliked recording his weekly podcast. I posted a response and the blogger seemed appalled - "the BBC's watching us - spooky" was his reply. But if you write something about us on the internet surely I have every right to read it and respond - that's not spooky."

I think Daniel is quite right in his opinion that brands have the right to reply, provided they respect the rules of the venue. However, these are sometimes less clear than they should be - often understood tacitly rather than explicitly by regular readers or members. I also think the tonality of discourse must also be spot on in order to ensure the publisher still feels in control. Having said all that, there's no pleasing everyone.