VikkiChowney

This is the third time I’ve sat down to write this post. Annoyingly, my blog has started to not save things after I’ve spent hours (well...) writing. C’est la vie.

I asked a group of my friends last week to get involved with a theory I’d been working on. For some time, I’ve been drawing dotted lines between the business of plastering your bedroom walls with posters, and decorating the top of your laptop with stickers. It’s wholly possible that the motivation is the same, but that doesn't mean I"m right.

In fact, the people that responded to my question proved a whole other theory. As it turns out, the ‘bloggers’ among them did indeed plaster their laptop cases to high heaven. Nude laptop theory was rife, causing some unrest within the group - but leaving your MBP to its own super-shiny devices is no bad thing. Actually, the people that tended not to decorate externally, personalised their desktops instead. The notion of keeping things tidy and in the right place seemed to be a much bigger issue for most, and it was certainly the most argued point - far more than stickers.

I don’t know whether this is because those that make a living by being naturally exuberant are more inclined to wear badges of honour, or something else. But those that straddled both the stickers and the desktop categories had roles/jobs that seemed to do the same for the most part. It’s made for an interesting experiment to say the least.

Rupert Howe's super-cute desktop

Terence Eden's laptop

Alfie Dennen's desktop

Kalam Ali's laptop

Kai Turner's desktop

James Whatley's laptop

Daren Forsyth's laptop

Phil Campbell's laptop

Louise Campbell's desktop (and gorgeous Snow White-stickered laptop above)

Sometimes, passion for a brand outweighs everything; disappointing service, a poor experience or simply a bad product. 

I'm in love with the Hype Machine for instance, which I use every day to stream music and find new tracks or artists, straight from the site. Though I've been an avid evangelist of the site for years, I have - up till now - never received a response.

A bit of context first. Every January, the blog aggregator picks the best artists, albums and singles from the previous year and releases them bit by bit over the course of the month. A countdown to the cream of the crop if you will.

This time last year, I listened to it almost non-stop. It was presented as a list, and I could skip tracks or repeat as desired.

But this year, Hype has decided to combine the zeitgeist with its radio brand, presenting it as three hour-long shows with a somewhat irritating DJ talking over the music. None of which are full tracks I might add, only clips.

I was fairly gutted about this, as I'd been looking forward to the finding out which tunes had made it. I vented online, and received a response from one of the founders saying that Hype would take my thoughts into consideration (at least he tried).

Has this changed how I feel about the brand? Not really. Because of the strength of my feeling towards Hype, upon finding that the zeitgeist wasn't what I expected, I simply went back to my normal behaviour. This meant using the 'Loved Songs' list to hear my favourite tracks. I've done the same since, and I still recommend it just as highly.

When passion outweighs everything else, there's a risk that brands can get complacent. Apple has the market sewn up, and a sense of over-confidence in its product that means that any promotion around new products seems almost arrogant. Yes, having a fantastic product is half the battle, but where's the line? Does this make brands like Hype and Apple unstoppable? Who knows, I just want my zeitgeist back.

In short, I should be. I finally got semi-accreditation at the end of last week (in the form of an NGO pass no less), but as is always the issue, logistics and red tape have been the only prohibiting factor in gaining access to the summit.

Oxfam once again invested resource and time in sponsoring me to attend. Without being part of a large news group or agency, it's almost impossible to get in as a blogger without this. They've always been very good at providing this support without expecting specific coverage in return, which gave me a lot of freedom at the G20 summits in London and Pittsburgh.

The accreditation process for COP15 raised the usual issues, the first of which was an online form that timed out after a few minutes, making it a veritable race to complete before you got thrown off the site. Then, like Pittsburgh, when some of the bloggers under the Tck Tck Tck banner (the group that represents a wide variety of charities) weren't approved - we were asked to re-apply, putting NGO contacts down to signal to the UN that we'd be attending under their approval. When I found out that this process had been closed, as the accreditation team had approved TOO many media, journalists and NGOs than the venue could actually hold - without even processing governmental staff yet - I threw my hands up in despair.

I decided then not to go, as I didn't see the point in adding to the estimated 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent" that will be emitted "for the whole conference including travel to and from Copenhagen". I didn't get accreditation for Pittsburgh either, and spent a lot of the time in the official offsite media centre. It was fine, but I found it frustrating as I could have watched the live feeds on Sky or the BBC from anywhere.

Even though the majority of world leaders only flew out late this week, lending my input for Copenhagen while back in the UK is proving to be tough. I'm led to conclude that actually, though being there but not BEING there was irritating to me, being in the local vicinity meant that I was still plugged in. I could still talk to the other delegates, media and observers for a different opinion. Whatever people might say, sitting in a room with someone that can answer a question vs. blogging from the other side of Europe with relatively little external input is a very different thing.

I'm disappointed that even though time and time again, online journalists and bloggers have proven themselves to be vital in providing a diverse range of viewpoints, it's still incredibly difficult to get an appropriate level of access. I'm not asking for a free for all, but I haven't seen any input on what's happening at COP15 from any perspective other than major broadcasters or NGOs. What I'm really missing is what this means to the average person on the street, and an opportunity to influence or ask questions as the summit happens.