MediaMaster, MediaMug 24th Sept

Rock legend Sir Paul McCartney is embracing the digital era, having signed a deal with Hewlett Packard (HP) to digitise his lifetime artistic output, including music, artwork, photographs, paintings and videos. The work will be stored in a private "cloud" created by HP and controlled by Sir Paul and his company. Lynn Anderson, vice president of HP's influencer marketing group told BBC News "Sir Paul is a perfect example of how cloud, social media and mobile computing can come together to deliver a unique fan experience". (Now there's a quote that needs work). Anyway, Sir Paul takes the MediaMaster trophy this week. There's a rumour that Mick Jagger may also be planning a private cloud (insert your own song title joke here).

Sometimes broadcasters forget that they are there to serve their audience. It happened to Chris Evans in his last days at Radio 1 some years ago, and it happened to Dave Lee Travis on the same station some time earlier. Maybe it's a Radio 1 syndrome, since the latest culprit is breakfast show host, Chris Moyles. On Wednesday's show, he went into a 30-minute rant about how he hadn't been paid by the BBC since July. OK, that's bad, but it's not something his listeners particularly care about, or want to hear. He's played it down since, but the damage has been done. Apart from being MediaMug of the week, I wonder how long before a replacement is sought by his employers?

Heroes and Villains - a tale of broadband and running shoes

Your reputation is very important. It can make or break your business. Like me, I'm sure you notice good and bad examples, and tell stories of both to your friends. I'm lucky enough to be able to get a message to lots of people, so I hope these two companies are listening - Virgin Media and Runners World. Let's take Virgin Media first. I noticed that my internet access had disappeared, so did all the usual checks, turning everything off and on. No joy. So I phoned the Virgin Media helpline. I won't bore you with the whole 20-minute conversation, but I was told these three things: I have an incompatible router, the fault was undoubtedly in my house (probably with the wiring), and their local infrastructure was fault-free. After 20 minutes of feeling that I was being told off, I put the phone down. As if by magic, 10 minutes later, everything worked. The wireless router was bought from Virgin (and is definitely compatible), my wiring is fine, and on the Virgin website later in the day was an apology for a fault in my area. Hmmm.

Now for a much happier outcome. I visited Runners World in Canary Wharf, London, to buy some new running shoes. I was simply looking to replace a pair, but the assistant asked if I'd like to have my running style checked. I tried several pairs of shoes on the treadmill, and my running was filmed and analysed. The recommendation was for shoes with a little more ankle support, which felt great when I tried them out. They were a make I hadn't worn before, and were described as "specialist running shoes". Price had never been mentioned at any point, and I suspected I would have to pay more for better shoes. In the event, they were ten pounds less than my normal choice. In short, the shop had persuaded me to buy something cheaper, but better suited to my running style. That's great service.

The truth will out - even if you're a rich footballer

There have been more than a few instances recently of premiership footballers trying to prevent information from entering the public domain. Injunctions have been sought and granted, and rumour and speculation about the identity and alleged transgression of the players concerned. Eventually, in almost every case, the player is identified, the injunction is lifted, and the story is written.

So who benefits from this game of cat and mouse? Obviously, the legal team employed to apply for the injunction charge handsomely for their services. The player "enjoys" a brief period of anonymity. We, the public, get to have conversations in pubs and coffee bars about who might have done what to whom.

However, at some point, the "truth" will out. and the player concerned becomes either a figure of fun or sympathy, depending on your moral stance.

But is there a wider point here? In my view, absolutely. In business, if there is something damaging that you think you can keep away from the media, consider confessing immediately. That way, you become the prime source of information, and prevent any speculation, which could be damaging in itself. You get to choose the time and method of release. You have the chance to apologise and explain your position. The sooner the news is out, the sooner it will be forgotten.

So, footballers and business people alike, rather than employing an expensive legal team, why not look at a way to manage the information by releasing it yourself?

Of course, the other option is not to do anything daft in the first place.....