Calum Brannan - Social Media's Cowboy Builder?

This blog has been created to document the business antics of Mr Calum Brannan, a self-proclaimed young technology entrepreneur and Social Media guru.

The contents herein are published (and should be read) on the strict understanding that they are believed to be true, fair and accurate.

However, there is no means of independently corroborating the various sources of information used to create this content and, therefore, any aspects or comments that are proven (on the balance of probability) to be inaccurate will be removed or amended appropriately and are unreservedly apologised for in advance.

It should also be noted that, whilst third party comments will be vetted for illegal, abusive or defamatory content, all parties named herein have the unfettered right of reply and their comments will be published unedited if their identity can be validated.

In reading this blog you expressly accept the caveats detailed above and agree to consider the information contained herein with an open mind.

This blog documents the activities of Calum Brannan and his business associates.

Showing posts with label Lighterlife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lighterlife. Show all posts

Monday, 15 February 2010

2009 - Long Year, Tall Tales, Downright Lies, Hairdressers and Social Helium

In Calum Brannan's own words:

  • The long year – 2009
    Some 12 months after we launched Youmeo, American startup Friendfeed launched and was achieving massive growth doing what we were doing. The worlds a big place and we knew that we wern’t the only ones predicting this is how social networking would become. Friendfeed was setup by ex-Google employees, with it’s growth doing so well we had our innovation validated but we and we failed to raise next round investment we needed and failed to secure a robust revenue model. Our team and investors all walked away with our heads held high, we had pushed for inovation and many ways succeeded – but what an experience it had been.
  • Present day - 2009 to now.
    Aged 20, I’m working on some very exciting ventures collaborating with some of the greatest minds in British business, some are already trading and generating healthy returns:
    • Appointment-Toolkit; this service provides text message reminders and marketing to doctors, hairdressers and dentists.
    • Social Helium: a social media consultancy business where current and previous clients include house-hold names, ‘AAA’ PLCs, charities and government organisations. We are social networking experts.
    • Spendego – a new type of advertising agency for todays social media world.
    My teams are regularly involved in roundtable discussions and consultancy with leading CTO’s, marketing directors, CLO’s and CEO’s from a range of companies including Simon & Schuster, Vodafone, Bebo, AGA, Lighterlife, Christian Vision, Yahoo and Glam Media to name but a few.
 What a load of garbage, Calum - The only time you're "regularly involved in roundtable discussions...." with AAA clients, CxOs, etc is between the time you fall asleep and the time you wake up.  You're dealing with a charity that look like they are about to get hauled hard for their (alleged) unethical conduct in conspiracy with you and James Leavesley, i.e. Christian Vision

Aga aren't a client of yours, don't seem to have any formal business arrangements with you and probably wouldn't be too impressed to find that you're naming them as such.

Vodafone - can't find anyone there who's even heard of you and they weren't too pleased to find you're naming them!

Lighterlife - fair enough, they seem to know you.
But the rest is just a badly punctuated, poorly spelt figment of your fertile imagination, it seems.  Who are these government organisations?

You were getting near the truth with "failed to secure a robust revenue model."

But then it all went wrong again with "Our team and investors all walked away with our heads held high, we had pushed for inovation and many ways succeeded – but what an experience it had been."

By the way, there are 2 "n"s in "innovation".
The truth is that Youmeo is still with the Liquidators and you're now on your 4th company in less than 12 months and you'd probably be flat broke by now if you hadn't (allegedly) lied and deceived your biggest (only?) client into coming with you for the rest of the Boost.tv project when you unceremoniously dumped Inormas after they had bailed you out from Red Brick Labs and youmeo!

It's just sad and pathetic to see you trying to perpetuate the lies - do you even know when you're lying anymore?

It's a pity (as a number of people have commented during this research) that, when you're young and described in such terms as "charismatic and persuasive", you can't find ways to use this for honest, beneficial purposes, instead of looking for a quick buck and acting like (what appears to be) little more than a charlatan and a con artist in order to achieve your ends, whatever the cost to others who choose to support you or buy in to your "bulls**t".

Just out of interest, do you actually know off the top of your head exactly how many individuals you've let down, either as investors or clients through failed businesses, failed promises or failed deliveries of product?  Do you even care?

Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Calum Brannan and his team's technical abilities

At his offices, in Coventry, very close to where he lives, Calum and James set about trying to build what they had promised their clients and getting as much publicity as they could:


http://www.wmictcluster.org/Inormas  - read about how James Leavesley and Calum Brannan met



http://twitter.com/inormasmedia - "We are a social media technology and strategy company based in the UK. Our team is a mix of experienced marketeers and cutting edge technicians."


Unfortunately, these "cutting edge technicians" weren't quite as sharp as they claimed and an independent audit of the system demonstrated some pretty fundamental issues in just about every aspect of the system.......


Here's what the report about the system they'd developed for their largest client had to say at the time [it's important to note that we've been told that some of these issues have now been addressed.]



Introduction:
The Bxxxx TV site is far too complex as outlined in the points below.

The purpose of this document to highlight some of the more serious problems with a view to providing guidance on the way forward.


Overall complexity:
Although the scope of this site is quite wide, it has been built in a way that makes the system difficult to maintain. Inormas are currently in the development phase, before people are using the site and it already slow and cumbersome - making changes will become much more difficult (if not impossible) once the site goes live.

The data structure is extremely (and unnecessarily) complex, the database contains over 100 distinct tables. By comparison, Facebook (built on the same basic code, happily supports 250 million users and all their content and applications with just 30 tables.

The system does not appear to have any design documentation or project plans and most of the code contains no comments (something that goes against all best practice). Although the system uses a framework, it uses it poorly and with a system this complex the framework is no substitute for a clear definition of the goals of the system, how it has been implemented and how the data is organised – all of which seems to be missing.


Poor use of MVC (Model View Controller):
The purpose of an MVC framework is to separate the different major functions of the site so that it can be worked on by people with different skills and easily maintained on an ongoing basis.

The Model, which is the heart of data driven site, should contain the business logic, in particular the routines that access and update information or data.

The View should contain templates to display the site in different languages and for different devices like mobile phones.

The Controllers should identify which View a request needs and which Models it needs to access to provide the data for templates. All contemporary literature and generally accepted best practice (including Zend) recommends keeping the Controllers small and simple.

This site contains over 13,500 lines of code in the controllers, including one of the most important controllers, which has 3,000 lines of code on its own – this is anything but “Small and Simple”.

There is also far too much code in the Views, which do not use a dedicated templating language. There is even more code in the View helpers which also access the Models but do not show up in the Controllers.

This means that the organisation provided by the framework is almost completely subverted. The code starts to become one mass of up to forty thousand lines of interconnected spaghetti code, which probably explains why the system is so slow and makes it almost impossible to build a Version 2 of this system as it stands today.

The Controller should act as a manifest or list of which resources are required for a particular request or action. This means that when the site has performance issues, you should be able to quickly identify which resources are causing the problem. The complexity of the Controllers and the fact that some resource access goes through the helpers, not the Controllers, makes identifying performance issues very difficult and extremely time consuming and it make rectifying issues near to impossible.

Another good reason that the Controllers should be kept simple is that Models and Views can often be easily transferred from one framework to another (see next section), whereas the Controllers are more unique to a particular tool. Some frameworks use no code in their Controllers whatsoever.

The whole framework directory structure is also very complex, with no documentation or guidelines of why it has been implemented in this manner.


Choice of Framework:
It is debatable whether an MVC architecture is the ideal structure for a social media site. Because the site will contain content, which is defined by managers and ultimately end users, it is questionable whether the structure of the site should be driven by its directory structure, as opposed to being data driven.  Again, this has performance implications.

Regardless, having chosen an MVC structure, it is difficult to see why Zend was used. It is one of the biggest and most complex frameworks and is widely regarded as one of the slowest performers, whether this site will scale to a million users is highly questionable.


Organisation and Management:
As above, a number of the fundamental design decisions were highly questionable, but the technical management of the site and development work is also flawed.

The source control system doesn’t work meaning that a number of people are directly using FTP (File Transfer Protocol) to update the main working copy of the site.  This makes it almost impossible to test potential solutions. It also means that updating the site is complex with a good chance that one persons changes could overwrite, or otherwise compromise, somebody else’s.

There is no structured project management or work allocation/monitoring, other than a bug list with over a hundred items on it. Key members of the team are often too tired to produce high quality work or communicate effectively. Tasks are poorly defined and undocumented, which is confusing for the users, bad coding practice and will be very difficult to understand in six months time when something needs fixing and the developer that did has left.

There are no written guidelines on the configuration of the site. The site would not work with a standard installation of PHP because a depreciated (out of date) method was used to separate the PHP code from the HTML in the Views.

All of the above leads to very slow progress, poor morale and the application of unrealistic deadlines, which were never met, which is also going to impact relations with the client. Whilst this situation may be acceptable in the design phase, it should not exist in the development phase and is completely unacceptable and untenable once the site goes live.

It would be far more intuitive both for people using the site and for people maintaining it in the future, if content, such as polls, surveys, adverts, etc. could be added or maintained by editing a representation of the page itself.

Conclusion:
It is possible to rectify some of the more serious problems but it would be highly unlikely that such action and direction would come from the same people who created the existing system.

A large amount of the system could be migrated to a better design but it would have to happen very soon before the problems became entrenched and the system needed to be started from scratch.



In other words, the current approach must be stopped and the solution migrated to a robust, reliable, scalable and properly built platform without delay because if this system goes live as it stands, it probably won’t work, it will consume vast amounts of time to keep it limping along and Inormas will lose credibility with the client to a degree which is probably unrecoverable.


So, the question is this:  "Does this sound like the sort of project you would want to have spent a very significant amount of money on?"  and, moreover, "Do these guys sound like they know what they are doing?"


"Cutting edge developers" that's pretty similar to how the people who built the Titanic would have described themselves at the time, doesn't it? 

 


Thursday, 3 December 2009

A bit more background about Calum Brannan


With the warm glow of success behind him (perhaps he was still sitting in it, in fact) he moved on from PPLparty to other ventures.






When that didn't make any money, he went into business with James Leavesley [Note: exact dates are unknown] and, together, they set up Red Brick Labs, funded by a couple of James' contacts at the West Midlands IOD. These eminent local businessmen each invested 5-figure sums into the business, according to my sources.


As RBL, they managed to pick up a few decent pieces of work, including Christian Vision and LighterLife to create social media platforms for these companies.  Christian Vision, Registered Charity 1031031 (wikipedia entry), was set up and (as we understand it) substantially funded by Bob Edmiston.  According to their entry on the Charity Commission website, their Charitable Objectives are:

1. ADVANCEMENT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH. 
2. RELIEF OF PERSONS WHO ARE IN CONDITIONS OF NEED, HARDSHIP OR DISTRESS ARISING THEREFROM WHO ARE AGED OR SICK. 
3. ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION. 
4. OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE PROMOTION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL VALUES WITH THE EMPHASIS ON HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN EVERY DAY LIFE AND IN BUSINESS.

Remember these, especially #4, as we'll come back to it in the future.

Back to Red Brick labs:


Earlier in 2009, our intrepid entrepreneur realised that, having come straight from the Class Room to the Board Room, he hardly knew how to run a bath, let alone a business and RBL went bust, leaving the funders with significant losses.  Both Red Brick Labs and Youmeo were still in receivership at the time of writing this.


Unperturbed, Calum Brannan sought new sources of funding, which he found in the Spring of 2009 and he started again under the brand name of Inormas, having retained Christian Vision and LighterLife as clients.


To be continued......