I notice that West Ham social media channels - Kumb, West Ham fan TV, Hammerschat etc - are promoting each other on each on their own channels/websites. This channel is advertised on Kumb and this channel advertises Kumb, which is strange as when this was set up it was stated that it would be the polar opposite of Kumb and a true representation of fans.
We noticed that site CEO went from deriding and lambasting Kumb to actively singing their praises.
Time to come clean, is their an agreement between West Ham social media channels to not criticise each other? Has there been a meeting to agree peace and all take a slice of the pie?
Not really a big deal is it ? I only use the forums om here but others watch the videos and presumably enjoy them. And if they enjoy them does it matter if other sites are advertising them , or they are being advertised elsewhere.? My take on it is that if people enjoy it they'll take a look in. If they don't they won't. Not fucking rocket science.
And in any case amalgamations and co operations exist in most areas of business so why not social media.?
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Since the site maintenance overhaul there are no links to any West Ham social media sites.
However we can pretend there are and discuss it anyway.
I would suggest as the common theme here, West Ham and social media and that through face-to-face meets at the games, friendships develop and friends tend to help each other out. It's the way they roll.
It might be more convoluted than that, or it might be exactly that...
