Twitter:Wikipedia::Facebook:?

There is an interesting article on Mashable today about a Harvard Business School study (http://bit.ly/1Gs40W) done on Twitter users. (Side note: Is this what they do studies on at B-school?? Um, why do I not go there...)

Key Finding: 90% of tweets are posted by 10% of twitter users. For comparison sake, Based on eyeballing the graph, it looks like Facebook is around 90% of use from 55% of users.

More shockingly - The median number of lifetime tweets per user is 1. Of course, most people's lifetime is only a few months. But the point is a very small number of users are doing all the work.

So what does that mean? Most twitter users are using twitter to listen. Not talk. It is a place to collect information, easily digestible updates on things you are interested in.  This can include friends, industry trends, wine. In some sense an analysis of the people follow could you a pretty good sense of their top interests.

What does this mean for brands? I think it is good news - It means a good place to talk to your consumers. Assuming of course you have something to say. It is also a good medium to easily identify your most engaged (good or bad) consumers. In terms of how to use it - don't expect a lot of collaboration or RT (retweeting for the non-twitters out there) from your audience and take that into account when developing your strategy.

All that aside, if you take nothing away but this I will be happy: Social Networks are different there is likely no such thing as a one size fits all approach to social media. Not every brand has to be on Facebook, Twitter, Myspace & etc. Pick what works for you and develop your strategy appropriately. 

What if no one comes back?

One of the things I find so fascinating about social networks is the fact that they are powered entirely by and valued entirely on their users. I wrote about this last year when I was blogging more and I will write about it in the future I'm sure.

Facebook is theoretically valued at $10 billion. Not because of the services it can provide or the goods it sells but because of the people that hang out there. What happens if another product comes along that better suits their needs? What if no one comes back tomorrow? How much is it worth? This goes for all social networks, not just Facebook.

I've noticed lately that very few of my friends update their profiles anymore. It makes me wonder whether users are starting to use Facebook differently than they have previously. I have no data so I don't know, but anecdotally I think they are using it more & more exclusively for posting photos and keeping in touch (via status updates or wall posts)- not so much for the profile aspect that started it all. With the seemingly recent boom of Twitter, I've been thinking a marriage between Flickr & Twitter could provide a killer platform for that with many more features.

Is the next user revolt just around the corner? And is there a challenger waiting in the wings for any of the top sites? Who knows but in the meantime I'll be waiting in anticipation.

A bit more reading for ya...
http://mashable.com/2009/05/16/why-revolts-occur/

More on listening...

Came across a sweet video with some other people talk about the importance of listening. An interesting point I didn't make in my last post. Listening to how your customers talk about you can help you understand how to talk to your customers.

Enjoy.

Sit back and listen

I've been doing a little thinking on social media as I have been working with many clients over the past few years that don't know how to approach social media and/or are scared silly about letting go control in the social media space.

Here's how I see it.

Traditional advertising - and I'm including standard digital banners/sites in the mix here because at this point, that's traditional- is about brands talking and consumers listening (hopefully).

Social Media Marketing, on the other hand, is about consumers talking and brands listening.

Some people & brands think that stretching your brand tagline on to a social network site counts. I tend not to agree. Simply advertising "relevant" ads on the right side of Facebook - does not count as social media marketing in my eyes.

Its about creating environments & bringing together communities for consumers to discuss or interact with something important to your brand. As the creator of this space you can have an influence - all power is not lost. You can set the mood, select the topic, create the surrounding content. But you have to let your customers talk. Companies invest mucho $$$ in research every year to get to know their consumers yet often balk at creating social media places where their consumers can go - where subsequently they can see what they are doing and hear what they are saying for little to no cost.

There is so much power in social media & networks because brands now have a way to hear what their customers are saying so they can respond appropriately. The example that comes to mind is Dominos. After the recent video of employees doing not so nice things with a customer's pizza circulated around YouTube, the CEO released a statement about what the company was doing to respond to the incident on the very platform that got them in trouble in the first place. Brilliant. What would really be awesome is if his response was the top related video that appeared at the end so all viewers would instantly be able to hear the companies response after watching the debacle.

Only a small % of your audience is going to actively participate in social conversations about you. Most are only going to listen. But the talkers are the ones who will either champion your brand to your networks or trash it. If they especially love something about you or especially hate a feature of your latest product, not only should you want to, but you need to know. Get in the conversation and listen.

5 Reasons to be terrified of Google Wave

http://bit.ly/13IpbE

Is it just me or is the fact that Google Wave lets everyone see what you type character by character, including edits, totally not OK? This is the one that scares me the most.

One of the beauties with online communication is that you don't have to think before you type because you can go back and edit. Does this change the game? Or are they just not explaining it well?

Facebook App Interaction: Omniture + Facebook

Measuring Facebook applications with the data they provide is not all that useful. For a network valued on its customer data, there is not much terms of application data. They will tell you how many people interact with your application or use certain features of it (e.g. become fans), but are unable to (or won't) tell you what people do within, how many news feed stories they post, who these people are, etc.

This is a new space and I think Facebook can be a bit misleading at times about what it can provide. I'm not saying they are lying but because many marketing execs don't fully understand media analytics, when FB says they can provide stats, the execs think they can answer lots of questions. But, when the times comes that they get the business questions, they aren't left with any answers. Or at least any that have real business impact. Face it, Facebook apps have evolved way beyond visitors being an insightful metric.

In order to comprehensively measure FB apps third party vendors need to be involved. There are a few out there right now, one being Kontagent which is also able to provide viral metrics. But today, Omniture announced that they had released code to measure Facebook Applications. The major implication of that being, if you already use Omniture on your companies website, you can seamlessly connect FB app interaction to proceeding site actions and purchases.

This statement comes with about a million caveats, but I'm saying it anyway - it is getting easier to tell your clients how much $$$ social media can generate. Let's hope, at least for Facebook's sake, that dollars are indeed coming in.

Vatican 2.0

For an entity that can seem so out of touch, the Vatican has taken to using social media to reach out to the younger generation through YouTube, Facebook, and the newly created iPhone app Pope2You.

The app lets you view pictures of the Pope, send virtual postcards to your friends and read his speeches. Somehow I think many young people will use the app with a hint (or more) of sarcasm, but it is pretty promising to see that the Church is taking some steps to stay current.

The Catholic Church is about as old school as they come. So, for all brands out there that are hesitant to enter the social media market bc of it's supposed level of risk, I say - if the Pope is already doing it, you're officially behind the times.

My Sentiments Exactly

As I was looking for an article to write about today, I randomly selected 3 from my goggle alerts email on social networking. Turns out they were all about the same thing, which was what I already wrote about yesterday: monetizing social networks through advertising. Hot Topic, but to spare all of my readers (hi Michelle), I will choose something else to discuss.

I attended a webinar today that discussed how to measure Web 2.0 technologies. Just to clarify, that includes things like video, consumer generated content (my favorite), RSS, & widgets. This is a hot topic on the minds of interactive marketers these days as clients want to know what all of this means for their brands. When we talked about measuring consumer generated content (which includes social networks), one of the panelist talked about looking at it in two ways: 1) User generated content on your own site and 2) User generated content on other sites. Since measuring your own site is relatively straight forward, I want to skip to discussing user generated content on other sites.

How many people read product reviews before making a purchase online? The answer is a lot, in fact I was just reading reviews today for a pair of shoes I wanted to buy. Reviews are becoming a mainstream, and trusted source of product info for online consumers - whether it be on an e-commerce website, blog, etc. In the past, many marketers have measured "buzz" online, which basically tracks how often a product/term/brand is mentioned in some form or fashion online. What this doesn't do is track what people are actually saying. The panelist brought up the concept of tracking "sentiment" instead, which I thought was really interesting. By tracking sentiment you would not only be able to see how much people were talking, but also get a heat map of how they were feeling about the product. This is truly where the opportunity is as the technology to do this is not really fleshed out yet. Once companies and marketers knew what people were saying, they would be able to better determine how to actually use the data to drive actionable recommendations. Just knowing someone is talking about you does not really help define how to continue to move the needle in a positive direction. By being able to identify the segments that are you biggest brand cheerleaders, marketers would be able to refine their strategies to better speak to these groups. Anyway, just some interesting food for thought for today.

Social Networking and Advertising: "Two Peas in a Pod" or "Like Oil and Water"?

In a recent conference, two social media experts, John Battelle, who runs the blog ad network Federated Media and Nick Denton, head of Gawker Media, shared their conflicting opinions on social networking and advertising. Battelle thinks social media is the place for engaging advertising while Denton thinks that consumers are attracted to social media for its lack of advertising.

Battelle used the example of his partnership with Dell on Facebook's graffiti wall application. He touted a lot of typical "engagement" stats that we throw around at work all the time. Bottom line, lots of people engaged in the contest. Heck, if I had known about it maybe I would have too. The question is what did it do for sales? I had a Dell once - it was arguably the worst computer I ever had. No amount of brand engagement will ever get me to buy one again.

I tend to think the generation of heavy social media users is comprised of people that are above being marketed to (I know I have said that before). I mean look at the backlash from the release of Facebook Ads. Advertising doesn't really have a place here. Or at least not advertising in the traditional sense (but I suppose there is nothing traditional about social media advertising in the first place). These users are pretty savvy and are going to see right through an attempt to market to them, whether they find the products relevant or not. I see the point that advertising that is from a brand they know I like based on my information that it would be less annoying. But the bottom line is that I don't want to see ANY ads. There is a place for that, and at least for me it is not when I am on a social networking site. If the message comes from the company (i.e. was paid advertising) I think it is falling on the deaf ears of my generation.

In my opinion, the only way to get social media to work for a brand is to 1) actually have a good product 2) find a few brand evangelists and then 3) let them talk about it for you. The first point is critical, and often overlooked by marketing professionals. People don't talk about mediocre things. They talk about things that are really great and things that are really bad. This is seen as a big risk for most marketers, because once the viral marketing begins there is no stopping it - positive or negative. If social networking really is brand building wave of the future I think companies need to focus on making better products and less on their advertising campaigns, because in this medium the only way to be successful will be to leave the brand building up to their customers.

Facebook "Privacy" changes

I want to write about how Facebook added new privacy options today. I read an article in the NYTimes yesterday talking about this and it positioned the updates as a way to "preserve social distinctions between friends, family and co-workers online" (sounds like Moli that I wrote about yesterday). However, on Facebook itself, it does not seem to position the update this way at all. Instead they say you can now let friends of friends see information which I think is kind of cool and a little less restrictive than the all or nothing approach. But apparently another change is that you can also no longer turn off the mini-feed for "Limited Profile" friends. I suppose that means my client can see if my status says something like "Out drinking the night away"? I find it interesting these changes are touted as "privacy" benefits and yet they seem like they are making things less private.

Holy Moli

I write so much about Facebook because it is the network I am most familiar with and arguably the most powerful network out there right now. So today I thought I would talk about a smaller, less well known network: Moli (http://www.moli.com/). Since January 2008, the site has seen it's unique visitor umber jump from 1 million to 5.5 million. For reference, in May 2007 MySpace had 67.7 million uniques and Facebook had 20.3 million. Moli deems itself a networking online site for social, business and family networking. The site is targeted at a more mature audience than many other networks, in fact you must be 18 to join.


One of the most interesting things about Moli is that it lets you very easily manage multiple profiles: Family, Social and Professional (and there is also a "Custom" profile set-up).



Given the way social profiles have taken off and how many people are using them, I think this is an excellent feature. I am thinking of setting up a profile to get a better understanding of how the site works, but I think it would be an awesome user experience if you only had to put in information/pictures once and then could customize each view based on the info entered. Also, it would be great if when you got a "friend" request you could select which version the person could see. It's a bit like a limited profile of Facebook only with a lot more flexibility, and quite frankly I think a little more useful. It would certainly help solve the age old question of whether or not you should accept that friend request from your boss or client. It could also save you from having to hide/take down the more scandalous information and photos that you only want you friends to see. It looks like the current user base is being built mostly in Europe, but very interesting nonetheless.

I'm Having a Party, but You're Not Invited: Event Invitations

This is an issue that just came to mind. Three of my friends and I are throwing a joint birthday party at the end of the month and to make it easier for us to all manage the invites we created a Facebook Event. So what does this mean....everyone in my network (and my 3 friends networks) will see this event and invitee list even if they are not invited.

Is this yet another way for high schoolers to shun certain classmates? Throwing a Sweet 16 on Saturday night but want to leave someone people out? Throw it up on Facebook. Now I'm obviously way passed that age and have no intention of excluding anyone, but it has presented an interesting dilemma. How can you keep a party more intimate without hurting any feelings when the event is broadcast on a network with (almost) everyone you know?

You're Growing Up So Fast, Facebook

Reuters put out an article today ("VC enthusiasm for Web 2.0 startups slowing -report": http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN1817786020080318?sp=true) saying that the flow of venture capital into social networks, blogs and other Web 2.0 ventures is beginning to slow. They say this signals a sign of mature for the business.

I wonder if it signals a sign of maturity or more that people are waiting to see what the next big thing will be. Facebook has been around for a while now. It started in my dorm back at Harvard and I was one of the first members of the site. Over the past 4 years it has certainly changed a lot but I sometimes wonder how much life it has left in it. It is a contract-free entity of millions of web users who could bolt at any minute. The crew over at Facebook has managed their base quite well through a few uproars like the Newsfeed (which I despised originally, but have grown quite fond of) and Facebook Ads, but you have to wonder how they will ever be able to monetize the site that is full of users who consider themselves above being marketed to. What happens when/if the site is sold to a power player like Yahoo, Microsoft, etc? Do you think the users will stay or do you think someone, somewhere will invent the next cool thing and the user group migrate there (and increased VC funding will follow)? Don't get me wrong, people dig the usability of the site and have somewhat of an emotional attachment to it, but I tend to think the latter given the "Fight the Man" attitudes of the primary, heavy users.

Nice to meet you, Ashley

I’ve always been interested in social networking – I work in online advertising after all. But the recent events around Governor Spitzer’s resignation have got me thinking even more about social networking, privacy, and how it has the power to change the face of journalism. Ashley Alexandra Dupre, aka Kristen, has made a single statement to the press and yet we know so much about her. How? From her Myspace page. With a simple search that takes all of 15 seconds, we can find a full bio on one of the most famous women in America right now (or at least the NY Metro area). There are pictures, her song “What We Want” and a blog. Ashley loves her music, grew up on the Jersey Shore, has used drugs and believes in surrounding herself with people that make her feel good.

In any case, I won’t repeat information you have probably all heard. The point I am trying to get at is that this brief synopsis of this girl's life was found with little to no effort. Without having to hunt down friends, family members or even Ashley herself, America was able to form their own ideas based on information she published for the world to find. And find they did; it’s a transformation of the world of journalism if you ask me. I wonder if she would have written something different if she knew the whole world was going to read it!

This brings me to the issue of social networking and privacy. How private is your social network/profile? The answer – it’s not. The amazing thing that I see is that few people, specifically those in the late Gen Y & Gen Z demographics, view social profiles as public information. I imagine almost no one writes a social profile or posts pictures thinking they will be published in a major newspaper (or papers!), but the fact is, they could be. All the information and pictures from Ashley’s profile were acquired legally and there is nothing she could have done to stop it.

Many of you have probably heard that colleges and employers are becoming increasingly more likely to search for a social profile of applicants and possibly factor the information they find into their decisions. In fact, in a recent survey 1 in 10 employers said they planned to review sites, and a whopping 60% said the information they found would most likely influence the decisions they would make (EducationPortal.com, 8/8/2007). So the moral of the story is this, if you have any information you don’t want the public to see, make sure you update your privacy settings, or better yet, remove any information you wouldn’t want to see end up in the NYTimes.