You might call it “keeping up with the eJones‘” in a way. Take FourSquare for example…the more you “check in” to a place the greater a chance you can become “Mayor” until someone unseats you. Or LinkedIn with that little blue bar that says you’re “only 75% complete” for your profile…don’t you just want to push that bar to the 100% point? C’mon now, be honest.
Of course this is going to drive all those “lets make a level playing field for kids in school” educators go batty. Because even social media services like Club Penguin have “status” levels and indicators – because it is human nature to be competitive.
The value to almost all social media services (Facebook, Bebo, LinkedIn etc.) is eyeballs. So how they keep eyeballs and get more eyeballs is to leverage “game theory” in the primary framework of the service.
And let’s face it, we benchmark ourselves against our social peers. Whether we like to admit it openly or not, it’s true. We look at the car we drive compared to our neighbours or peers, the clothes we wear or of course…whether someone uses a Mac or a Windows machine, Blackberry or iPhone. These things all say something about who we are and where we stand.
We’ve reached the point where socially, people seem to think you’re an odd duck if you aren’t on Facebook and not on LinkedIn if your a white collar professional.
The social media channels that will do best in the coming years will be those who figure out successfully, how to harness game theory and drive our competitive nature. Not all approaches will work with everyone, but they will appeal to certain segments. And that can be just enough to make them large and monetarally valuable to marketers or potential buyers.
So there we are…we’re all just game pieces in a set of complex games finding we now have to keep up with the Jones’ in Cyburbia as well. Funny sometimes how eLife mimics real life isn’t it?
What’s really happening with privacy today is that consumers/netizens and business are negotiating a new “social contract.” Sure Facebook and Google among others, have made mistakes in how they deal with privacy. So have netizens who post a comment or statement on a blog open to everyone and then get angry when they are confronted with libel or slander by the offended party – you post it where it’s open to the public, it’s your fault.
So how are we going to deal with this?
The reality is, the general public is figuring this out as much as the companies offering social technology services. Both are to blame for mistakes and wins.
1. Business wants less privacy so they have more data on people and groups to sell to product manufacturers and services providers. They want “marketing data”. A business really does not care about an individual. They don’t have the time or resources. As much as the business world talks about 1 to 1 customer relationships the reality is quite the opposite.
2. Consumers want more privacy to protect personal data from marketers. They also want it so they can better manage their social relationships and the relationships they may form with corporations.
The reality is that no one has all the right answers – how could we? The issues of privacy will be settled over time and with that most powerful of incentives in our world today – money. When consumers are truly frustrated with a company or product, they don’t buy it and they don’t participate. Or citizens push (as is their right) government to develop legislation for regulation.
Despite Facebook’s privacy faux pas, they continue to grow rapidly. Google remains the top search engine. Hundreds of millions still use Gmail and other Google services. Twitter continues to grow.
Privacy issues like we’re addressing today have never before been an issue in society. We have absolutely no precedence to refer to. A form of “social contract” existed before because it was quite easy to control privacy. With the advent of CCTV cameras, low cost of networking these services and then the Web, all of a sudden we face new issues on privacy.
The debates and outcries will continue for some time yet. Eventually I suspect a happy medium will be found. Until then, we have perhaps a few more decades before a new “social contract” on privacy becomes apparent. Until then, as citizens, I think we have a responsibility to learn and develop our terms as much as business is learning. It’s people that run a business and successful businesses are always innovating and part of that is pushing boundaries, to understand what is and isn’t acceptable.
What do you think?
(Author: G. Crouch)
Ther’s a ton of content from pundits out there screaming to “get as many followers as you can” or “face the Facebook reality or your business will die.” Getting massive amounts of traffic is well, just sooo 2001. You needed volume then just to convert. Ecommerce sites were but a few years old and well, Twitter and Facebook didn’t exist.
Forget Big. Find The Right Size.
For all the Twitter fans out there, don’t forget there are well over 80 similar services like Twitter. There’s Identi.ca and Plurk and then there’s others. Your target market may not be anywhere near Twitter. So why bother?
Let’s talk Social Networks. While Facebook may be the largest, it is not the only. If your target market is people who own or crew on sail boats, then find one of the several Social Networks for sailors. Nurses? They too have their own social networks.
Increasingly, we are seeing that people may have a Facebook acccount, but will tend to spend more time in an online network where their interests lie. Facebook, Bebo, NetLog…they aren’t good at that. Ning is. So have a peek around Ning, see if that’s where your audience is hanging out. That’s where to engage.
Size does matter. Most importantly it’s the right size. Having a gazillion fans on Facebook or followers on Twitter is pointless if that’s not where your audience is. From finding where they are, listen to what they’re saying, then start developing the strategy.
While we continue to see companies dancing around their level of engagement and commitment to marketing through Social Media channels, some interesting limitations are apparent with these channels. Limitations in communication that are not easily overcome;
Textual Channels: Twitter, blogs, wall postings…anywhere where text is the primary method of communication. The issue here is “context” as it can be hard to identify what the person is “feeling” or how angry they are. Aside from perhaps a profile picture, it’s not easy to define an image of someone either. As we know, 60% of human communication is non-verbal. One might then say it is hard to truly engage in a medium with limitations to emotional expression. Emoticons are clever, but they only go so far. Flame wars erupt easily in textual channels.
Video Channels: With a service like Chatroulette this is a litter better for communication. One can see body gestures, facial expressions and denote tone of voice. The limitations here are what can be added to the conversation, such as other visuals, since you are often more dependent on location and form of camera. When it’s combining text and video response to posted videos in a sharing service like YouTube there is often delay in engagement and the chance of missed communication that can have any desired effect.
Audio Channels: Like a phone or Skype or similar IP Phone. With video enabled it helps, but similar restrictions to video channels apply. In audio communications we get tone of voice as an aid to completing the communication objective. But still, gestures and facial expression is limited.
So what does this mean in corporate attempts to engage with customer service or marketing through social media channels? Not understanding these limitations can negatively impact the outcome of the desired objective.
As with Nestle’s Facebook experience, the entire issue erupted over statements made by a Nestle marketing employee on the Facebook page for Nestle. It was purely textual. It was also a permanent linear string that all could see. This means the original context or framing of the issue rapidly spins out of hand. Nestle could have added some video response or offered a Web chat with video. This may have helped add elements that would’ve reduced the overheating of the issue. May have.
Each social media channel has its challenges. Understanding the limitations and the risks are key to success. They also add another level of education and knowledge development for a business, which adds cost to the management of these channels and reduces profits.
Do you see any other limitations?
(Author: G. Crouch)
The purpose of a business is to make a profit. To do that, a business must constantly innovate and market itself. To date, a business has not had to think about it’s “social value” to it’s market or community. I argue that is about to change. Is changing.
There’s enough cases of companies facing corporate culture changing crises from the impacts of Social Media and citizens new power of expression. No industry, no public sector organization is immune. None.
It is an illusion for any business to think it a) can control the message and b) that it is not susceptible to an assault from a disgruntled group of citizens or customers.
If this is in fact the case, then does the concept of “Corporate Social Value” come to be a key consideration for businesses now and in the future? I suspect so.
So what the heck is “Corporate Social Value”? It’s a challenge for businesses since it’s pretty much just pixie dust right now. It’s a term we made up. Here’s why though;
Take away fancy terms like “brand image” or “corporate social responsibility” and what it boils down to is do people think the way a company behaves in it’s community of wherever it operates is fair? Do they treat employees well? Do they destroy resources and do nothing to replace them? Do they make and then support, quality products? Are they damaging the environment in their manufacturing processes? Are they seen as indifferent and aloof?
This is how people may “feel” about a company. I think we’re starting to see anecdotal evidence that a company’s “reputation” or how consumers feel about it can impact sales. That’s not an easy glass of kool-aid to swallow. It’s hard to measure and it’s soft, feel good stuff. Business is not about “emotions” it’s about making a profit and reducing costs to maximize those profits. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just the way it is. Otherwise it isn’t a business, it’s a non-profit organization.
Politicians understand this concept very well. How people “feel” about them is an important part of getting and staying, elected. Perhaps businesses will be taking some lessons from politicians. That opens up a whole other, big can of worms.
Regardless, the ability for consumers to express emotions and values and to share them with others, is having an impact on businesses. And consumers are starting to realize that.
As the Queen paid a visit to Canada at the end of last month, we wanted to take a look at what Canadians felt about the Royal Visit. Some countries in the Commonwealth are having that ongoing debate; should the Queen be the head of State or not. Then there’s the Royalists vs. the Republics split. We’re not getting into politics, just a snap look at overall sentiment.
So we set loose our software to look at the sentiment around the Queens visit and here’s the stats on what we found for sentiment;
Methodology: We sampled commentary across Canada’s major news papers online where comments were enabled. In addition we mined semantics from Twitter, Plurk and Identi.ca (primary microblogs) and Facebook fan and group pages. Representative sample size was 21,500 Canadians.
The most popular and critical tools in Social Media (Facebook, Buzz, Twitter etc.) all came out of the USA. In fact it was in large part the Hippies coming back into San Francisco from their failed communes that developed the initial software that eventually lead to today’s social media revolution.
The impact has been global and is escalating. During the Iranian elections of 2009 it was Facebook, Flickr and YouTube that played a vital role in the democratic parties getting out the message. Democratic parties in Moldova tried to use Twitter. Pro-democracy groups in Egypt have done the same.
America is a model of democracy (set aside your partisan views for a minute) and represents freedom. We in Canada follow the same beliefs, as do all truly democratic countries. Key to good democracy is the ability for people to organize into groups, then to create their content and manage their activities. This is precisely what Social Media tools and services enable.
Although some other great Social Media tools and services have popped up out of Canada, UK, Germany and other countries, it is truly a gift of America. While there may be smaller wars raging, if America wasn’t the hegemony it is today, we’d be in far worse shape.
Social Media channels, tools and services will enable ever greater levels of democracy. Most importantly, these tools are giving people in fragile nations, emerging markets and autocratic states a chance to create global awareness and find help. Social Media tools may help in better managing globalization and systemic risk factors as well.
When I think of Social Media in global terms (setting aside consumerism) one can only conclude that of the many gifts American drive, panache and entrepreneurism has given us, Social Media is certainly in the top three.
What about you? What do you think?
(Author: G. Crouch, MD)
Understanding cultural and ethnic behaviours and uses of Social Media can often play a key role in developing an engagement strategy for Social Media; whether that be for marketing, general communications or other purposes.
In our research, we’ve found that ethnic and cultural groups use tools in similar patterns, no matter the group. What we’ve found is that either a cultural our ethnic group that resides inside a non-indigenous state will use a Social Media tool that can connect them globally across all cultures and also use tools that connect them just within their cultural or ethnic group. Yeah, so what does that mean?
We define Global Social Media Tools as those tools or services that are agnostic to a culture or ethnic group and enable communication in any language (text, audio or image) and have global reach – doesn’t matter what country you’re in, you can access them (for the most part). Examples would be Twitter or Facebook or Buzz.
Then you have what we call Group Specific Social Media Tools. These are tools that are language (usually indicating culture or ethnicity) specific or culture/ethnic group specific. Examples would be Vkontakte which is Russia’s “Facebook” or Sonico.com which is for Latin Americans and Portugese speakers or AbairThusa, a Gaelic speaking Social Network. Ameba is an example of a microblogging service in Japan that is like Twitter but for those speaking Japanese.
In the case of cultural and ethnic groups in countries like Canada, the United States or UK, almost all active people from cultural and ethnic groups also speak English and will have English friends and business connections and so will also use Facebook, Twitter or similar. But the majority of their activity takes place on services that are specific to their culture or ethnic group.
This is important when considering engagement in Social Media. Since you may also want to reach those people and measure activity, within their ethnic or cultural group. This adds a layer of complexity however, since you’ll need to understand their written language.
Think these groups are too small to really be concerned about? Not at all. Societally we all belong to different cultural, ethnic and social groups. Immigrant populations inside a country can be very positively engaged in their new home country. This can offer significant opportunities.
(Author: G. Crouch, MD)
Can you be too noisy as a company engaged in Social Media? What happens when you go from nothing to leaky faucet to a firehose of information spewing madly at your “audience”? People shut you off.
We see enough discussion around Social Media companies and in-house marketers getting C-suite approval to just get engaged, a least a little, with Social Media marketing. Over the past few months we’ve seen a few companies become, well, let’s say a little over-enthusiastic. That can backfire just as much.
It’s one thing to let your “brand” have a presence and communicate. It’s another altogether to be overly pushy and engage too much. After all, sometimes a little mystery around a “brand” (i.e. company or product) is a good thing.
If you’re a company looking to engage in Social Media, be sure not to get a little too cutesy with prospects and customers. Because one power (among others) consumer have with Social Media channels – they can turn you off in an instant, and get their friends to turn you off. Then you’ve lost them. Possibly for good, since they don’t want your message anymore. We consume media in snippets today. That won’t change for a while. Don’t let those snippets become a downpour.
So not only is relevance important, so is volume. What’s your thought?
(Author: G. Crouch)
Facebook’s continual attempt to “open” up people’s information is, I think, I gross miscalculation on the meaning of a persons “social network.” It’s not really about privacy of the individual it’s about privacy of our network of friends and family.
I am on Facebook and I like it. I will not however, connect as a “friend” with someone I have never and likely never will, actually meet. I ignore these requests, for business I use LinkedIn or I may connect via my Twitter. To get to know you better first. The mayor of my city made a “friend request” and while I’m sure he’s a very nice guy, I just don’t know him. I’m not a friend. Maybe someday I will be. Then I’ll include him.
The point is, Facebook is about a persons “network”, or who they work with, family and well, actual friends with whom there is a social or emotional connection. That connection may have started 25 years ago in high school or a year ago at a function and well, you just connected.
We already know that we can not possibly be friends with everyone. Nor do people want to be. This is where Facebook has entirely missed the point of social networks in the sense of “social networks” and in fact, I will submit, that by trying to expand, falsely, a persons “social network” beyond people they really want to connect with, they are significantly diluting the value of their data to marketers. Since there is no longer a “true” representation of a persons network. It ruins the “data set” and dilutes it.
Facebook adds significantly more value by looking at “network effects” of people and will be able to draw much better conclusions and provide much better resale information (in aggregate) to buyers and advertisers than opening things up too much.
Keeping privacy rights at the forefront is actually in Facebook’s better financial interest. The more they try to open things, the worse they actually make their offering.
Manging privacy better is in fact, in Facebooks broader financial interest in my opinion.
What do you think?
(Author: G. Crouch, CEO)
