Google’s deploying their now well-known tactic for dealing with threats; assemble a gaggle of doctorates into a room while simultaneously cutting cheques left right and centre. Meanwhile Facebook just rolls out another game…weddingville anyone?
But here’s the issue I see, backed up by three years of research: It’s about the address book. Not games. Not features. It’s my address book with all my connections…added to that is all that really valuable stuff of social networks – videos, messages, photo’s. The stuff that makes up human experiences of social groups. Our “social history” if you will.
Sure, Google’s got lots of people with Gmail accounts. But Google Buzz has failed. Mostly because it completely misses our “social history”…it’s just not easy to share what is easy to share in Facebook – photo’s, videos and the comments added to photo’s that we may go back and look at. Buzz just bombs there. It’s essentially just a hyped up version of Gmail.
In our view, if Google really wants to take on Facebook, they have to figure out how to compellingly make it easy to port over not only ones address book connections, but all those photo’s and the history attached to them.
But perhaps they aren’t bothering with that at all? Perhaps they’re just going to offer a bunch of games to play. That’ll be about as successful as Wave and Buzz.
Google isn’t batting a good average right now. I’m curious to see what they come up with in this latest venture. Somehow I suspect it may not be a social networking app. It’s too bad, since I like what Google does much better than Facebook.
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)
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)
Research, Thunking, culture•
on July 27th, 2010•
Increasingly diaspora of various nations are leveraging social media tools and services. For the most part, this has been to connect with their home country. To foster their connection, whether they have recently moved to a new host nation or are 2nd or 3rd generation connecting their cultural roots. Beyond fostering sociocultural connections and discovery, there is a growing indication of diaspora wanting to engage in helping their country of origin politically and/or economically.
Just yesterday Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan declared the Nigerian diaspora would not be allowed to vote in the upcoming 2011 election. The claim is that there is not enough time to organize the process, which in part may certainly be a significant reason. In part, this decision came as a result of the Nigerian government realizing the level of organization and activity online in social networks by Nigerian diaspora.
Almost every fragile nation of the Global South has some form of diaspora activity online today. Even though their home country may have limited Internet availability and then that mostly only available to the Elites in the country. That hasn’t served to limit diaspora activity however.
A diaspora is a group of people. Social media tools and services enable the easy formation, communication and management of groups. So it is understandable they’ve begun to leverage these tools. Sadly, some have used these tools to foment anger and hatred.
But increasingly, diaspora are using these tools to gain influence and traction in the political and administrative process of their country or region of origin. Notably however, of the 40 diaspora social media services we looked at, all but one had both English and their native tongue supported.
We see two reasons for this; 1) some 2nd or 3rd generation diaspora don’t speak their mother tongue and 2) these diaspora want to ensure the predominantly English speaking Global North countries can see what is being said. There is an underlying motivation and that is if that country is in the midst of receiving aid, the hope is that a donor nation or the UN or AU body engaged in their home country will understand the “strength” of the diaspora and that they may be able to influence aid.
Research, Thunking•
on July 20th, 2010•
In its broadest context, Social Media is not an invention of the past five years. Newsgroups, forums, Instant Messaging, email and bulletin boards have existed in various forms since the early 1970’s. By early 2004 platforms such as Blogger, Typepad and Wordpress came along and the need to know how to “code” melted away into the background.
As blogs arose into the wider human condition through traditional news media, so did the pundits and then came the “guru’s” and social media “experts” touting their expertise because they’d blogged a few times.
But then many voices joined that mob. Some hilarious, some idiot and some far more insightful and a few, very practical. I’ve always enjoyed Chris Brogan for his ability to draw people in and truly engage in discussion, Dan Zarella for his more methodical approach backed by credible science and Jeremiah Owyang for his networking and Sasha Halima for her witty insights. But there are many, many more. Hey, we’ve even joined the dialog over the past three years.
So in the spirit of theoretical thunking, it would seem that Social Media in it’s broadest sense truly is a medium developed by many, many voices. Perhaps more than ever before in the history of mankind. After all, just how many people can you fit in a cave to draw pictograms? And you can’t really carry a cave around and show people your work can you?
It’s this massive scalability that is most fascinating and the fact that anyone at anytime can add their thoughts and insights, as long as they have a computer or some form of device that enables connection and interaction with the Web. That’s quite astounding when you step back and think about it.
Social Media as a “medium” then, most certainly is evolved by the people for the people.
Today’s NY Times article on Facebook’s rapid success in global reach serves to show that the battle between Google and Facebook is in full swing. Google beat out Microsoft and Yahoo! in search and now it faces an even bigger threat from Facebook.
Google has failed lately with every attempt to become a “social network” to tie in it’s search strength. Given our research we spend a lot of time looking at these two, amongst many others. I see pluses and minuses to both these companies and their services. Here’s why I think Facebook will lead the social network battle, unless Google thinks in similar ways.
Facebook is a little like AOL was 12+ years ago – a closed network aiming to provide content. AOL died because people prefer to decide on what they want to do and see online. What Facebook provides is simply a “framework” making it easy for people to shape their “content experience” in the same way humans behave offline in groups. Facebook fits well into human social interactions. Google does not.
Google is all about “open” and in this sense is “non-linear”. Buzz is an interesting service concept, but it’s not that easy to use. It takes a fair bit of effort to figure out. Facebook does not. It’s more complex to move about Googles services, they don’t “combine” easily. I’m a huge fan of GoogleApps, and they’ve done well with how you can manage and access GoogleDocs. If they took that approach into a social networking format, they may do better.
But the biggest challenge Google faces now with regard to Facebook is portability of peoples networks. People don’t have the time for multiple social networks. Once they build their profile and connect with people they want to connect with, it’s done. If Google finds a way to “import” all your Facebook data, including all your friends, fan pages, groups pages and such, then they may have a hope. That is unlikely however. There will need to be a a very compelling reason to switch. The switching cost is just too high for the average consumer.
Google made a huge mistake with Buzz – they assumed everybody wants to connect with everybody. They don’t. Most people connect with only those they want to; friends, family, co-workers. In the Gen X to Lost Generation segments, they don’t randomly add people. They tend to cultivate the relationships they have. Millenials will quickly and easily add people to their network, but they restrict carefully who they closely communicate with.
There are over 100 cultural, ethnic or nationalist oriented social networks around the world. Facebook is getting people to move over. How? I’m not sure, but they’re doing it. Perhaps because of how well Facebook provides a framework for people to work from?
This battle for eyeballs and consumer time will be an interesting one. Google has some phenomenal resources in terms of human smarts at it’s disposal and now so does Facebook. For now though, when it comes to massive global penetration of social networks however, I’ll put my money on Facebook.
Every time Apple launches a new device, iPad included, a whole business ecosystem emerges and kicks into gear. Cases, stands, speakers, headsets and more. The Sony Walkman never achieved this.
On the Web, it seems Twitter is the Cyburbian version of Apple products. It’s spun off an incredible amount of associated services (here’s an excellent list);
- Twitter ranking tools
- Twitter clients (Browser-based, OS-based and Air-based)
- Statistical / Analytical services
- Follower services
- Aggregators
- Image & Video Sharing
- Games
But what about the money? Well, not so much. You can buy some products, send money or use an eBay linked service, but these are volume-based services, with, I suspect, not much volume. Perhaps someday. Twitter has worked out a system, it would seem, for revenue. We’re just not sure what that is yet.
But an entire ecosystem has evolved around the service. While there are over 80 other microblogging services, none have created such a powerful ecosystem. Kind of like comparing Microsoft’s Zune to the iPod.
So while the theoretical side of this would say it’s very successful. On the practical side however, there’s little to no money being generated. No revenue makes a company a Non-Profit Organization. So why? Personally I’m not sure. Perhaps you have ideas?
(Author: G. Crouch)
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)
As was demonstrated in Haiti’s earthquake crisis this year, Social Media can play a key role in evaluating crisis issues. Already fibre connections have been restored (many thanks to NetHope and their work) and there are Internet Cafe’s popping up in the tent cities people are still living in.
Think about that for a moment: people are still living in tents, yet they want to be connected to the world.
To me, this says loud and clear how critical Social Media tools have become on a societal level to citizens. These free tools are connecting families and relief agencies, enabling family ties to remain close in desperate situations. That’s powerful.
And from our research, prices are not ridiculously expensive for access. High, yes, but not much more so than pre-earthquake.
The most popular use of these tent city Internet cafe’s is of course, Social Media tools.
A large portion of Haitian Diaspora live in Montreal, Canada and then in France. Interestingly though, for donor nations, France is third for aid support behind the U.S., Canada and UK. And France is a former colonial government.
Haiti was a fragile nation before the earthquake, although just about at the tipping point of impressive recovery, now once again a very fragile nation. On the upside is that there is no threat of conflict from another nation.
Social Media tools are drawing our world ever closer, creating a level of global fragility we’ve never known. It is also enabling families to stay connected unlike ever before, and when getting access to communicating with family over having a house is a priority, well it shows the heart of humanity and our need to be connected to one another.
