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.
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)
Thunking, Uncategorized•
on August 5th, 2010•
Unlike those under 25, I didn’t grow up with Facebook in my face and my head pummeled with tweets and whistles of notification services and microblogs. I played in mud and sand and helped do my part to keep the laundry soap market in business like all kids into the 80’s. I lost friends when I moved, I made new ones. Over time my social circles changed. Like everybody else. I wondered from time to time about my high-school girlfriends and regular mates. It was nice to have a beer with the friends I’d stayed connected with, the two or three of them, and reminisce for a few minutes with a laugh or a groan.
Now, I’ve reconnected with most of them on Facebook or LinkedIn. Now I know all about what happened to them, who went to pot, who fell off the wagon who did amazing things. Kids today start connecting on various social networks at around 5 or 6 years old.
They will likely never know the bittersweet nostalgia of the natural process of losing friends and acquaintances. Sure, finding an old friend can also be wonderful and rewarding.
But before Facebook and Classmates and all these ways of reconnecting, there was a certain part of ones character that developed with these losses. Chances are, that will be less likely (at least in wealthy nations with prevalent Web usage.) What might be the ramifications? It will require a new set of etiquette behaviours for certain.
How do you think it might evolve?
(Author: G. Crouch, Principal)
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.
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.
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.
As we research social media use across continents and cultural groups, we of course are also always looking to understand how social media technologies can make an impact on our world. Both positive and negative. Listening to Devdutt Pattanaik speaking on mythologies and how we view our world, once can translate that into how social technologies can and are bringing our global community together.
If global trade (finance, exporting/importing, global corporations etc.) are enabling the movement of physical goods and the tumbling of walls into nation states that reflected so much of 20th century, then social media technologies are where people are first developing the relationships through sharing of content and ideas.
As people, we all need an “identity” and that is both a personal identity then social then cultural and finally a nation-state sense of identity. That identity and how we behave is through social activities (meetings, cultural broadcast on TV, radio…the Web) and behaviours. This is arrived at entirely through dialog. You can not form a company or a nation without other people (well, you could, but it would be awfully small and collapse when you die.)
My World: In social media terms, this is the sites and services you engage in to view content on the Web and view what other people have created or said. It’s more singular in nature and based on your behaviour.
Your World: That’s how “my world” see’s anothers world. It is the opening of the conversation or the relationship in the social web. In Cyburbia.
The World: This is reality. This is all the tools and the relative state of the Web as it stands today, globally. This is “the” world of Cyburbia. It is the result of my world and your world coming together.
What I believe we’re starting to see is the use of social media technologies to bring our world together. Here’s some examples I think that help make the case.
Smoking Boy: In Vietnam the father who let’s his 2 year old smoke 40 cigarettes a day. Because this hit YouTube it went around the world. Not only through social technologies, but news media. News media around the world. Prior to the web we likely never would have seen that story outside Vietnam.
Iranian Elections ‘09: Agressive, planned and consistent use of social technologies such as YouTube and Flickr kept the Iranian election front and centre globally and provided people with an insight into Iran and that there are many there who want proper democracy and human rights.
Playing for Change: The global awareness on poverty project that saw people around the world playing stand by me in various cultures (among other songs) uses that universal translator, music, to bridge between cultures.
That’s just three examples. What do you think? Are we going to be able to better understand one anothers cultures better through social technologies? Can we call this the opening phase of Global Aculturalisation?
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)
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)
