Facebook is Not The Only Social Network

A lot of brands are focusing on Facebook as the primary social media channel to expend their marketing efforts and budgets on. While this is good, unfortunately it may not be offering the golden hope of social media marketing results they were hoping for. For brands that cross multiple market segments (consumer products like Adidas, MacDonald’s or Apple) this investment in a single channel may be good. But even for Adidas, they may find it more valuable to engage in social networks where their true audience is.

Some marketers may groan at this further fracturing of the budget and resource allocation and the need for a whole new set of metrics, specific content and creative that will be needed. But it could be crucial and Facebook efforts may be a good “catch-all” to re-direct consumers to more focused social networks. In our research over the past year we’ve found that in 2011 there has been a CAGR 37% increase in the rise and use of specialized social networks over the last two years – combined. This is significant.

If you’re a golfer, mom of teen kids, cruise ship enthusiast, eco-tourist, sailing aficionado, hunter or any other form of hobby passion, then you are likely spending less and less time in Facebook and more time in a social network aimed at your passion/interest. And we expect this trend to continue. If you’re thinking that Facebook Pages, Groups etc., is the answer to this dilemma, sorry, that’s not the case. Our findings also showed that when we compared a social network for golfers, hunters, sailors, knitting, running, cycling and mom issues, the comparable Facebook Group (that with the most “likes” and followers) had less than 3% of the members in a specific closed social network targeting those communities. The most popular platform for these communities outside of Facebook is Ning – not exactly an easy channel for marketers to engage in.

If you’re product or service is focused on a specific niche or segment, our recommendation would be to expend your budget and efforts there. Setting up a Facebook page is a good move, to capture eyeballs and direct them to the channel where the real conversations are taking place. Another part of our findings showed people in niche social networks are 43% more active than on a Facebook group page.

If you’re a small manufacturer or service, find where your market is really hanging out, you’ll become more engaged, improve customer feedback and loyalty and likely get a better return.

(Image Courtesy: Lori Grieg via Flickr)

The Role of Social Networks in Online Engagement

Social Networks are a cornerstone of Cyburbia…they are the hubs or “cities” of our online lives. But their role in our online lives is complex and multi-layered. From over 200 research projects into social media usage across a number of industries and public policy engagements, we’ve garnered some interesting views into social networks. Here’s what we’ve come to understand about them.

Multiple Social Networks Per Person
We’ve found that on average people have 3 social networks that they engage with. Facebook today (formerly MySpace) tends to be the “overarching” or primary network. This is where people engage across a broader audience of friends, family and acquaintances. The Personal Hub is the one that gets the most activity. In a Personal Hub communications behaviour is focused on personal life issues. For marketers that means trying to sell a business product will more than likely be a failure. Engagement in these channels means understanding the different frame of mind the user will be in. A fact we often see overlooked by marketers.

The Other Networks
Outside of the Personal Hub social network people will tend to have a social network we term the “hobby network” which will be around their primary recreational activity; golf, kayaking, sports, books etc. These networks are superb engagement channels for marketers with products or services for that particular vertical. Then we find people will engage in at least one “professional network” such as LinkedIn (far less so in blue collar or low-knowledge jobs however.) Here they connect for professional reasons.

Cultural and Ethnic Social Networks
This is where diaspora communities engage with each other in their host nation communities and with their homeland online communities. Cultural groups connect similarly. Those of Caucasian North American origin rarely have a reason or interest to engage in these communities in the US, UK and Canada. Cultural and ethnic groups will spend more time in these social networks than the social network more suited to the host community they live in. Some examples are BigAdda for Indians, AllAfricans.com for Africans, although a large number of African Americans and African Canadians engage in this social network.

Some may think that such behaviour creates walls and isolation of online communities. We argue no more so than in the real world. Just as in the real world however, there are linkages across the communities.

Orienteering Rules for Twitter

For those not engaged in Twitter, as in actively using it daily and participating (not just looking), it is often very difficult to understand. The comment most often heard of the nascent or determined non-Twitter user is; “I don’t get it.” So they don’t use it. Then it certainly is the case that you won’t get it. This causes bigger issues for government departments and corporations concerned with Twitter for crisis signals in social media or reputation management.

Social media monitoring tools can help somewhat, but tend to focus on Twitter as a channel and limit their “analysis” of Twitter users “influence” to rules set within the Twitter channel (i.e. how many followers they have, how much they re-tweet, how much their content gets re-tweeted). This can create a false trail and miss the actual story or issue. It is one of the many failings of social media monitoring tools today. To date, I’ve yet to see a single monitoring tool able to deliver network analysis and put an issue into context. The best we’ve seen for measuring Twitter influence is Klout, it’s good, not great, but the best out there.

Twitter is a live real-time map of the Web. Constantly. It is a set of road signs showing major highways, side paths, rivers, streams and oceans of data. I personally call it the Amazon river of the Internet, of Cyburbia. It is a constant flowing stream. Often inane, sometimes however, filled with nuggets of gold in the world of information arbitration.

In Twitter, a story can start anywhere, by anyone. A story can be false from the start, yet become quickly viral and evolve into a hashtag (i.e. #Jan25 for Egypt) or fizzle quickly. The challenge is to understand a) what is real and what is fake b) the true influence and authority of not just the originator but perhaps the first 30-50 people to then Re-Tweet the story and c) where is the story going matched to d) a validation incident that both quantifies and qualifies the original story. From this as well, is the need to “map the issue” through the network. This can only be done manually today…although we have been working with some clever folks on this, as are others.

But Twitter cannot really be “explained” to someone. I can tell you it is a service that only gives you 140 characters to say something and/or share a link to something else on the Web. But that doesn’t explain “how” Twitter has been adapted by netizens for sales, marketing, public relations, disinformation, crowdsourcing, organizing, protesting and so on…but it has and is, being used in all these ways.

But analysts and researchers who simply observe and do not engage, will always have a challenge to not only understand what is happening in Twitter, but how to use it.

Rules of Orienteering Twitter

The first rule to orienteering in Twitter is to engage. Only then will you be able to get a compass bearing.

The second rule is to participate in sharing content and engaging in discussion

The third rule is to be patient and expend the time. Building a stream that has inherent value takes time.

I suspect there are more and of course, we welcome your views and ideas.

Social Media Use by Diaspora of Fragile Nations

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.

Has Facebook Misunderstood The True Value of It’s Information?

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)