Is Social Currency Really Relevant?

Not yet. But it may be in time. The initial inkling that “social currency” does have some value is in the domain of human resources. For example recruiters like to use LinkedIn to source candidates for job openings. In a less quantifiable way, as people we often check the profiles of people on Twitter, Facebook etc., to see how many “followers” or “friends” they may have. These are habits driven by our naturally competitive nature. This competitive nature has been a core driver in the development of a number of social media services like FourSquare (become Mayor of a place), Empire Avenue with your personal stock trading, earning “eaves” and as the first example of social currency having some form of value – there’s a great blog post here by Caleb Storkey talking with Jeremiah Owyang and Robert Scoble on the potential values of Empire Avenue for business.

But Who Really Cares?
It doesn’t really matter. Unless you’re on LinkedIn or Plaxo, have little or no engagement, no recommendations from former employers or employees and no references from clients; that may cost you a job interview. Beyond that, “social currency” is interesting to sociologists, anthropologists and perhaps marketing researchers and intelligence agencies or police.

Will Social Currency Become Relevant?
A lot of things need to happen first. A lot. Aside from the stars and moon aligning, for any form of “social currency” to have a real economic impact outside Cyburbia, it needs to become like money is – with some form of regulation that defines its value that is accepted by the international community. Which creates the issue of how to value social currency amongst nations and impacts of “trading” actual peoples values. As new social technologies developed, they would have to find some way of being accepted with a process of approval to be added to a “social currency system”. To have real-world impact it means acceptance by society as a whole, between citizens and governments and with anything that scales, will need regulation to some degree.

Is The Internet or “Cyburbia” Relevant Then?
Discussing “social currency” over the weekend lead to the broader, deeper question of the relevance of the Internet/Web as a whole in our lives. The pundits like Scoble, Shirky and  would resoundingly scream yes, while a more sober tone would come from Evgeny Morazov and that sublime mind of Malcolm Gladwell. The Web is completely relevant, it has helped organize democratic protests, birthday parties, weddings and created a new consumer avenue for shopping that is continuing to increase. It is becoming more pervasive and no longer is location or device dependent. Anyway, it is relevant, social currency however, not so much. Yet.

What do you think? Will social currency have an inherent value over time? perhaps it will play out in a different way than traditional currencies or stocks?

Social Media Channel Decline by Users

We’re always doing research into how people are using Social Media, much of it for clients, much of it the result of the research we do for clients. One interesting trend we’ve noted over the past few months – people are turning off the garden hose. We’re learning to filter.

As humanity, we’ve suffered from “filter failure” ever since more books were printed than a human could read in their lifetime. All we’ve done is increase the volume, now more significantly.

When we do research for a client, we always look for the “power user” those engaged more than others. We also look at the Echo Ratio (our own stat based on the Solidarity Value of economics) and applying the Power Law Curve. I’m just stating our process here.

Up until 3 months ago, the average joe user of Social Media (i.e. engaged 5-10 hours per week in social media channels) had 5.4 channels they engaged in (that most often comprised in Canada, UK and USA of a social network, microblog, email, blog and one or two others.)

Over the past 3 months we’ve seen that decline quite significantly, down to an average of 3.25 apps per average user of social media channels.

Are we learning to apply filters? We’re now looking at heavier users. I like the posting recently from David Armano on a similar vein.

What do you think?

Can Too Much Social Media Dilute A Brand?

As a “consumer” of a brand, is there a point where your engagement with that brand actually dilutes its value to you? Can you “know” too much about that brand? Can Social Media engagement by a brand be too much?

As consumers we engage with various brands in different ways. Some are brands we are loyal to, but only in the sense of continuous purchase. We don’t want to engage anymore than simply buying and using that product or service. Others, perhaps due to the nature of the brand (i.e. a computer or Smart Phone brand) we have to engage more deeply with – like needing customer service.

But I’m thinking separate from customer service issues. Do we want to continuously engage with a brand, like Walkers crisps or Skittles? At some point, do consumers find less connection with that brand as a result of engaging with them on Twitter or via Facebook?

Now, with so many brands dipping their toes into Social Media and some going full-bore into these social channels, are they diluting that sense of attachment we have to a product or brand?

Put on your “consumer” hat and ask yourself; do you feel a stronger engagement with that brand because they’re also in those social media channels your using? Do you want to be engaged that much? Perhaps it depends on the product?

Personally, when I find out more information on some brands, that brand loses some of its mystique. What about you?

(Author: G. Crouch, Managing Director)

Media Potholes, Blurring and Diffusion = value disruption

Value Disruption? That is, the disruption in how different types of media are valued. Pundits have been ringing the death bell of broadcast television for years, yet TV consumption has risen! Twitter was beaten up at first by bloggers et al, today it is the rage (perhaps the new email killer app?) The music industry is clinging to scratchy vinyl and the market doesn’t care. Radio is shifting and the jury is still out, yet Satellite and Internet Radio seems to be picking up the lost transistor waves.

Marketer Tom Hespos railed on about the waning of terrestrial radio and cited the writings of Adam Gerber of “media potholes” those dark spots where “advertising” doesn’t reach, or consumers who don’t listen to channels with any advertising messages.

The once crisp lines of media channels are blurring. Usage patterns are shifting and we are seeing a greater diffusion of how and where people consume media of all types. As video blurs across the Web between professional and consumer generated, the “value” of that media is disrupted. I suspect the major networks currently laying off employees due to “falling advertising revenues” is not entirely due to the “recession” we are/aren’t in. Rather, the marketing dollars are being spread around.

What we may come to find is that not all cuts being made now in various media channels are the actual result of an economic downturn nationally or globally – but of the disruption in value because of so many diverse channels and the growing shift in how, what and where consumers consume media.

The cost of delivering media en masse is lower than ever in human history, as is the cost of production. The cost of accessing the channels that deliver the media, and the pervasiveness of those channels has contributed to this.

I believe we may be seeing the start of the result of value disruption in the economic ecosystem of media, it just so happens to be tying in nicely with the “recession” if that is what we are in. What do you think?