Category: Digital

  • Serendipity in the age of data explosions

    One of the reads I look forward to every week is Neil Perkin’s curated list of posts from across the web. And unfailingly, I get at least a couple of articles that offer me food for thought, and in general, giving me much better fare than the two kinds of automated services I am familiar with – one based on my interests, and the other based on my social connections’ shares.

    A fortnight back, two related articles caught my attention – the automation of online advertising and the client side data revolution, both of which point to how user data is going to be harnessed by increasingly efficient tools built by technology companies. Data that goes beyond the cliched demographic criteria and moves towards personalised marketing that encompasses evolving factors like real-time and social.

    This actually made me think of the joys of serendipitous discovery-the kind that happens when I go book shopping (in a real bookstore) and find a book that I had never heard of but am likely to cherish-and its future in a world of ubiquitous and easily manageable data.

    And guess what I found in Neil Perkin’s list last week – this amazing post at HBR about AmEx’s Nextpedition – a travel service that doesn’t have an itinerary and instead is full of surprises. Towards the end of the article is a clue on how the future could create a well crafted mix of the two – to deliver randomness we will have to be on better terms with randomness. Powered by massive amounts of data, an experience that will be exactly the right measure of customised randomness.

    until next time, a cliched appendage – serendipity 2.0. 🙂

  • Enterprise, Consumer, Interface

    Facebook’s new Groups at [university] feature, which allows users to create groups that are only visible to those with the relevant and authenticated .edu address, is probably the social network’s hat tip to its roots and a way to show that it can still play at targeted sharing too. However, what it reminded me of was enterprise tools like Yammer which also use authenticated addresses to create closed networks. Add to that Facebook’s other new feature being tested – private messaging between users and Pages, and I wondered if the authenticated domain feature couldn’t be used for creating enterprise networks within Facebook, which could then interface with consumers using Pages. In fact, that would even go quite a way in solving a user’s work/life identities by allowing him/her to have separate (but connected publicly/privately) logins.

    With Google+ launching for brands and thanks to circles, allowing a relatively easy (and measurable) flow of information within and outside the enterprise (I’ve begun experimenting with this @ Myntra), linking employees, consumers, partners etc through not just sharing but also through live video interaction, Facebook does need to go beyond its current offering for brands and organisations.

    Though I’ve not seen it in action, Twitters new proposition for brands, with better profiles, a new twist to promoted tweets, self serving ads etc do sound interesting and should probably lead to more interesting brand activities on the platform.

    The first generation of social media tools have focused on monitoring, engagement and some measuring. They will obviously have to evolve with the platforms’ own feature set advancements. (not to mention new platforms) Meanwhile, I’ve seen at least two forms of this evolution. Salesforce, which has, with the acquisition of Rypple, entered the talent management sphere, continues its march towards being a one stop shop (Chatter for enterprise collaboration, Radian 6 for social media monitoring, engagement and others). On another front, Percolate is aiming to solve an interesting problem area that I can identify with – sustained communication with consumers across platforms that balances interesting content with business objectives.

    New platforms, new tools, decreasing attention spans, new hardware and technologies and a relentless pace of advancement – 2012 promises to be exciting.

    until next time, horizon tally

  • Social+

    Consumption and curation. At some point I can still remember, I consumed newspapers, magazines and all other mass publishers (across platforms) and expected them to curate for me. Curation for a large mass, when linked to their kind of production process and business model, got tits first whiff of trouble when the internet only models came into the picture. In the early days of content abundance, an algorithm came into our lives and changed the way we found content on the net. A bit later, I was introduced to a different kind of curation courtesy the service then known as del.icio.us.  #youremember I would put Google Reader in the same category too.

    Then came Facebook and Twitter, and RSS died several times if we go by the blog posts. Facebook for me has been and is a social graph. The only way my interest graph has crept in (in terms of content discovery and consumption) is in the form of pop culture. Can that change? I wouldn’t write it off. Twitter started out as an interest graph, but when it scaled, it began flirting with social graphs. For me, it’s now both, and I find that difficult to work with. It’s probably a bit of my laziness too – curating who I follow, making corresponding lists etc erm, not done. Anyway, my discovery and sharing on that network is minimal now. So, in that respect, the curation I expect on these platforms is minimal too.

    Purely by activity, it would seem that I am more active on my interest graph networks now. I wonder if I am alone in not being sure of mixing my interest and social graphs -Delicious, Foursquare, GoodReads., and until recently, (generically) Reader. The curation is by a set of people I trust in that domain, and any ‘social’ that happens remains ‘by the way’.

    Google didn’t even see the social boat IMO, and when they did, it was too far out. Wave, Buzz: crash, silenced. But while writing the WT5 column late last week, I found that Google+ has been creeping in everywhere – search results, news, Reader (I haven’t forgiven you, Google) and building in features like Mutual Circle Chat and search options.  I was thinking about this when I received one of my best sources of curation these days – the weekly Only Dead Fish newsletter (email, how ironic 🙂 ), and that’s where I saw this excellent post titled ‘From destination social to distributed social : why Google+ is the Trojan horse of the social web‘

    That’s exactly what Google seems to be doing. Unlike Facebook, which built THE social network and then tried to link consumption on other sites in an ‘oh, okay, fine’ way, Google is playing a balance act, and to its strengths. By giving me the tools to build a social network on Google+, and simultaneously being present at my points of consumption, Google is making me play curator to both social and interest graphs. If all goes well, I think Google will not only collect data, but also build several social networks based on interest graphs. Google’s cash cow still doesn’t have much to do with all this, but once the networks are built, Google will have better contexts for AdSense, based on a really smart social algorithm.

    I have always believed that Android is the next Google. Still do, but now I think that Google+ is a contender too. Or maybe the social OS will be built by them together.

    until next time, evil graphs 🙂

    Bonus: A Google Ventures backed app on iPhone named Stamped – very relevant in this context.

  • Brands, Identity and Consistency

    So, Google+ kindly consented to host brands and organisations on the platform (announcement) and immediately gave examples of pages already available. These include Pepsi, WWE, Burbery and so on. The typical ways most brands have approached their new Google+ page is to use the features of the network (mostly Hangouts) to reasonably good effect, in addition to using the platform for content distribution and in a few cases, even displaying their employees. This last one was an interesting use case and has potential, I thought, and better than Facebook’s fanpage Admin version.

    When I read the announcement, I immediately thought of brand identity. In the initial days of Google+ launch, the circles feature that allowed users to compartmentalise their different identities created a little flutter. It helped that, at that point, Facebook’s options for achieving the same ends were pretty well concealed. The visual identities of the brands on Google+ remain consistent with other online and offline platforms and so far, so do the tone and activities.

    I have a different identity for different sets of people I deal with. Work, Friends, Family, Acquaintances, Twitter connections etc. How I behave with them and what I share with them varies too. (though there are overlaps)  I thought about this from a brand’s perspective. My relationship with a brand is different from the one that another person has. (use cases, context etc) And if I do have to share this relationship, what I’d share and the way I would share it would also vary among my own different audience sets.  In a world where the consumers are moving towards a fluid identity, do brands have to consider one too?

    In the real world, brands sometimes tweak their identity according to geography. This was reasonable and worked fine in an era of mass media. With the internet, the whole world would easily see the changes across geography. And the end consumer could ask questions too. He/she even expects the brand to communicate like a human. If we consider different networks as different geographies, with peculiar consumption patterns (of information, for starters), does the consistency that brand currently focuses on become a constraint? Considering that different platforms have different advantages and are used for different objectives, how fluid can the brand and its communication be, on the web and off it?

    until next time, identity crises

  • Death of an echo chamber

    The BBH Labs Blog has a very interesting post based on a research that reexamines one of the most debated topics even in the hyper-connected era – the echo chamber. From the research abstract “We propose a trade-off between network diversity and communications bandwidth regulates access to novel information because more diverse network structure increases novelty at a cost of reducing information flow” I am yet to read the research completely, but the post gives me enough fodder for now, because it asks “where does one find the most novel information per unit time?”

    For a lot of people that I know virtually, the answer would be Twitter. My relationship with Twitter has had several kinds of highs and lows over 4 years. For the last few months, it has been a constant though, and is a very limited relationship. Somewhere in the journey, Twitter became too crowded for me.

    Thankfully there was another ‘social network’ that has been my bedrock for a long while now, and that is my answer for the question asked earlier – Google Reader. Reader is not a network that has grown exponentially for me. My network there does not exceed a dozen, and without referring to it, I can name the people I connect with, and why.

    I rely on Mahendra to give me the latest news and best perspectives in tech. Ditto with Prasoon, whose “Share with note” gives me the money-shot notes in posts I should, but am too lazy to read. 🙂 Surekha keeps me up-to-date on media and PR news that I wouldn’t otherwise know about. Balu – despite being an NRI now – unearths India-specific tech posts I’d ordinarily have missed, and gives me vicarious experiences of the world of gaming. Gautam John provides mouth-watering food posts and news/views on India/Wiki that everyone should know about and have a considered view on. Vedant gets quoted in many blog posts that I write – on this blog and the personal one – as the source of the work that started a thought in my head. There’s Josh Rutner, who must be reading a zillion posts to discover the insane stuff he shares. Rahi is a relatively new connection, and I have to thank her for some of the best blog posts get to read these days. Anand somehow has a way of bringing to my notice posts that I missed in their first run, and I silently thank him each time. Just when I think Patrix has gone away from Reader, he shares an excellent post that grabs my attention. My network on reader would notice a name that’s conspicuous by its absence – and that happens to be my favourite Reader buddy – Roshni. If she has shared it, it has to be read, because one way or the other, the piece will deliver! That, ladies and gentlemen, is my Reader network, and that long paragraph would explain why I was shattered when Google decided to get evil with Reader.

    The BBH Labs post, and the research has this to say about strong ties – those who know you well know what type of information is novel for you. Over a period of time, the network and I have grown to know each other very well indeed. Once upon a time I had a theory that once everyone figured out everyone else’s sources on Reader, shares would become unimportant and I’d never discover anything new. I was obviously stupid, and guilty of hugely underestimating my network because they were constantly filtering and building new sources to learn, and help me learn. It made Reader the best echo chamber I ever had, and this post is so that I, and the web, remember it, always. “Oh oww, Oh oww, Oh oww.”

    until next time, MAAR – Mark All As Read