Category: Social Media

  • For a few dollars more…

    This won’t be the first time I’ve written about Twitter’s revenue model, and I suspect it won’t be the last. In fact, the last time I wrote about it, it was in the context of the deal that almost happened between Facebook and Twitter. Its been a couple of months, so I thought its a good time to check what both have been upto on the subject of revenues.

    There was a scare recently on how Facebook is going to make money by selling users’ data, but that turned out just to be misinterpreted statements, based on a demo that they did at Davos to show real time crowd insights, and had nothing to do with the Engagement Advertising model. Facebook has been growing very fast, (stats) and though this is claimed to be a demo, real time insights (permission based) from the exact target audience could indeed add a lot of value to brands, and any other entity that could be interested in data. Market research firms should actually be working with Facebook and starting to develop pools specific to their client’s audiences. With Facebook implementing the Friendfeed style ‘Like’ feature, the tools are becoming as simple as possible.

    Meanwhile, I also wonder about the data that could come from the sites that have been tied through Facebook Connect, especially since there are some big names in their respective fields. This could reveal a lot more about the individual’s interests – basis his interaction with the other sites, and that data would be easier to handle since in many cases the site’s content would dictate the context, unlike the generic data that could be picked up on Facebook itself. This would be an interesting space to watch, and that’s an understatement.

    A simple yet possibly history making story of how Twitter was made. And in another simple yet profound statement, Seth Godin described it as a protocol. And yet another good one which describes it as a social experiment. Which then raises the question of how a revenue model can be made for this protocol or experiment. As someone once said, “Twitter is what you make it to be”. There are pains too. Twitter’s humble origins and the scale envisioned may not have made a vision mandatory then, and there is also talk that Twitter could ‘go for years’ without earning, but to survive in the long term, Twitter does need a vision, one that’d then give some direction for its revenue model.

    There have been many entities trying to use the stream for transmitting ads, adCause and TwitterHawk, being the latest, but honestly, it does seem like a force fit. But I’ll admit that the location+context based approach of TwitterHawk does seem very interesting. In fact, there have been many apps built around Twitter, some of which require the user to give the Twitter password to use the service, and there have been security problems thanks to that too. Hopefully that’ll get sorted out once OAuth is implemented, perhaps we’ll see a new generation of mashups too, leading Twitter towards a revenue model. Here are some very interesting thoughts on Twitter, including searching conversations based on category, and a marketplace around conversations and real products. Its interesting to note that brands have already begun experimenting with Twitter, and with tangible expectations, as the recent Dell promo of exclusive deals shows.  More likely to follow that model with the launch of TwtQpon. In this context, check out CheapTweet too. Meanwhile, here’s a good set of thoughts for Twitter revenue.

    Twitter Contest-Denuology Entry94 Update

     

    With enterprise versions (Yammer)and even college versions (Wiggio), Twitter needs to hurry, if it does not want to lose out segments altogether. This story about Twitter thinking about charging brands is turning out to be true. I can imagine those social media evangelists within organisations groaning already!! But all the best, and we await the Business Product Manager. 🙂

    While Twitter scores on the real time aspect (my opinion since I use both) Facebook offers a lot more easily available data on an individual’s demographics, interests etc. The other parameter is that while Facebook is being adopted by the masses easily, Twitter does require a bit of getting used to. Facebook might have to sweat a bit to crack real time, and Twitter would have to do many things – consider scaling up groups to other regions, have better ways of segregating conversations and data mining.  But in the end, it all does seem to boil down to using real time information of potential/existing consumers, with precise demographics and interests based targeting.

    We keep saying that social media and its tools are all about the human touch, and the personalisation. And brands utilising these platforms should understand that. I wonder if the same applies to revenue models too, and whether this extreme customisation will mean that both these networks will find it difficult to conceptualise and then implement, revenue templates, that will fit all.

    until next time, money makes the social world go around 😐

  • Brands & Associations..

    When we met sometime back, Nikhil asked whether I’d noticed the smudging of the Coke logo in a scene from Slumdog Millionaire. I hadn’t, and we weren’t sure if there was something to it. A few days back, I saw this article in Campaign India, which spoke about Mercedes and Coke rejecting an association with the movie, and demanding that their ‘association’ with the movie be smudged/deleted – Mercedes, because a gangster is driving it (passenger – Mahesh Manjrekar, during the cricket game-police chase scene) and Coke, because it is offered in the slum (as a ‘carrot’, before they are taken to the beggar camp). The article ends with

    While the average brand manager would have been delighted with the seeming ‘free’ publicity, executives at both Benz and Coke took a deep breath to consider the dangers to the brands. There would certainly have been some short-term gain, but was that gain worth it in the context of possible long-term damage?

    Possible long term damage?! I wonder if Mercedes-Benz has this set of parameters, which a potential customer has to fit, before he is given the keys. Maybe they do, I haven’t tried buying it, but then what about resale? What about proxy owners? On to Coke, do they restrict their distribution channel to areas which their specific target audience resides in? Does a pet bottle self destruct when it recognises economic/living conditions that it would not fit in? Does Coke actually mean that when i am thirsty, I’d not have a Coke because Jamal, a slumdog, had it in a movie??!! So, what exactly are we trying here? I am going to focus on Coke, because with their price tag, Mercedes-Benz can afford to be elitist, but Coke??!! Besides, at #22 in the Virtue’s most social brands of 2008, this is hardly the kind of mindset I’d expect from Coke.

    I understand that a brand has a certain target audience (in terms of demographics-SEC) it keeps in mind while designing communication. Good, it gives focus. But aren’t we going a bit ahead of ourselves when we think that consumers really have the time to check out all possible associations of the brand, especially these one off occurrences? (unlike say, the Indica – taxi phenomenon)

    At a time, when people can shoot what they want and load it on YouTube/Flickr and get a few thousand hits before the brand manager can say ‘Cut’, what sense does such policing make? Really, how much can you control where your brand is seen and what is being done with it? (Remember Diet Coke + Mentos)

    Almost 20 lakh views. That’s viral. Smudge that!!

    IMHO, this is exactly the kind of restrictive thinking that brands cannot afford in such times. Coke could’ve easily converted this into a ‘From Slumdog to Millionaire – Coke (Always/The Coke side of life/Open happiness)’ stance. But what do I know, I’m just a normal consumer 😐

    This very interesting adliterate article talks about empathy, and how brands try to understand consumers but never try to see the world through their eyes. By starting out with this perspective,

    We would then perhaps have a collection of real and individual stories about people who are from the group we are seeking to influence. These would be real accounts of real people’s lives.And to get those stories we would need a new approach to engaging with people directly and without fear.

    Instead, as he correctly states, we try to lump our audience into easily manageable categories, so that communication then becomes automatically an easier job. The old media scenario and the systems of distribution therein, had a way of making this perhaps the only way. But with the proliferation of niche TV channels, the web and social media, brands can now break the big lump into almost individual pieces which gives each potential consumer a unique relationship with the brand.

    Based on their context, a single brand means different things to different people, and fit into their lives differently. The sooner brands recognise this, the more meaningful their communication can become, to the consumer.

    until next time, open up 🙂

  • Heal the world.. in 140 characters

    This week, Twitter has a rendezvous with reality. While examples of Twitter based real aid abound – Twitter has helped build a well, provided help to an abused woman and her child,  there’s a cool Social Action and TwitterFeed mashup, this is the first (that i have come across) organised global attempt to use the Twitter network to make a tangible difference. Twestival, if you haven’t heard already. February 12th 2009, in your city. Well, at least one near you.

    On 12 February 2009 175+ cities around the world will be hosting Twestivals which bring together Twitter communities for an evening of fun and to raise money and awareness for charity: water.

    You can take part by attending the twestival, uploading or buying music at twestival.fm, taking part in the tee design competition or donating. The Twestival site gives you all the details, including the person in your city organising it. Here’s Bangalore, for example. Mashable has a good post on the New York version. Twestival is gathering steam as you read – LiveEarth is now the global broadcast and video partner.

    While this is a great attempt to make a tangible difference at a local level, I’m sure that with entities like Twitpay and TipJoy, we’ll find ways to overcome geographical constraints and connect our social currency with real currency. Meanwhile, on a tangential note, there’s something I came across on Twitter – twipple (i heard that naughty thought :p ) (the plan of action via adrants)

    a microblogging cross between Simon Says and Pay it Forward. Once a critical mass starts following @twipple, the latter will deploy “short, fun, positive tweet instructions to do something kind in public,” like smile at a stranger, give money to a street musician, or whistle your favourite tune.

    While I do write about brands and the business conundrums of social media, I firmly believe that the true power of this phenomenon is in the human network we are creating. People, who I trust will not just use the medium for self serving purposes, but also to leave our world a better place.

    until next time, 140 characters can make a difference

  • Bollywood.. a jungle out there..

    The best line on Chandni Chowk to China would have to be this one on Twitter by Ramesh Srivats.  It said, “I think Warner Brothers should change their name. They never warned us about CC2C”

    That, and the launch of two (more) Bollywood centric websites – CineCurry, by Percept, and Big Oye, by well, BIG, and two posts which talked about the usage of the web for marketing a couple of  ‘Coming soon’ Bolly films – Delhi 6 ( by Karthik, who also uses this to give a few good thoughts on how to use social media to promote film music), and Dev D (by Mayank, who talks about all the ways in which the movie has been marketed), and a conversation I had recently, set me thinking. Not on the marketing of movies on the web or social media, because there are quite a few tools out there, all/some of which can be used in tandem depending on the content and intended audience (Dev D’s work is a great example, replace it with Devdas, and you’ll see how it won’t work), but more on what I call the ‘stage of conversation’.

    The analogy that got used in the conversation was quite simple – long before the Foodworld/Spencer/Spar/Star etc genre of retail came into existence, there were the local kirana stores. They were functionally quite fine, and also had the extra perk of a personal touch. I am not sure how they have fared post the arrival of the big brands, but from a subjective experience, I prefer the big branded outlets these days. There’s some convenience factor that plays a role in this choice, as well as the experience itself. Now it could be said that the choice depends on a lot of other things – geography, for example.

    But what was the analogy for? Bollywood content websites. Along with the names I mentioned earlier, there also exist portals, like Bollywood Hungama, Glamsham etc, community driven ventures like PFC and individual blogs like Blogical Conclusion and WOGMA (which have their die hard followers. eg. er, me ) There is a plethora of content, good or bad is a subjective thing. You’d see everything from the kirana store to the branded store there.

    Now, the net equalises a lot of things, like the geography, but in terms of content, it is not an equaliser, since the big guys can bring in resources there that a smaller entity will find difficult to scale up to. There is also a level of synergy  that the larger entities can achieve (more easily) with others in the value chain, ( eg. Big Oye has rentals taking you to Big Flix, and a ticket booking tab) and in essence, make it a sort of one stop shop.

    So, with most films having a site, and the virtual Bollywood malls, and the groups on social networks, and the microblogging on Twitter, and the smaller specialist sites, is there a long enough tail (and time) that will allow all of these to co exist? If there is, what will comprise the large head? Is there any other news vertical you can think of, where such a scenario exists?

    until next time, content might be king, but…

  • LinkedIn…a bit more

    A few weeks back, RWW had an interesting piece on why LinkedIn shouldn’t have Facebook envy, and should not attempt to make itself a destination site like the social networking service.

    We thought the Valley intelligentsia long ago proclaimed the end of destination sites. The desire to “get people to spend more time on LinkedIn” is linked to a failed business model around advertising.

    I agree that just because people spend time at a site doesnt necessarily mean that advertising makes a great business model there. In the early days of Facebook, apps like Scrabulous made me spend a lot of time there. I’ve noticed that (at least among my friends) the usage of apps has lessened, and there’s much more sharing – notes, photos, comments on status messages etc. If advertising is the revenue model, brands and FB would have to do a lot more than just contextual banner advertising.

    I’m not quite sure whether the same would apply for LinkedIn. Not in terms of the advertising bit, but in terms of the time spent. Again, while I agree with RWW on the accessibility via API tools, I’m a bit ambivalent on the need for spending time on the site first. Perhaps it might make sense to offer services that are first utilised on the site, and then made convenient. Once the users are more familiar with the tools and services, they’d be more comfortable with connecting to it via mail or say, a browser plugin etc. Ambivalent, because my usage of Twitter via twitterfox screams an opposing view (but not every service is as simple as Twitter)

    While I use at least one LinkedIn app, and utilise the status message quite frequently, I believe that a lot more can be done with the ‘News’ and ‘Groups’. Yes, it does have features like ‘share articles’, ‘start discussion’ etc, but I think there’s definitely more potential. The best reference I could find is Social Median (recently acquired by Xing). Now, I admit that my usage of that site was pretty limited, but I still think it was only a matter of time before i utilised it much more. Somehow it appealed more than say a Friendfeed room.

    I also think that the limited usage was because I was connected with a similar set of people on twitter who used to share links on the topics I was interested in. This, and the paucity of time, made a visit to Social Median a postponed task. Now considering that LinkedIn is best placed to offer tangible benefits (business networking, as opposed to social networking), what if the Social Median kind of tools (like the browser add on to share sites) and services (like adding feeds to groups) were introduced on LinkedIn.

    Now, you might say that we do roughly the same on say, Friendfeed. The difference is that in the case of LinkedIn, the adoption would be much more, because professionals interested in say, Social Media would find it easier to join a group, and have discussions on LinkedIn than joining a relatively geekier service like Friendfeed. Also, the different kind of groups that could happen on LinkedIn is much more since it already has professionals from a variety of streams, and each of them could create their own networks. The tangible gains from such a network even in daily office work is easy to imagine. This would also be immensely useful for those who’d like to gather information about career streams different from their own. In fact, this wonderful post also shows how brands can utilise content aggregation to their benefit. The thing to note here is that LinkedIn would need to provide enough tools so that the groups don’t become stagnant like that on Facebook. But I’m guessing it won’t, since most people would like to offer insightful comments, and share the best links, because its a business network, one that’d help their careers.

    until next time, a link book 🙂