Category: Social Media

  • Talking Shop

    My post last week– on the topic of communities that individuals will initiate or will be part of, also made me think of organisations and brands, and what communities they would start/be part of. To begin with, perhaps there would have to be forks in the road, which hopefully would merge again at some point of time. Paths to accommodate employees, potential employees, consumers, suppliers and so on.

    If word of mouth is the primary marketing tool, it is important to get the organisation in order, and employees to believe in themselves and the place they work in, before transparency can be taken to the outside world. According to this RWW article, based on an Accenture report,  a large number of millenials (those born between 1977-97) expect their companies to accommodate their IT preferences, and if they don’t, they turn rogue and use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their corporate IT departments. Social networks are great examples, according to the study, 59% use them inspite of their IT!!

    I’d written on this subject earlier, highlighting a few tools, that could help bring transparency to the employee and potential employee facing part. Recently, I came across a few more things that would help in these efforts. SocialCast (via Startup Meme), which provides ‘simple, smart messaging for team communication’. Meetsee, “Your personal virtual office ..filled with rich ways to communicate, share content, collaborate on documents, and build rapport between remote co-workers”. I also read that LinkedIn has made portions of company profiles public. As of now, they have 160000 profiles. I quite liked the career path feature under ‘Related Companies’. (eg.Take a look at Amazon’s profile.) What I’d like to see is companies taking this as an opportunity to converse more than a one way communication. LinkedIn can actually make a premium service out of this. Companies could also start off with using some existing apps on LinkedIn like Company Buzz, presentation apps, Huddle and Polls, each of which could add dimensions to their LinkedIn presence.

    On another front, brands are still grappling on how to utilise social media to reach out to their consumers. The question of where to have these conversations also still hangs. Both would obviously depend on the intent. Unfortunately, a lot of brands are seeing social media as just another broadcasting platform – a mentality of  ‘ah, the herd is on twitter, lets push the communication there’. Judging from the way the crowd responds to say (the most recent example) Ibibo, #FAIL.

    Like I said, it boils down to intent – making better products, addressing customer issues, using customers for R&D and so on. Chris Brogan has a wonderful post on what he calls ‘cafe shaped conversations‘. It made me consider the perspective that its perhaps not meant for every brand/organisation. That while there are advantages, for these advantages to achieve a scale that makes it worthwhile, might take quite some time for some organisations, because they aren’t built that way (?)

    But its also true that consumers don’t wait for the brand/company to start the conversation. And they like to band together. The communities at Facebook and Ning are great examples. I also came across a new site – Brand Adda, a community that revolves around brands, products and services. I first thought a 2.0 version of something like MouthShut but there new features added, which also allows for interaction initiated by the brand. Explained well in their FAQ. Perhaps they’re closer to GetSatisfaction. From a brand perspective, the conversation tools might be easier to handle than say, a SocialToo, which allows polls on Twitter. I’d like to see how this develops, since there’s definitely potential.

    The tools, irrespective of which stakeholder they address, are becoming increasingly significant. According to a recent study by Forrester, the % of people who trust the company blog as a new source is at a low 16%, right at the bottom of the table. This, I agree, is not a reflection on the concept of blogging, but more on the intent of companies which in turn, is translated into the content they post on the blog. And the path – blogs, twitter, LinkedIn etc are quite inconsequential if the intent is not sorted out first.

    until next time, connecting people…and companies..

    PS. A good resource on social media. Go on, there are free e-books.

  • @ the friends within followers

    Sometime back, I’d written about micro ambassadors, where I’d also touched upon the long tail of twitter influence that is made up by individual users, and marketing opportunities therein. I read a few posts recently that made me think on the subject a bit more.

    Some of the posts referred to a research paper on Twitter, by HP, which reveals that

    the driver of usage is a sparse and hidden network of connections underlying the “declared” set of friends and followers.

    A few numbers on the respondents (from the study) – 309740 users (this sample is 6% of the twitter universe, info courtesy Jeremiah’s post, the comments on the post are also very interesting), who on an average posted 255 posts, had 85 followers, and followed 80 other users. Among the 309740 users, only 211024 posted at least twice. The average @ replies ( conversations between 2 or more users, specifically mentioned in the tweets) were 25.4% .

    A few findings I thought were interesting. The number of posts increases with the number of followers but saturates after a certain point. However, this saturation does not occur if we consider the number of ‘friends’ (followers with whom a user has had 2 or more @ conversations). The study also shows that on a number of ‘friends’ vs number of followers chart, the number of friends saturate after a certain number of followers is crossed. Understandable, since in a day, one can only have so many conversations with so many friends. My twitter statistics (though not the same as the average user in the study) corroborate these friends and usage findings more or less. It is thus debatable whether there’s any sense in just increasing the follower count. A certain Guy definitely wouldn’t agree, and it does finally depend on the intent. 🙂

    It also questions the follower-influence- WOM marketing model, and its scalability. I’m actually quite happy with this since I have never been comfortable with this line of marketing strategy on a trust based network. While its not scalable generally, there are exceptions – Guy’s Alltop is one easy example.  The relationship he has with his ‘followers’ obviously doesn’t fit into the followers-friends definition discussed earlier.

    The echoing powers of RT (re tweeting) is another thing to be kept in mind. If I follow someone, and i find some content interesting/informative, there is a good chance I’ll RT that, even if I do not have regular conversations with that person.

    Lastly, this equation might change if Twitter implements groups. Even though its limited to Japan now, there is a good chance that the rest of the world could get it soon. Meanwhile, you can always use Twittgroups. Groups would allow consolidation of crowds interested in certain things. Marketing would definitely be easier then.

    And finally, to wrap up, the favourite twitter pastime- revenue models. If such marketing is not a scalable option, and will not excite brands to use twitter a lot, what will? I read two very good posts on the subject of revenues. RWW has a post on the search of Twitter being used as a revenue tool, since it gives live results from all of Twitter, and doesn’t wait for any indexing like Google does. In fact, the idea of companies using Twitter as an early alarm signal is something I have come across before. Nick Bilton has an interesting idea on Twitter throwing up the kind of immediately relevant ads we would like to see with “some really intelligent data mining and cross pollination”. I quite like that idea too. 🙂

    until next time, tweet and ye shall find 🙂

  • The Construct of Communities

    The initial version of Blogger enabled communities only through comments. And it did enable it quite well, as my other blog would validate. A lot of the people who comment there have been doing so for years now, and some of them are not bloggers. These days, I’ve been noticing a lot of people utilising the ‘follow‘ function that a recent version of Blogger had introduced. Of course, there were many entities that were providing this service, but the official Blogger add on is still a help. What pleased me much was the inbuilt feed mechanism, which would get people to use RSS more.

    Twitter of course, is built on a follower/following concept. But I’d say that Twitter/Facebook/Orkut/LinkedIn are not built around one entity as much as a blog is. The groups on these (except Twitter which still hasn’t got groups outside Japan) can be considered communities.

    I saw a list of fastest growing social networks a while back, with Twitter leading (in terms of growth), not surprisingly. But what i was surprised by was the appearance of Ning at #3 (despite the note that in the survey, it did not meet the minimum sample standards). My surprise had perhaps to do with the fact that, though i am a member of a couple of communities, i have not been active there. Both the communities I am part of are centred around shared interests.

    It made me wonder about the construct of communities that individuals would prefer to build in the future. Would it centre around blogs, would it centre around microblogging tools like twitter, which I know a lot of bloggers now prefer. Would it be a customised version of twitter, that’s made possible by tools like Shout’Em or Twingr (via Mashable)  or even something like the Prologue theme of WordPress. Would it be based on lifestreaming services (self hosted like sweetcron or otherwise like storytlr) where they can aggregate activities that they do all around the net. Or perhaps a tangential version of this like Friendfeed which also builds in the community feature. Will iGoogle become more social? Would at some point of time, individuality merge into communities, as discussions around topics become more important than introduction of the topic in a personal space? Or would both exist (as it does in the current form) side by side, depending on subjective likes/dislikes without any commonality in evolution?

    until next time, social circles into social web

  • When the mass gets social…

    While there have been many negative reactions to the way the media handled the recent Mumbai events, I came across a few interesting ones that were a direct attack on the brands involved.

    One is a Facebook group demanding that Barkha Dutt be taken off air. At the time of writing this, I can see 1666 members in the group, and some pretty angry outbursts on the Wall. The photos are quite expressive too. The others were this post, and this, which talk about the Lead India campaign by TOI, and ask very pointed questions on where the winner is, and about collective responsibilities. Since news is a daily commodity, and has a way of affecting the audience more than say, the toothpaste used everyday, the media’s relationship with the audience is at a different level altogether, and that’s a double edged sword, as the examples above show.

    It set me thinking on the evolution of media brands, and also a service like Twitter. Mass media and social media have (among other things) one point in common – they’ve both been built on a certain amount of trust. I read a newspaper/watch a channel because I trust them to verify the content they give me, provide analysis and take outs and give me enough objective information to form a perspective. They’re filters. A service like twitter works on trust, among peers, and can be a wonderful filter, but only on very few occasions does it provide original content. Though the trust factor weighs heavily in favour of twitter, the difference in scale (of content) makes a comparison quite premature. But meanwhile, social media, by its very nature, is more or less transparent. Vested interests will come out sooner or later, the system has a way of bringing it out. Somewhere down the line, mass media has failed on this count.

    In an era where news has become a commodity, media brands have had to differentiate themselves somehow to remain relevant. One way to achieve this is through packaging, which, these days mostly amounts to sensationalism. Another way is through specific properties that people identify with. In some cases, this would be the same as packaging, and in others, it would mean creating something new – like a campaign. However efforts on both counts have perhaps resulted in the erosion of trust, and a negativity towards the excesses of coverage. And that’s where an instant journalism friendly tool like Twitter stepped in, whenever the situation was conducive. And this is not going to go away.

    So what I’m wondering is whether the first brands to feel the effects of a connected social world (in India) would be media brands, as opposed to say a toothpaste or a cola brand, or even a service like banking/telecom, simply because while other product categories can use social media as a tool,  media brands instinctively start looking at the twitter brand of reporting, as competition. I’d say that twitter has always been giving news to me, at the thin end of the long tail. This time, the information was such that  it interested the massive head of the long tail, and the aggregation was something no single channel could possibly do. The interesting part of the MSM vs Twitter journalism debate is that while all those who use Twitter can comment on MSM and its excesses, there are very few in MSM who can and do speak of the pros and cons of Twitter. 🙂

    To me, mass media has to handle itself on two levels. One, at a product level, it means that mass media have to get back to the basics -making sure that it provides the reading/viewing audience all the facts required to make an informed opinion, and then going a step further than the regular ‘SMS your views’ concept, and making sure that they take a stance that’s in alignment with the audience’s views. On a brand and communication level, they’ll have to walk the talk, roll out campaigns that don’t just pay lip service to issues that the audience cares about. Social media could help on both counts. But MSM has to do this now, when its brand equity and reach is far far more than social media. I can see some action already – Eyes and Ears, and A Billion Hands.

    until next time,  reporting vs journalism

  • Change we need?

    Considering the nature of the post, its a bit of paradoxical way to start. But it is the place the thought started – Dina’s post on The Paradox of the Wisdom of Crowds. It made me look at the way this blog has evolved. But before that, about the matter under discussion – in the attempts to make sure that we’re ‘tuned in’ to the blogosphere, we’ve begun to recycle posts and thoughts so much that there is very less of independent thinking. See, I told you it was a paradox.

    When i started this blog, the intention was only to have a place where i could air my ‘brand’ thoughts, in an Indian context. Because there was very little blog content around that (at least that i knew of) the thoughts were fairly independent. But somewhere down the line, the social media bug bit me, and I started writing about that too.

    That also meant that I had to follow the thought leaders in the social media/internet scene. So the Google Reader was stuffed with ‘Those Who Shall Not be Named’, and the list kept growing till (now) it’s a race against time to finish reading the stuff. As i commented on Dina’s post, I really don’t have the time to be original, and am (unfortunately) willing to chew on the nth generation cud, and pass it on to whoever is next.

    But, my way of adding value has been very simple. I aggregate from diverse sources and try to push the ideas along a line of thought. That’s very little originality. Even if i have to pat myself on the back, it can only be for stepping back and trying to see a pattern. Actually, a short while before Dina’s post, my thoughts had been going in this direction. But before we get to that, i feel there are two kinds of pressure that i can easily discern when writing about social media, web etc. One is ‘breaking’ news, the other is ‘knowing’ news. I am not in the former so I don’t feel that pressure. But I am not immune to the other. So there are links that show that I ‘know’ the news. This is because I’d hate some guy commenting (not that i get many) ‘Oh, XYZ had this article you should read. In it, he……..’  Childish, but true!! I’ve also been thinking whether sub consciously, it was a behaviour similar to some brands i rant about – a way of keeping the conversation in one’s own territory. But the result of these games is that I end up creating content for the people who write about similar things .. a very cyclical way of content generation.

    Nothing wrong with a self sustaining system, but its not great for an emerging scenario like social media, where new thoughts are the order of the day. Otherwise, if everyone links to everyone else, and everyone read everyone else, er, someday we’ll all figure out we’ve been moving in circles.

    But something changed, and that’s what made me think on a change in direction – my increased usage of Friendfeed, where I am able to share my Google Reader ‘knowing news’. 🙂 Of course, that’s a lil race too. Because I realise after i shared, that I am duplicating what someone has already shared. So, a few corrective measures that I’ve planned – a churning of the feeds I have subscribed in Google Reader, reading FF before sharing the Reader stuff, and through these I hope I can effect some changes in the contents of this blog, and add more value here.

    The only thing that worries me, though, is that I have no clue what the readers of the blog want. So,  before I adjust the content according to my learning curve, I’d like to hear from you. Also, i have a rating mechanism for your perusal. Right beneath the title on the post page. Please use that liberally. And then, i shall hope that the wisdom of the crowds will guide me.

    until next time, sorry Obama