Tag: Google

  • Twitt…er, pay?

    Would you pay for Twitter?’, a very good question, asked by Walt Ribeiro, at his blog. It made me think, and I came to the conclusion that I’d pay (though it all depends on the price). Apparently, I’m in a majority. There’s possibly no ‘pain’ that Twitter is addressing in my case, unless I count the need for every human being to communicate. But I can do that on Facebook, and if its streaming conversation I want, there’s friendfeed, or Kwippy. But yes, twitter has a charm of its own, especially when you start with so many interesting people who share different interests of yours.

    The revenue model for Twitter is something that has caught the imagination of a whole load of people, since everyone, I think, is keen to prevent an ad based model. (yes, including me). The Twitter CEO also agrees. And in a lesser way, there have been discussions on the revenue models of Facebook and Friendfeed as well. A good read on this here. Meanwhile, I read an excellent article, which had a P&G digital guru stating that marketers don’t belong to Facebook. In his own words,

    “What in heaven’s name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?”…. … We hijack their own conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetize it.”

    A superb perspective, I thought. He goes on to wonder who said this (user generated media in general) was media, since all consumers were doing were trying to talk to each other. Its a wonderful line of thought, and when I think about it, I’d have to agree with him. But it makes me wonder about the nice folk who built Twitter and Facebook and Friendfeed. While they are nice people, I doubt if they had such massive charity in mind. They build the infrastructure, they bear the costs, I’m happy using it…for free. I go into a coffee shop, and pay money for the coffee, that’s the basic service, I never wonder if they work on a freemium model. I watch a movie in a theatre, pay money for it, and only grumble when they show ads. I suffer both kinds of monetisation, and still go back. But when the Fail whale happens, i rant, and threaten not to go back. Thankfully, I do go back.  I wonder if there’s something wrong with this scenario.

    So, monetising FB, Friendfeed, Twitter – why is it such a difficult thing? Is it because there’s no tangible value in them? But there must be, considering that millions use them everyday. In fact, I read a post yesterday that shows an example of tangible value created by Twitter. But then, the moment there’s a payment mechanism or an ad model discussed, there’s usually a user revolt. I still remember the extreme reactions to magpie.

    A very long time back, someone thought of leveraging the audience that uses content, that became the fundamental way of running media businesses. Newspaper, television, radio businessses have not been built on content, they have been built on monetising the audience that uses the content. Then, a long time back, the web came into being, and someone started a price war that started at zero. So we had free content, free mail, free IM and we were generally happy. Over a period of time, some learnt to monetise, and Google learnt it so well (hell, without content!!), that it built a Google economy, which I agree, might be an inevitable future. But while the ‘customers get everything for free and advertisers pay for Ad Sense’ model is great for Google, I wonder if it’s fair to demand the same of other services that subsidise our conversations with each other.

    Every UGC driven medium – Flickr, You Tube, Twitter, Facebook etc needs to find its own way of leveraging the audience. Template solutions might be a thing of the past.  Like I replied  to a comment on an earlier post of mine, I know quite a few twitter clients, while i know only one for FB. Facebook ‘s services compels users to visit the site, Twitter’s simplicity doesn’t. Every service is different. Ads are obviously not the greatest of solutions though both Facebook, and You Tube are increasingly going along that path. (Here’s an excellent read on Facebook monetisation) Twitter should find its own way of leveraging the audience its gaining daily. I personally thought the research based model that has been started by SocialToo is worth a shot, as one source of revenue. LinkedIn is already doing it. I also saw Twitpay today, and think there’s potential in it.

    Meanwhile, I feel quite like a hypocrite when i consider services like Twitter Image, which is based on Twitter and charges $100 for a customised Twitter background, while Twitter doesn’t have a business model as far as we can see. I desperately want Twitter to crack their model soon, after all with 2500 plus tweets, there’s a lot of me in Twitter. If Twitter dies, a part of me dies too.

    until next time, a sharing caring world, reluctant to share costs?

  • Web 2.0 and the need for a direction…

    I’d written briefly about the changing nature of blogging earlier, as part of another post, and since that’s a constantly evolving subject matter, I thought this would be a good time to add on to it. A good time, because I read an article recently that Google Friend Connect might be ready for launch. ‘Google Friend Connect lets you add social features to any website or blog’. The press release states that “Visitors to any site using Google Friend Connect will be able to see, invite, and interact with new friends, or, using secure authorization APIs, with existing friends from social sites on the web, including Facebook, Google Talk, hi5, orkut, Plaxo, and more.” That set me thinking on directions, because while i absolutely agree that the blogosphere is alive,well and kicking, this is sure to give it a whole new twist. Another point to note (in the article linked above) is that the nature of blogging is changing, and more rapidly. I feel that the lines between blogging, microblogging, social networking etc are blurring at a dizzying pace.

    So, what is it changing to? I remember a post by Dina, a while back, on the future of social networking, in which her 140 character response was “Networks based on & layered around location, access, presence & context. Those that enhance real-world interactions. Enabling choice, privacy and control”. I also agree that wih web 2.0 we have managed to create a great social platform.

    These networks/platforms could be blogs (powered by say, A Google Friend Connect), microblogging services (customised by you, using tools like Twingr), or social networks – not just the regular ones we’re used to, but unique versions like Sixtent, a very useful tool for those who like distinct boundaries between their personal and professional lives, which allows you to share different sides of yourself to different sets of people, basis your comfort levels and privacy requirements, or Mixtt, which attempts to infuse more reality into social networks (via Startup meme), or Zahdoo, a socio-cognitive utility that ‘takes the social computing to the next level by giving users insight into popular and collective mindset while retaining the relevance and significance to the user’s lifestyle.’ (via IndianWeb2).

    The time is definitely ripe for the social networking scene and social media in general, to get a rejig of sorts, and condense into something that can be more useful to our existence, in both real and virtual terms. Without the creating of this value, the interactions provided by social media might become an exercise in itself. Good, but way below the potential. This rejig could help wonderful services like Twitter evolve robust business models. Now, these business models might differ from the traditional ones that we’re used to, but that’s fine, after all, the businesses themselves are hardly the ones we are used to.

    Social media is a kind of disruption to the regular web we were used to, and like any disruption, it does require time to evolve in a direction that supports itself and its stakeholders- whether they be users, developers or investors. But given that money is intrinsically linked to our daily existence, perhaps its time to take sterner looks at where we are heading, unless of course, we are heading towards another disruption!!

    until next time, i shall start with some personal analytics, courtesy me-trics 🙂

  • Creating Super Brands

    Found an excellent article shared via Reader (thanks to @vimoh) which sought to mash marketing, and more specifically, social media into the life of Superman. Through this example, and three different scenarios, it shows the typical position of an older brand, presented with new competitors and having to cope with a changing media landscape. The article itself is an absolute laugh riot and brings to light the various kinds of social media ‘experts’ operating today, with their own prescriptions for social media triumph. It ends with the simple but (what i consider) correct lesson of staying true to yourself, and doing the best possible you can.

    On a similar context, I found another article that talked about how

    “Soleil-Media Metrics analyst Laura Martin cut her rating on Google to “Hold” from “Buy” and slashed her price target to $350 from $580…saying the company’s practice of giving 10 percent of profits to charity and giving employees one day a week to work on pet projects should end amid the current economic climate………she highlighted another company practice she believes should end – “the confusing myriad of non-revenue producing Google-products in the marketplace.””

    The Google culture has had a tremendous influence on the awesome products that are must-have’s now. Would anyone with that understanding have made a statement like this? I shudder to think what this analyst would say about say, Twitter, if ever it got listed..hmmm

    While I’m definitely not against a revenue model for social media, or an ROI concept for the brands/organisations that involve themselves in social media, I am against the typical Wall Street business analyst’s parameters of returns. Mashable has a good post on figuring out the ROI models in social media. Here is another good post on selling the social media concept in your organisation.

    I absolutely subscribe to this line of thought (via Online Marketing Blog). Applying the regular ROI metrices to social media is going to take away from the essence of what social media is all about. What’s the next step – how do i monetise my relationship with my friend on Facebook?

    Meanwhile, this is a contrarian view on listening to customers, and this is a very interesting read on the busting of Web 2.0. Coming from someone who’s seen it all right from Dotcom Bust 1.0, i think it pays to at least listen.

    If the intent is wrong, social media cannot help. Social media can only help if you have a good product, willingness to involve the users, and accept their feedback to improve the product. If the idea is to simply use social media as just another platform to air commercials/messages, build in templates like ‘corporate blog’ and ‘user generated content’ and then apply typical ROI metrices to track and measure it, social media will disappoint, but a great intent and a great product will have the potential to create a super brand.

    until next time, its a brand new social world…

     

  • Really, Google?

    ….and while there have discussions and rants about the need for brands to start using digital media intelligently, the news is that the greatest internet brand of them all – Google, is all set to do some traditional advertising. Google, which had followed a policy of making good products and then letting WOM do its job, is now thinking of marketing as mere mortals see it. 🙂

    Last week, WSJ carried an article, (via Marketing Pilgrim) which stated that some of its “executives have been pushing for the company to overcome its aversion to paid advertising”. Though the founders don’t seem thrilled about the idea, “the search giant has recently held discussions with several Madison Avenue agencies”. The article also talks about Google having done a ‘100 things you can do with Google’ campaign in Japan, a market which has seen some resistance to the brand’s omnipotence. 

    Google’s annual offline spend has been consistent at about $20 million. But they have always been doing PR, even for the bordering-on-ridiculous GMail Goggles. The launch of the G1 phone, as well as the browser Chrome had a fair bit of PR running for it. Chrome even had a comic book released specifically for its launch. It is said that the brands that tell the best stories manage to gain the maximum mindshare of its audience. Wonder if there’s a correlation 😉

    I think there are a lot of layers to this. The general economy’s slowdown is bound to affect the internet space too, and perhaps the growth is going to plateau. In such a scenario, it is quite possible that Google sees traditional advertising a safe way to get some growth inorganically. After all, thats the way most brands operate. 

    Also, while Google is loved/hated and even seen in awe by netizens, sometimes very little of its aura gets translated into the real world. Perhaps with the real world slowing down, and traditional companies and brands getting hit with budget cuts, this is a good time for Google to take itself to the next level and be seen as a sort of super hero brand that can survive downturns. This is all the more important since rivals like Microsoft and Apple have never shied away from using traditional advertising. 

    Most importantly, and this is something I wish all major web based brands would do, Google, with traditional advertising, could create new audiences by showing them the sheer utility value that it provides. These could even be people who have never used the net before. That would be great news for anyone who wishes well for this medium.

    And therefore, I shall not chant ‘Google is evil’ this once, and cheerlead its foray into traditional advertising.

    until next time, I somehow don’t think Baba Ramdev is Google’s brand ambassador in India, despite this. (via Labnol)

  • Digital User Divides (2 of 3)

    Technorati recently released the ‘State of the Blogosphere 2008‘ report which throws some light on the trends in blogging. While the numbers might indicate that the phenomenon of blogging is also experiencing a slowdown, but that depends on the definition of a blog. With the increasing popularity of micro blogging services and social networks, the stream of consciousness has more than a single host – I could write restaurant reviews on Burrp, 140 character status messages on Twitter, movie or book reviews on an app in Facebook and so on.. and when i read a great post, I might not link it on my blog, but share it on delicious…I might not be blogging as Technorati defines it, but my take on life is still being ‘broadcasted’

    So, like this article, I would say that the medium and forum of expression and the nature of ‘blogging’ is changing. There is no decline in people expressing themselves. Thats growing. As per the technorati report, among global bloggers, 2/3 rds are male, 50% are 18-34 years old, and bloggers are more affluent and educated than the general population. While Technorati divides blogs roughly into personal, professional and corporate, I’d say that the long tail of personal blogs would be quite exhaustive and of key importance to brands. The pointer to this can be found in the report itself ” More than four in five bloggers post product or brand reviews, and blog about brands they love or hate. Even day-to-day experiences with customer care or in a retail store are fodder for blog posts. Companies are already reaching out to bloggers: one-third of bloggers have been approached to be brand advocates.”  There is also an indication of how the credibility of blogs is increasing.

    But let’s not make this about blogs, after all that categorisation is only one parameter of reference as far as the participation on the net goes. There could be micro bloggers, social networking enthusiasts, those who use the net for basic purposes and passive readers!! Even within these groups there are different kinds of users. For example, this post writes about the different types of social media users. and the roles they play in the entire system. I figured I was an EmCee, read the post and let me know if you agree 🙂

    So what does all this signify for brands? A recent study claimed that only 7% of customers shared their disappointment with online transactions on blogs or social networks. While that might look like a tiny number, the perspective that needs to be added is the viral effect that it could create via the readers, and unlike the bad WOM generated offline, which would cease after sometime, the post remains for a long long time.

    Meanwhile, I read a good article a few days back on Google’s work on figuring out a number that would define a user’s influence in social networking sites, basis the same principles as Page Rank. Such an idea has the potential to completely transorm the way brands use online networks. This assumes all the more significance when coupled with the findings of this study. “According to the survey, 93 percent of social media users believe a company should have a presence in social media, while an overwhelming 85 percent believe a company should not only be present but also interact with its consumers via social media. In fact, 56 percent of users feel both a stronger connection with and better served by companies when they can interact with them in a social media environment…….Likewise, of younger, hard-to-reach users (ages 18-34), one-third believe companies should actively market to them via social networks” (via Marketing Pilgrim) While on the topic of social media users, this is a good but slightly off-topic read on the whys or rather why nots of adding people on social networks. There are some good lessons in it for brands too.

    With networks like Facebook offering different ways to interact with consumers, its time that brands took the digital medium seriously and perhaps (at least) test the waters beyond the banners. There is a great article that refers to the digital divide that exists between users and non users of social media, and the role that old media can play in bridging it. It also talks about the ‘ambient intimacy’ of a micro blogging service like Twitter – “The intimacy possible over social media is at best approximate, and the proximity at best ambient. Social media can only approximate the relationships and interactions of the real.”

    I think that brands have a great opportunity to bridge the divide too, and it is important that they utilise it. The new media puts them more in touch with their consumers than ever before, gives them the opportunity to present themselves as stories in the context of their consumers’ lives, bridge the divide as common talking  points in consumers’ lives, allows them to get instant feedback which can be used to better themselves, and make evangelists out of regular users. The alternative, of course, is to continue the one way communication on mass media and hope their shout is the loudest.

    until next time, can a shout be better than a viral whisper?