Industry comment
-
The Future of Social Networking?
I was tempted to call this post ‘The Future of Facebook’, but considering all the anti-Facebook rhetoric out there at the moment I didn’t want to send the wrong message. I like Facebook. I’m in touch with a lot of people I otherwise wouldn’t be because of it, and for that alone I’m grateful. Falling out with Facebook feels like the adolescent trend of falling out with your parents when you realise people aren’t perfect. So this post isn’t about the future of Facebook per-se, but since they’re the biggest social networking game in town, it also sort of is.
Before we go on, let me set out my stall: a few years back, when Facebook reached its tipping point, an old friend signed up and was blown away by what he saw. The words he used to describe it have stuck with me ever since and they form the bedrock on which all my opinions about social networking are built. He called it “Email 2”.
I had to agree with him. Inadvertently, Facebook took everything that was wrong about email and fixed it while at the same time taking a lot of what was good about email and made it better. So I no longer get 200mb emails of photos of some distant relative’s trip to the German Occupational Health & Safety Exhibition clogging up my inbox. People put them on Facebook and I can ignore them there.
I’ve also seen a huge reduction in those über long emails sent to five or more people, who all reply at different times, so coherent conversation is quickly stripped from existence and all you’re left with is something that reads like Lindsey Lohan at an after party. Now, Facebook keeps one continuous thread and all correspondence is more or less organised. Organised enough for me at least.
And then there’s Messages, which isn’t as good as Email 1 in many ways, but I’m sure it’ll get better.
For me though, what’s most important is that I get all that stuff I wouldn’t have otherwise got before because it just didn’t feel like email material. So now I get chirpy little updates when some girl, usually “the one that got away” enters a relationship, sending me into a cycle of critical self assessment and heavy drinking. I know when someone I sort of know, but not well enough to call a friend, is having a party that I can crash. And thanks to Facebook, I’m dynamite at remembering birthdays now too!
And I get all this info in a non-intrusive, passive way. Which works really, really well.
Now Facebook clearly wasn’t the first social network to come along, but it was the first to do social networking well. It could be better, but if history tells us anything (which it doesn’t) it’s that it could also be a lot worse. Facebook also isn’t the only social networking platform on the block. There’s LinkedIn and Twitter to name two very successful ones that are also completely different. And herein lies a problem. For all that Facebook is good at, it’s not so good at what LinkedIn does. I find that there’s some cross over between the two which leaves a gaping hole in Facebook’s and LinkedIn’s collective usefulness since the two are mutually exclusive for the most part. With email, I can communicate directly with anyone else with an email account.
There are many other areas in which Email 1 is better than Email 2 at the moment, but for now I’ll focus on this point; the ability to communicate with people on different social networks is important.
To solve this problem, we need a distributed social networking protocol (DSNP), like the email protocol or HTTP which is how all those webpages get to where they need to be. There needs to be a standard on which all social networks are built. The good news is, people are already working on it, like this guy.
A DSNP would allow people to treat their social network like they treat their email. It means you’d be able to up sticks and leave Facebook to join another social network, and take all your important info with you. You wouldn’t be tied to anything and you wouldn’t lose anything in the move. I also predict a wealth of web based, mobile and desktop social networking applications that present your social networking content in different ways, allowing you to choose a service that best suits your tastes.
There is, however, one very big obstacle standing in the way. Facebook, and its $50 billion valuation.
First of all, this would mean a complete rebuild of Facebook, and right now, what’s the point? They’re king of the hill.
Secondly, there’s no economic incentive to motivate Facebook to make it easy for you to leave. I’m not implying that they’re anti competitive and therefore they’re evil, but they are a business with investors, and they’ll be just as resistant to change as the record labels were to digital downloads. No right thinking business will willingly harm its bottom line. In fact, doing so is illegal in most countries.
But here’s the rub. That’s YOUR data, and there are reams of data protection laws that mean you’re entitled to your data at all times. And since all that is needed to get access to every little bit of data in your Facebook account is your email address and password, there’s no reason why transferring all your current social networking to another couldn’t be automated.
So that’s my prediction for the future of social networking. Diversity and portability enabled by a distributed social networking protocol. As for Facebook, they’ll take a big hit, as will LinkedIn and Twitter, but they have a huge head start so if they’re responsive to change in a positive way, there’s no reason they couldn’t carve out a very profitable chunk of the market for themselves. If they don’t they will fail.
People tend to think of the web as a destroyer of old school business models, but it moves so fast that brand new, state of the art business models that are still in beta can be eaten up just as easily. The more popular the trend, the faster the momentum, and social networking is definitely ‘on trend’ right now. It’s here to stay, of that we can be certain. The top and tail of all this however is that Facebook’s $50 billion valuation is untenable. Its business model won’t survive if a DSNP gains any sort of traction. If that happens, someone’s going to lose a lot of money.
-
20 Things About Browsers
The Google team, or more specifically the Google Chrome Team have posted a wonderfully quaint introduction to browsers at 20thingsilearned.com in the form of an illustrated e-book. Putting aside the funky typesetting decisions for a moment, it’s interesting for three reasons.
Firstly, all those fancy page turn transitions and little animations (traditionally something people would use Flash to accomplish) are all implemented with CSS3 which puts this squarely in the HTML5 camp. Online magazine/book style viewers have been around for a few years and while their overall usefulness and usability can be called into question, this does further illustrate the constantly decreasing relevance of Flash.
Secondly, it’s a reminder of just how important browsers are to Google, and how important it is that ordinary people know what one is. On the face of it that may sound crazy, surely everyone knows what a browser is these days. However, If you’ve ever had a friend of family member “lose the internet” because they misplaced the “blue e” icon then you’ll know what I mean. These are the people who create most of Google’s revenue and to maintain a competitive advantage with the tools and services they offer, they need to somehow let the masses know that the “blue e” isn’t the Internet, and that Google Chrome is a better, more advanced window onto the World Wide Web.
Thirdly, Google is going head to head with Microsoft and Apple these days as they attempt to pitch the open web as the operating system. As far as I know, Google Chrome is the only browser to ever have its own dedicated TV Ad Campaign so they’re clearly ready and willing to spend a lot of cash promoting their strategy, but the need to explain something so ubiquitous illustrates just how unique a problem they have to tackle. You don’t see Microsoft publishing “This is a computer” articles and there’s no owners manual with iPhones or iPads. It’s odd that something most people use hundreds of times a day is still so greatly misunderstood.
Back to the article in question though. It’s an interesting read and even hyper-super-giga-geeks like me should give it a once over. It never hurts to brush up on the fundamentals and what with all the new frameworks and buzz words being bandied around these days it’s easy to lose track of what the internet is and what it’s for.
-
The social media ‘cherry’
The web is full of social media experts all with varying degrees of capability. If you take time to read any blog posts, tweets, etc around the subject of social media, it soon becomes apparent that the same content is regurgitated again and again….and again. Having read, sat through presentations and had many discussions concerning the social web, one thing is very clear; there are in fact very few people who have a real in-depth understanding, especially when it comes to quality and effective consumer interaction.
Understanding the intimate workings of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, FriendFeed, Foursquare, etc. is all well and good, but how does this help enhance consumer engagement? The answer is: it doesn’t. The social web is a fantastic medium; it offers immediacy and accessibility to anyone (as individuals or in groups) who choose to use it. However, as great as it is, it is only under exceptional circumstances where it has real value on its own. It’s essential for it to be fully integrated and complimentary of all other communication channels, online and offline.
99% of the time (and 65% of statistics are made up on the spot) effective interaction and engagement requires many communications channels working in harmony. These channels include offline mediums such as print, events, TV and radio. But, before you can decide which channels to use and create the magic mix for maximum engagement, there are three things which must be considered.
1. People:
• Exactly who are you trying to engage with?
• Where are they?
• How do they behave?
• What are their expectations?2. Objectives:
• What are you trying to achieve?
• Is it creating awareness and interest?
• Is it based on sales and conversions?
• Is it about encouraging advocacy amongst existing loyal customers?3. Content:
• Does your content have value?
• Will people talk about it?
• Will they align their own credibility to it and share it?Without understanding the above in detail; agreeing the key performance measures and indicators, it is impossible to select the correct mix of communication channels. Although many organisations do it; setting up a Twitter channel and using it to pump out marketing messages believing they are “sorted”. The most probable outcome of this knee jerk tactic is a tarnishing of the associated brand.
Today, people multi-task and they are lazy. Not the best compliment, but it’s true. Sitting in front of the TV with a laptop or smartphone in close proximity, and maybe a big bag of Doritos too. If measured correctly, it is clear such things as TV advertising or any mentions on TV research programmes (i.e. Watchdog, Panorama, Loose Women etc) are driving more online activity. The same can be said for radio, especially digital radio. This activity may not result in increased visitors to an organisation’s website directly…people don’t behave this way anymore. People will talk to friends online and therefore this triggers activity on Facebook and Twitter; increased search activity, which then may result in additional website traffic. The more accessible, visible and responsive an organisation is across all these areas the stronger the likelihood of achieving your objectives. But remember the initial “trigger” comes from compelling content from other media.
So what is this post saying? If you have already, or are thinking about embarking on a “social media campaign”, consider what it is you wish to achieve from it and who it is you wish to engage with. I guarantee you won’t achieve your objectives by using social web alone. Also a “campaign” is not suited to social media. If you decide to incorporate a social web presence as part of your overall communications approach; you need to realise that you’re in it for the longer term. It’s a strategic medium offering an on-going dialogue, requiring continual management. It isn’t tactical and not an isolated channel…it’s part of a much bigger mix. You need the cake, before you can put the cherry on the top.
Karl Havard has been involved in the online world for 12 years plus. He has a deep understanding of all aspects of the social web, and the key role it can play across all areas of a business and consumer brand interaction. He is the Founder of pownum and of Somatica Digital, a small but beautifully formed consumer brand trust consultancy. We’re please to welcome Karl as the first of our guest authors on the Applied Works blog – we’ll be featuring further guests here in future.
-
Stereoscopy
I had the pleasure of watching Alice in Wonderland on Friday evening (one of the many perks of having children of a certain age). It was everything you’d expect of a Tim Burton film and I’d recommend a watch, but I’m not going to review the film, it’s the experience of watching it in 3D that prompted me to write this post.
This year could prove a very interesting one in the history of 3D viewing, with Sky’s 3D channel set to launch this Saturday with coverage of Manchester United v Chelsea, and 3D TV sets about to hit the market in the UK (albeit for several thousand pounds each). But does the experience of watching 3D really live up to the hype? Personally, I find it extremely hit and miss – and for the most part a distraction to what you’re watching.
Stereoscopy has been around since the 1840s, when it was invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone. Originally, you’d view a pair of stereo images through a viewer resembling a pair of binoculars, so that each eye sees only the left or right image to create the effect of depth. Indeed, if you look the wrong way through a pair of binoculars at a pair of stereo images you can effectively make your own stereoscope – something I had great fun experimenting with whilst at college with a pair of 35mm cameras.
If you’ve ever seen one, there’s something quite magical about viewing antique stereo images from the turn of the last century. An image so far removed from the present suddenly becomes tangible, like you can reach out and touch it.
Unfortunately, that magic struggles to transcend beyond the novelty factor in the cinema. You’re suddenly hit with objects flying out at you in deep, exaggerated perspective, that detract from, rather than enhance the narrative. The most effective shots are those where you forget you’re watching in 3D, you just feel that much closer to the story.
Its a shame 3D material is reliant on such a controlled viewing environment to be appreciated. Despite the gimmicky nature of 3D, it remains a fascinating area I’d like to explore further. For starters, it’d be really interesting to work up the animation we created for Dealerward in true 3D.
There have been many false dawns in the advent of 3D, during the fifties and eighties in particular, but with Hollywood and Sky now embracing the technology it finally looks like 3D will be here to stay.