Apologies for the lack of new content. Between work and a hospital stay it’s been slow going.

Will be updating regularly again shortly.

Techcrunch reports that Facebook is proposing a ban on sponsored updates by users and any other monetisation activities of profiles on the site.¹ However, FB, or rather advertisers using FB, can still utilise user data and photos for their own ads. Even adjusting privacy settings on FB only prevents Facebook itself from using user photos in “social” adverts. Third party apps and other parts of the site can still, in theory, access user photos and information for advertising purposes whether the user approves of it or not.²

But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to it’s advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms; from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.

If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees it’s users as a potential threat to it’s financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built it’s fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation³ and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.⁴

1. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/facebook-proposes-to-ban-sponsored-status-updates/ [↩]
2. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/07/hey-peter-the-ad-said-hot-singles-are-waiting-for-you-he-might-have-dismissed-the-advertisement-which-appeared-on-his-fa.html [↩]
3. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/28/want-some-facebook-stock-at-a-3-billion-valutation-we-know-who-to-call/ [↩]
4. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE54L5VV20090522 [↩]

I came across a set of new videos on Seth Godin’s blog.¹ One of the videos, on using social networking sites for business, was particularly interesting.

With typical clarity Godin cuts straight to the heart of the matter; any networking should be about making genuine actionable connections with people. It’s the quality and depth of the relationships within a network, rather than the size of it, that makes difference in business performance.

But in the same breath B2B social networking shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand since it depends on how a business’s social networking is managed. The central issue is whether or not there’s an online networking strategy in place that can benefit the business in concrete terms. How are you measuring networking success? Do the connections you make online further your overall business objectives? Are there methods in place to leverage the fleeting contact and attention gained by initial contact through an online social network? Is your business’s social networking selective and targeted? Is there some way you can add value to the interactions you and a potential partner have online?

When someone reads your business’s profile or interacts with your content their attention, for a few moments only, is totally focused on your company’s space. It’s up to each business to figure out the best way of maximising the potential of that contact. It’s not a question of whether or not it’s possible to build an online network. Rather, it’s a question of whether or not your business has the framework in place to utilise that network in the best possible way.

1. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/07/four-videos-about-noise-social-and-decency.html [↩]

The relationship between brands and the blogosphere has generally been characterised by failure. Failure to understand the nature of the dialogues that happen within online communities. Failure to respect the cultural attitudes of said communities. And failure to realise what relationship building really means within the online world.

So how can the likes of Walmart¹and McDonald’s,² with their huge PR and marketing budgets, lack the insight and strategy to effectively cope with something as straight-forward as blogging? It boils down to aims, culture, and a growing consumer resistance to brand communications³ Bloggers, like most web users, want to discuss and share authentic content. Brands want to sell and promote. The two aims aren’t mutually exclusive but brands struggle to reconcile the difference because of the second reason; business and marketing culture.

Traditional offline brand management thinks in terms of media buys, sales funnels, and the sort of advertorialising that ensures a brand message is repeated as many times as possible. This approach has given rise to a multitude of semi-successful-at-best corporate blogs; seldom discussed and often ignored. And if obvious promotion doesn’t work then there’s always “stealth marketing” to get around consumer resistance. The result? Well if Sony’s,⁴ Walmart’s, and Mazda’s⁵ experiences are anything to go by then it’s epic fail all the way. It’s all the more surprising since it goes against the very principles that good marketing communication is built on; Creatively synch your message to the needs and attitudes of your target market, speak the language of the consumer, and you’re more likely to be listened to. But as soon as brands go online something almost always gets lost in translation.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=49505 [↩]
2. Retrieved August 5, 2009  http://www.blogherald.com/2005/02/07/mcdonalds-outed-for-fake-typepad-blog/ [↩]
3. Retrieved August 4, 2009 http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/116672977.html [↩]
4. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=113945 [↩]
5. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.marketingvox.com/mazdas_blogviral_campaign_falls_flat-017206/ [↩]

Whilst browsing Ben Haim’s blog¹ I came across a great series of visuals by David Armano². One of them, shown here, shows the interplay between social media fragmentation and influence. The ripples between individuals nicely illustrate how Social Influentials, one of the subject of today’s Basics post, affect their networks and accelerate the spread of communications. As well as discussing Socials I’ll also look at blogging, social network theory, and online PR.

Social Influentials, e-Fluentials, Digerati, New Media Mavens…The terms are often used interchangeably but they all refer to net users who are more engaged with the online world more than average. These individuals participate in online and offline communities, discussing and sharing topics of interest as they do so. They don’t always have leadership roles but they do have authority and influence. Basically, when Socials speak people listen

One of the main reasons Socials have credibility stems from the fact that they’re seen as community members rather than as outsiders trying to push an agenda. In effect Socials are the opinion leaders in an ongoing series of dialogues and discussions. But because those discussions are web-based Socials have the potential to reach millions of individuals through the use of their personalised web-spaces.

Unsurprisingly, Socials are often regarded as vital in driving the spread of online communications, so much so that companies have recruited Socials to represent their brands online. The Corporate Socials are a relatively new, but potentially important addition, to the social media landscape.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.benhamin.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7855449@N02/sets/72157606844282993/ [↩]

Blogging about the need for innovation during the financial crisis reminded me of this inspiring Juan Enrique TED presentation¹ made earlier this year.

In the first 7 minutes Mr Enrique succinctly, and often hilariously, summarises the current financial downturn. Some of the causes and consequences of the recession are discussed and possible short-term solutions to the crisis are outlined. In the latter part of the talk Mr Enrique, a leading tech and economics expert,² presents a fascinating insight into how innovative technologies could solve our global economic problems and radically alter how we work and live.

1. Retrieved July 28, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcLKbJs3xk [↩]
2. Retrieved July 28, 2009 http://www.biotechonomy.com/juan.htm [↩]

I just found out recently that the US Debt Clock has gone digital¹. Now we can all watch the US economy haemorrhage in real time. And in case you’re wondering, US debt stands at about $11 trillion as of today.

Late last year the real world US Debt Clock was shut down. The reason? In the decade since the Clock was first launched the US has racked up over $10 trillion in debt. Ten. Trillion. That’s a whole lot of zeros. So many in fact that the Clock didn’t have enough digits to cope and had to be switched off.

The Clock was first launched in 1989 by real estate developer Seymour Durst and apart from a short period from 2000 to 2002 had seen the US debt climb from around $3 trillion to a whopping $10 trillion in 2008².

The accuracy of the Clock is debatable, the US debt actually exceeded 10 trillion in 2006³.  The real strength of the Debt Clock lay in what it symbolised. A stark reminder of the state of the US’s finances it received particular media attention during times of economic turmoil. For myself, the Debt Clock was one of the most interesting sights to see in New York. Set in the heart of Manhattan it contrasted powerfully with the commercial grandeur of Time’s Square. To this day I’m convinced Mr Durst, the Clock’s creator, would have made a fine political satirist had he not gone into real estate.

Of course where the US goes the UK is bound to follow; when  it  comes to the epic national debt premier league we come in a close second⁴, far ahead of France our closest competition in debt.

1. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_clock [↩]
3. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tepper-marlin/the-us-10trilliondollar-d_b_67196.html [↩]
4. Retrieved July 23, 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=United%20Kingdom&countryCode=uk&regionCode=eu#uk [↩]

Earlier this year Burger King launched the Whopper Sacrifice on Facebook. Over a 10 day run around 23,000 FB users downloaded and interacted with the application¹. The popularity and innovation of the app garnered plaudits from both the mainstream and digital marketing press as well as from social media commentators and observers.

The response from Web 2.0 pundits was typically guarded; Whilst everyone agreed the campaign was innovative, concerns ranged from doubts about ROI and execution² to musings on how web 2.0 has “changed our ideas of what friendship really means”³. ROI aside, an FB application that causes grown adults to worry about the social fabric has to be doing something right. But what’s the real significance of BK’s Sacrifice? Read the rest of this entry »

1. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.whoppersacrifice.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 8, 2009 //www.ideablue.com/2009/01/09/whopper-sacrifice-social-media-marketing-roi-done-wrong-buzz-done-good/ [↩]
3. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10211898-36.html [↩]

Using traditional channels, like TV and print, Ad men have attempted to engage consumers with brands for decades. As you can see from the above short¹ Web 2.0 differs from traditional comms in that the flow of information between individuals and organisations is extensively democratised; Communication becomes an interactive, continually evolving process. In traditional forms of marketing comms a consumer is a largely passive receiver of brand messages and is usually the final link in a top-down chain of communication. With digital the consumer becomes a de facto partner in communication spread and acts as an agent in creating dialogue about brands and companies. Of course due to networked nature of new media this dialogue occurs whether an organisation wants it to or not. Which sometimes results in everything from minor PR gaffes to widespread calls  for brand boycotts by digital-savvy consumers.
Read the rest of this entry »

1. Retrieved June 28, 2009 Web 2.0 An Intro in 5 minutes by Prof. Wesch at KSU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE [↩]

After shelving my blogging efforts in the aftermath of a difficult MA thesis I find myself returning to the fold. I plan on building on my thesis work by continuing to explore digital marketing, media, business, and culture. I’d also love to get some interesting discussion going too.

Researching online communities, viral spread, and e-fluentials was rewarding but tricky. Armed with a background in psychology and statistics, a taste for the digital zeitgeist, and a fascination for social media and marketing I attempted to pin down viral phenomena in all its glory.

During the course of the study, I blogged about my investigations as a sort of record-cum-livejournal detailing the many-headed beast of a problem that viral research presented. Read the rest of this entry »