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 its 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 its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its 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.

(more…)

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.

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 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.

(more…)

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