June 27, 2010

A quick and dirty study on Social Media

I’ve noticed lately that my buying behavior has been switching to brands who are on social media and, more importantly, brands who would engage with me (more on that soon). I wanted to see if I was an oddity or a norm here.

So, like anybody else would on a Sunday I created a 30 second survey on Google Docs and Tweeted. This is by no means a comprehensive survey but a quick and dirty fact finding mission. As many of the respondents (around 65%) located the survey on Twitter you can say that the pool is somewhat biased when comparing channels. For those wanting real specifics, n=40 (with two disqualified for incomplete information, not bad for an hour on Sunday afternoon). Read into the results as you wish, my followers helped me collect the data so it is only fair I share it.

70% of respondents indicated that a companies social media account influences their purchase decisions. All users who responded to this survey are clearly social media savvy (and thus the results are only applicable to a similar crowd) but it does demonstrate that people on these channels expect representation from businesses.

60% of all respondents indicated social media as part of their purchase criteria (the difference here being that a company must be on social media to make a purchase) and that they have purchased from a company because they were active on social media where competitors were not. Again, this applies only to a social media crowd but shows that non-savvy small businesses are likely losing sales for not being present.

most influential social media channel

Respondents were then asked to specify the most important social media channel when investigating purchase options / companies. Twitter was considered the most important channel, perhaps due to ease of access and simplicity. Company blogs came in last; my best guess on this one is that company blogs are rarely conversations whereas Facebook Pages and Twitter profiles are often very conversation heavy.

most popular social media marketing channels

Respondents were then asked to rank important factors when evaluating a channel; specifically, when two products / companies maintain social media channels and the user is making decisions. The rate of activity and level of interaction came in at number 1 which, as mentioned earlier, may be why Twitter and Facebook were considered more important than blogs.

Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, 30% of respondents indicated they regularly pay a higher price for products active on social media over competitors who are not. We already knew social media was an important evaluation tool but this number was somewhat surprising to me.

Read into the facts as you will. As always I love the e-mail, Twitter and comment feedback.

June 8, 2010

In which I delete 4,000 LinkedIN Contacts

I’m expecting a flaming for this one but here goes. Last Thursday, the 3rd of June I deleted over 4,000 of my 1st level LinkedIn contacts bringing me down to a healthy 68 (see the profile here.)

Removing that many contacts is sure to frustrate some people though I feel I vetted out my contracts correctly. More importantly, why did I do this?

  • LinkedIn is a platform that works best when you have fewer, close contacts. When I joined LinkedIn many moons ago things were a little different, this was years before there were even profile pictures (there was so much hype behind that change by the way.) There were no Twitter’s, Facebook Fan Pages were not yet attracting enough professionals, LinkedIn was the place to be to make connections. Now I have tools such as Twitter, my blog and Facebook Pages to mass interact with my audience.
  • Most of this audience did not truly want to be connected anyway (flame away.) I’m not saying all Open Networkers are bad but a majority are address book collecters. Anybody who needs to promote that they have 8,000+ connections is 1) too ego-driven to work with me and 2) has way too many people in their core group to do any meaningful networking.
    • Because of this you can’t do business with most Open Networkers. They simply are not interested, play it as a collectors game, wonder you reach out to them or don’t see your message among everybody elses.
  • The spam was horrible. LinkedIN has few mass administration tools and people I barely knew were able to hit me with self-promotion questions and messages. Honestly, I wasn’t interested, if you want to promote be open about it. By the time I cleared my spam it was time to move on and I barely got time to interact.

Since deleting everybody my LinkedIn experience has been better and far more successful. I no longer accept invitations from everybody I know. We need to have a solid business relationship or have had profound talks at a conference to be connected there. Otherwise you will just have to deail with my Twitter, blog, phone and e-mail. Like my Facebook LinkedIn is now exclusive.

April 23, 2010

Free eBook: Social Media Workout

I have a confession to make. Supposedly I have been co-writing an ebook on all things web with @NatalieSisson. Due to time commitments I was unable to further my work with Natalie (this time). The good news is she has just released a fantastic (and free!!) eBook giving brief, bite sized workouts to improve your effiency and results in the major social media channels.

Want a taste? The Contents are below:

Workout 1: Back to Basics
Workout 2: Get Facebook Fit
Workout 3: Tone up with Twitter
Workout 4: Exercise Control Of Email
Workout 5: Lunging into LinkedIn
Workout 6:  Make Movie Muscle
Workout 7: Website Weightlifting
Workout 8: Build a Better Blog

It’s totally free so what do you have to lose? Click here to be redirected to Natalie’s WomanzWorld and get your copy.

March 6, 2009

An oversight on 'Social Networks over-valued?'

Just a quick update, I forgot to make a mention on my last blog about our reliance on advertisements – so I will keep this entry quick!

The social network QQ from China earned $523 million in revenues for 07-08, four times that of Facebook. Interestingly, only 13% of their revenue came from advertising – most of it came from Games and Mobile Services.

Perhaps this is where our Social Networks should be looking? It is funny how alot of Western businesses place advertising as their primary source of income where the rest of the world choose to innovate.

March 2, 2009

Social Networks over-valued?

Ok, I’m addicted to Twitter – it often provides me with plenty of food for thought. A few days weeks ago now I received a Tweet from a long time connection of mine, SunnyC. Sunny had recently read that Twitter was preparing to monetise and we both wondered whether this would change the service in a fundamental way.

It made me think – so many of the larger social networks… Facebook, Myspace & Twitter all hold such high values and communicate with so many individuals – yet are failing to turn this into a profit considerable enough to reflect their value or reach! Rupert Murdoch has managed to quote the blatantly obvious here, ‘I think we need to find new ways to monetise our huge audiences.’

Let’s take a look at the situation. Facebook, arguably the largest social network around earns less that its competitors. It’s struggle to monetize has been public, with failed attempts with Beacon, Inline ads and the lowest click through rate of any social network. The bottom line is that Facebook users just ignore ads (for the most part) and marketers are shunning Facebook and preferring something results driven. The few large-corporation run campaigns on Facebook attract plenty of users but little more than a small flurry of activity. I’m struggling to see how Facebook will live up to its multi-billion dollar value, and I, for one, would not take Facebook stock as a payment for anything.

When Rupert Murdoch purchased Myspace, then-larger than Facebook, for $580 million it was considered a shrewd business move; the value of Myspace was considered to be 10x that. Yet, in the last lot of results I saw Myspace added only $7 million to Murdoch’s first quarter profits. Google was quick to jump into bed with Myspace, signing an exclusive ad deal with the network at a minimum cost of $900 million. Last I checked Google was still in this contract at a loss.

Clearly, both Myspace and Facebook are failing to bring in the dollars. Twitter is yet to try and has been taking its time coming up with a strategy (the first attempt at revenue is expected to be this April). Todd Dagres, a major investor in Twitter, consistently claims that Twitter is working towards a long term, profitable business model – and I can not wait to see what it is. It is claimed that these changes will not hinder the current user experience on Twitter, and from what I could find out, Twitter will generate money from:

  • Targeting large corporations who interact with customers online, i.e. Starbucks
  • Focus on listening more than interacting
  • The topic of advertising has been discussed, yet Twitter is a very personal medium. Any ads in Twitter would need to be non obtrusive and personal (much like Facebook tried, and failed, at).

My guess here is to provide reports as to what people are saying about their brand, yet several Twitter scan services already exist. With buyout offers exceeding $500 million, it is going to be interesting to see if Twitter can be the first to live up to its price tag. I do feel that a company scan and activity monitor is useful to companies and could be profitable, but it would only be useful if it is able to canvass all social networking mediums. I seriously doubt that Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and the likes can all co-operate on that one!

The bottom line is that these social networks have incredible reach, high values and very interactive user experiences yet consistently fail to earn considerable profits. Especially in an economy where we need to cut down on such experiments, it is going to be interesting to see how these companies survive and if they really are worth the hype!

Google actually think they have a solution, but this blog entry is too long as it is. I’d like to finish this blog off on a relevant (and very true) quote from Time magazine on social media and its profitability.

‘‘The value of content has never been ethereal. It has always been tied directly to what owners could ‘get’ for it, either through advertisers or subscribers. For content to have value, it could never be free. Its position as royalty depended on that.’

February 9, 2009

Facebook Connect – A few concerns

I have been wondering what to write for my first entry on this new shiney blog. I considered importing some of my favourite old blog posts but thought that a little cheap; it is something I will do in time. Then my brain kicked in and I thought I would start with some concerns I have over Facebook Connect, the new service from Facebook. I was researching this service with the scope of Innovative Business for an academic paper. I won’t bore you with the lengthy piece but a few things still bug me about the service they are running.

  • Firstly, we are heralding this as ‘new thinking’ and ‘innovative’, yet I can’t help but think this is a power grab. Widespread adoption of the Connect service makes Facebook the de-facto login standard on many websites, giving it a little too much power. Could this stop some users from joining non-connect affiliated websites?
  • Connect may provide Facebook with the ability to track external user movement and thus better target ads. I’m all for well targeted ads but this raises many privacy concerns (and Facebook are not known for their strength in user privacy).
  • I also worry because Facebook has a history of bullying smaller companies (see the case against Brazilian ‘Power’). Power allowed people to view snippets of Facebook feeds on the Power website. Facebook claim this caused irreparable damage and can steal user bases (yet ironically, Facebook gains many users via automatically inviting Gmail / MSN friends). Jumping to litigation was their first response with Power – can smaller companies adopting connect afford that?
  • Facebook has also recently become prominent in OpenID by joining the board. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, they really are competing services. We can talk about cooperation all we want, if Facebook users adopt OpenID (with its current structure) Facebook loses money!

With all of these criticisms being aired, I am not totally against Connect. It is a great service and hell, I have even implemented it on this blog. However, with Facebooks reputation for poor privacy controls (remember Beacon?) I do worry about the long term direction..just a little!