Google+: Why it Will Grow Quickly & What it Means for Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

By Andrew | Published: June 30, 2011

Google+ is going to grow fast. Very fast. Here’s why:

1. No approvals required – just add people. Add them to any group – there’s no reason to hesitate by asking “is this person really a friend…?” since they can be added to “coworkers,” “odd people,” “just following but don’t know,” etc.

2. Gmail integration – Buzz tried to force its way down our throats via Gmail, whereas G+ is so much more subtle – it’s there if you want it (and super intuitive), yet unobtrusive. Except of course that it tempts you by indicating when you have new notifications (just a simple number in the corner of the screen). But this means Google+ will never really be “out of site, out of mind.” (more on that below)

Plus automatic email alerts will keep many interested in growing their networks for at least some time.

3. Google+ leverages your contacts and behavioral information (largely from Gmail). That means Google+ already knows who you’re likely to connect with – because you already have a history with them. And it all but adds them to various circles for you, with easy recommendations. Charlene Li wrote about this:

Google knows your top contacts as well as who you frequently email together as a group (parents of your child’s class, book club, family reunion email list, etc.) and uses that information to drive the insight needed to suggest natural groups for you to form inside of Google+ Circles.

Google can leverage all of that behavioral information into helping you easily manage your relationships. Because face it–who you share with, how often, and with what other people you do that sharing provides valuable insight into the nature of the relationships.

What it means for Facebook:

Primarily: that black bar will keep us ever-connected. Basically the objective is to keep us on Google properties and spend less time on Facebook.

Also: Google is incorporating analytics features to measure what +1 does for site owners using Google’s Wemaster Tools, so they can see how a change in +1s corresponds to a change in click-through rate (CTR). That means site owners can see a clear correlation between +1 (social), and CTR (search), which should encourage them to be more active in incorporating the +1 feature.

That’s pretty huge: site owners care a whole lot about metrics, and Google is giving them a good reason to use +1 on their pages – which Google would ultimately like to displace Facebook’s “like” button. Of course, with a plugin site owners can measure the impact of “likes,” too. But that’s not default.

What it means for Twitter:

Google+ “circles” are a bit like “lists” in Twitter – you can easily get a snapshot of everything going on, but then go to specific groups of people. I think it’s very likely people will treat Google+ as more open than Facebook, and more like Twitter – which means the average number of connections will be much higher on G+ than FB. Part of the reason is the ability to add anyone to any group without the implied closeness of a “friend.”

What it means for LinkedIn:

As it’s easier to segment groups of people, Google+ can easily be used as a tool to connect with present and former coworkers, as well as recruit or find jobs. That could make things interesting for LinkedIn.

Posted in Facebook, Google, Social Media | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Focus on the People, not the Technology

By Andrew | Published: January 11, 2011

In yet another nod to how social technologies are disrupting global governance, Foreign Affairs just published Clay Shirky’s “The Political Power of Social Media” in its January/February issue. (The last issue included a paper by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen that discussed similar topics, called “The Digital Disruption”)

For someone typically looking at social from a business perspective, the paper highlights similarities in how social is affecting both business and government, and underscores the importance of looking at parallels between the two: something I wrote about following “The Digital Disruption.”

In “The Political Power of Social Media,” Shirky argues that “access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation,” and that governments — especially our own — should be at least as, or more, concerned with foreign efforts to limit conversation than attempts to limit the dissemination of information.

Whether in business or governance, those policies that focus on people and relationships first, and technologies second, are most likely to be impactful. The technologies don’t matter without the people and their ability to use them. While Shirky is never quite so succinct — and certainly there is more to it than that — that is ultimately the basis of his argument.

As evidence, Shirky points to the printing press, which “helped democratize Europe by providing space for discussion and agreement among politically engaged citizens.” The printing press certainly increased the capacity to spread ideas, but also — and more important to the spread of democracy — increased the opportunity for engagement and discourse. One of the most disruptive aspects of social technologies is the ability for an individual not only to easily receive contant, but also to broadcast it. That, of course, is having significant implications for business and governance alike.

The other key point Shirky makes is that the technologies that are ultimately most effective at bringing about political freedom and democracy are those aimed at and used by a broader audience, rather than those specifically designed to defeat censorship. After all, it’s more difficult to revoke services that have greater adoption — especially those used by businesses and that contribute to a country’s economic development.

Shirky clearly wants the U.S. to advocate primarily — and perhaps solely — for increased “freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly everywhere,” rather than focusing on technological solutions.

As social technologies proliferate, and social engagement changes the world over, businesses and governments increasingly need to recognize that individuals — consumers and citizens — have more influence than ever. The tools enable, but it is the people and their ability to interact that matters most. It has been and will continue to be very interesting to see how various businesses and governments react to this sweeping paradigm shift.

Posted in Government 2.0, Social Media | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Facebook: not just for college kids anymore (in case you hadn’t heard).

By Andrew | Published: December 19, 2010

The other day Augie Ray retweeted this comment:

That’s not exactly a revelation, but I understand the need to underscore the validity of this still-very-new medium from time to time. And interesting anecdotes always help make the point that statistics can only do in so many ways. I reference the tweet because it happened to coincide with one of the most telling stories demonstrating just HOW PERVASIVE social media (and Facebook in particular) have become.

I got back from the Peace Corps not much more than a year ago. I served in a very rural community in the southern part of Costa Rica, a mountainous region close to the border with Panama.

The community in which I served hadn’t even had electricity for that long, and didn’t have telephone lines while I was there. Yet just last week I started receiving Facebook friend requests from people in the community.

It didn’t take long to see that a huge percentage of the people there (I’d guess 20% of the total, and 85% of young people) are now on Facebook!

They didn’t have phone lines last year!! And now they’re on Facebook!!

There are many statistics out there confirming the spreading adoption and dominance of Facebook, but as far as personal validation, I can’t imagine a greater example.

Just wow. The implications of this are amazing: I can stay in touch with the people and community developments in a way that I never could have otherwise. Development and technology have always been connected, but this is truly unprecedented.

Posted in Facebook, Social Media | Tagged | Leave a comment

Social Technologies & The New World Order

By Andrew | Published: November 22, 2010

New World Order actually refers to a conspiracy theory where world power lies in the hands of but a few. In fact, social technologies are shaping a new world in which the ability to communicate broadly and influence is available to a majority of all people (notwithstanding disparate wealth and power distribution otherwise).

“The Digital Disruption,” by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, which appears in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, discusses the broad implications – the risks and the opportunities – that social technologies have for governments. Significantly, the article bears a striking resemblance to the story Business has been coping with for years.

To consider the magnitude of impact social technologies are having is astonishing: not only the world’s biggest businesses have been affected – the mightiest world governments are realizing that social technologies affect their ability to govern, to spread ideas, and even their legitimacy.

The story is the same: New communication technologies are empowering individuals unlike ever before. Anyone who can get online or has a mobile phone is connected to an enormous world network that can mobilize in real-time. This presents both a terrible threat and a tremendous opportunity.

Which does this apply to, government or business? To both, of course.

The difference between the two – and where governments have done far less – is that businesses have had to experiment with social media. Government has a distinct advantage over business in the fact that there isn’t exactly a lot of competition, and you could say its “customers” are locked-in. It’s not the same as business, where I can buy Nike if I don’t like Adidas. I’m not that likely to move to Canada or Europe, just because I don’t like something my government is doing.

Nevertheless, governments around the world are feeling the impact of citizen connections, as they organize in real-time and band together to weigh in on issues that matter to them. Governments must follow suit, to weigh in on subjects that will be discussed with or without them. As they do, there is an ever-growing pool of lessons available – the successes and failures of businesses.

Below, I’ve demonstrated a number of parallels between business and government with regard to social media, using quotes from Groundswell, Open Leadership, and the recent Foreign Affairs article when it comes to:

  • Openness
  • It’s Unstoppable
  • It’s Irreversible
  • Transparency
  • Threats
  • (Lack of) Regulation
  • Benefits
  • Adapt & Adopt
  • It’s Not Really an Option

What does it ultimately mean? Governments will go through many of the same pains that businesses are now. Policy analysts take note.

Historical vs. Contemporary Openness

Consider the following quote: “People have always rebelled against institutional power, in social movements like labor unions and political revolutions. But the rough balance between the scale economies of institutions and the rebellion of their constituents has shifted because of the advent and spread of social technologies.” That could have easily appeared in Foreign Affairs article, but was in fact written by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff in Groundswell, in early 2008.

In her most recent book, Open Leadership, Li refers to Samuel Huntington’s description of the “king’s dilemma.” She summarizes: “A forward-thinking  king, who gives rights and freedom to serfs and makes them citizens, may end up abdicating his throne as these citizens agitate for more and more freedom over time. But a worse fate awaited those who clamped down on reform and repressed the populace; the pent-up demand for power, coupled with new ways for people to self-organize and communicate, led to an explosive reaction…”

And this quote from Groundswell could just as easily apply to governments and their citizens, rather than companies and employees: “Even inside companies, your employees are connecting on social networks, building ideas with online collaboration tools, and discussing the pros and cons of your policies and priorities.”

Unstoppable

The groundswell is broad, ever shifting, and ever growing. It encompasses blogs and wikis; podcasts and youtube; and consumers who rate products, buy and sell from each other, write their own news, and find their own deals. It’s global. It’s unstoppable. … And it’s utterly foreign to the powerful companies and institutions — and their leaderships — that run things now. (Groundswell)

Not even governments can stop, control, or spy on all sources of information all the time. (The Digital Disruption)

Irreversible

The phenomenon itself is based on people acting on their eternal desire to connect. It has created a permanent, long-lasting shift in the way the world works. (Groundswell)

Old solutions will not work in this new era. Governments will have to build new alliances that reflect the rise in citizen power and the changing nature of the state. (The Digital Disruption)

If you are among the many executives who long for the “good ol’ days” when rules and roles were clear, indulge yourself in that kind of thinking for just a few more minutes –then it’s time to get to work. This is a fad that will not fade, but only grow stronger, with or without you. (Open Leadership)

Transparency

Dealing with this dilemma will pose particular challenges for democratic nations that share common principles of openness and freedom. Their ideals will clash with well-founded concerns about national security. (The Digital Disruption)

This is not about total transparency and complete openness, whereby everyone from customers to competitors has access to all information and everyone is involved in all decisions. Such an unrealistic extreme of complete openness is untenable if a business is to sustain its competitive advantage and ability to execute. (Open Leadership)

Threats

In Groundswell, Li and Bernoff write: “Business and other institutions are built on control, and the groundswell weakens and undermines control.”

Schmidt and Cohen write: “Governments will be caught off-guard when large numbers of their citizens, armed with virtually nothing but cell phones, take part in mini-rebellions that challenge their authority.” (The Digital Disruption).

Business leaders are terrified about the power of social technologies, but they are also intrigued and excited about the opportunities. (Open Leadership)

Lack of Regulation

Schmidt and Cohen refer to “the wealth of platforms that allow individuals to consume, distribute, and create their own content without government control.” (The Digital Disruption)

Blogs, user-generated video, and podcasts aren’t regulated, so anything is possible. Unlike journalists, bloggers may sometimes mix fact and opinion, report rumors, and fail to disclose conflicts of interests. (Groundswell)

Benefits

[Leaders] know that greater transparency and authenticity can bring significant benefits to their organizations, yet they have a gut-wrenching fear that such an opening involves tremendous risk as well. (Open Leadership)

Democratic states must recognize that their citizens’ use of technology may be a more effective vehicle to promote the values of freedom, equality, and human rights globally than government-led initiatives. (The Digital Disruption)

Adoption

“As your customers and employees become more adept at using social and other emerging technologies, they will push you to be more open, urging you to let go in ways in which you may not be comfortable. Your natural inclination may be to fight this trend, to see it as a fad that you hope will fade and simply go away. It won’t.” (Open Leadership)

“Not all states will be able to control or embrace the empowerment of the individual.” (The Digital Disruption)

Engagement: The only option

Schmidt and Cohen write in Foreign Affairs, “In an era when the power of the individual and the group grows daily, those governments that ride the technological wave will clearly be best positioned to assert their influence and bring others into their orbits. And those that do not will find themselves at odds with their citizens.”

In Open Leadership, Li writes: “It seems counterintuitive, but the act of engaging with people, of accepting that they have the power, can actually put you in a position to counter negative behavior. In fact, it’s really the only chance you have of being able to influence the outcome.”

Businesses are currently paving the path of social innovation, learning from one another, and experiencing their own victories and defeats. As governments begin to go through similar processes, they should learn from what’s already been done.

Posted in Government 2.0, Social Media, Web 2.0, disruptive, disruptive technologies, disruptive technology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Panasonic & Social Media Innovation

By Andrew | Published: November 18, 2010

Yesterday I posted a story on my blog about a failed Panasonic campaign. Even at the time – but also the more I’ve thought about it – I felt like that curmudgeonous critic from Ratatouille:

To me, winning the contest helped solidify my argument — if I could see the campaign was so likely to fail that I knew I could probably even win it, then there must have been clear indications. But to Panasonic, getting “dissed,” as they put it, by the same person they just sent a free product, probably felt like adding insult to injury. I understand that.

It’s my job to evaluate social media efforts — to point out the good as well as the, well, less-so. And I certainly stand by my post. HOWEVER, it’s important to ackowledge and reiterate that which I only glossed over yesterday — that social media is new, that there are few examples of best practices, and that new technologies come out on a daily basis. Strategy has to be created on the fly(!) and it’s not always clear how to create successful, coordinated efforts. I applaud efforts to try new things and innovate.

Do I think a little more planning might have helped in this case? Of course. But in the spirit of conciliation and fairness, I will offer this thought from the above pixar-animated critic: “In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.” While I certainly hope never to become that negative, I am not, ultimately, executing. I respect those people who are trying new things and are willing to make mistakes.

In any case, I wish Panasonic the best of luck in the future, especially because the Panasonic products I own are actually pretty sweet (including, now, a new shaver).

Posted in Social Media, social marketing | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Panasonic Facebook Fail

By Andrew | Published: November 17, 2010

Brands are still figuring out how to use Facebook and other social media technologies. But it’s taking longer than you might expect for them to realize that social media strategy needs to be based on business objectives, and requires a process that facilitates the achievement of those objectives. It sounds obvious, but it’s often forgotten. A recent, poorly-conceived Facebook campaign by Panasonic, which resulted in no increased engagement for them – and a free $400 shaver for me! – is a great illustration of that point.

The second comment is right on both accounts.

Poor Planning

During the months of September and October, Panasonic ran a contest on their Facebook page to increase engagement and advocacy/word of mouth, offering an expensive new shaver to the winner. The answer to “why wasn’t there an increase in user engagement?” and “how did I know I could win?” is the same: the process was too elaborate, exclusive, and non-intuitive. I entered precisely because I saw that few if any other people would enter – you could say I exploited the situation.

Poor Execution

A number of “barriers to entry” actually made entering and sharing very difficult, negating the objective of the campaign before it even started: you had to download an app called “Groom U” (immediately cutting out all non-iPhone users), use it (to be frank, it was terrible) to take a picture of your face (hard to get the proportions right) and then “groom” your picture. Then you had to post this (kind of embarrassing) picture on the Panasonic wall (not an intuitive process for getting from app to wall) for all to see and get your friends to “like” Panasonic and then finally “like” the picture.

The entry with the most “likes” won – mine, with eight (yes, 8). Nobody else even entered. I received my shaver last night – thanks, Panasonic!

Start by Defining Objectives, then Plan… then Execute

The bottom line is that like all social media efforts, those on Facebook need A) to be thought through with clear objectives in mind (what will the benefit be for the brand, and what is the measure of success?), and B) a process that facilitates the achievement of those objectives. Giving away a $400 shaver may be inconsequential to Panasonic, but to develop an app, no matter how limited, and develop contest rules, related graphics, etc. is costly.

Given just a little bit of consideration, it was obvious at the outset that few people would enter – so where’s the ROI? Remember, plan and execute based on predetermined objectives and metrics… unless, of course, you have an up-coming contest with tickets to Fiji :)

  • Define your objectives beforehand (e.g. increased advocacy/word of mouth)
  • Plan according to those objectives (e.g. activate brand advocates to involve their friends by sharing and voting; KPIs of interest are increased engagement and new fans gained)
  • Execute in a way that facilitates the plan – not one that hinders it!
Posted in Facebook, Social Media, social marketing | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Future of Marketing Must Include Social Responsibility

By Andrew | Published: September 21, 2010

Two growing trends – social technologies and social responsibility – are becoming increasingly complimentary. In fact, the more the two grow, the more intertwined they become.

My initial thought about how this concerns marketers could have been summed up as: social technologies + social responsibility = cause marketing 2.0. Except I think that understates the importance of what’s coming.

Consider each trend side-by-side:

1. New technologies are enabling unprecedented social engagement. However, while brands recognize the potential value of two-way dialog with consumers, they have not figured out how to best capitalize on it – i.e. how can they connect in deeper and more meaningful ways with consumers long-term?

While a coupon or freebie is a great way to draw (one-time) attention and maybe get a “like,” odds are it’s not going to create strong, lasting bonds. In fact, that’s the same kind of incentive that previous (TV and other) campaigns employed. I’m not saying they won’t be effective – they might be – but they don’t take advantage of social media’s real potential.

2. Consumers care – and share – more than ever before about social mindfulness. Increasingly, consumers buy from, support, and advocate on behalf of companies that act in socially responsible ways.

Fascinating statistics from Edelman’s goodpurpose™ Consumer Study indicate that by acting in a more socially responsible way, companies and brands can “build long-term relationships with customers.” That sounds to me like exactly the kind of content social marketing is in need of.

Consider the following three statistics from the Edelman study:

• 64% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause.
• 59% would help a brand promote its products if there was a good cause behind it.
• 44% are aware of brands that actively support good causes through their products and services.

What does this trend mean, practically-speaking? It means companies need to think about how to be socially responsible and align themselves with causes consumers care about. Just look at the numbers that support it: if you do good, then people will support and recommend you. And, thanks to social technologies, people can do that on an unprecedented scale.

(On the other hand, remember that social media promotes transparency. If something is not what it appears to be, odds are half-decent it will be found out.)

Consider also that “71% of people think brands and companies spend too much on advertising and marketing and should put more into good causes” (same study). I think in the near future more dollars will be spent on causes – and while marketing still needs budget to make sure consumers are aware of that investment, I think a lot of those dollars will come straight out of the same budget.

Now, cause marketing is not a new idea. By definition, a cause is a “principle, ideal, goal, or movement to which a person or group is dedicated.” But it is also, fundamentally, a “reason or motive for some human action.” Social media can amplify those motives like never before, because instead of individual or small-scale, they’re now often collective on a massive scale.

The bottom line is this: as people care increasingly about social responsibility, and social technologies enable them to “share the care” at unprecedented rates, companies must become socially socially responsible. That is to say, they must address causes that consumers care about in a visible and credible way. Doing so will win them loyal customers and brand advocates. Hard to measure? Maybe. But there’s real ROI associated with that kind of success.

If a company can do good AND make sure I’m aware of it, I will buy and probably even promote their product – would you?

Posted in Social Media, cause marketing 2.0, social marketing, social responsibility | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Altimeter Group & Blogging

By Andrew | Published: August 14, 2010
I recently started as a Researcher at Altimeter Group, where I’ll be working primarily with Jeremiah Owyang and Christine Tran. I’m excited to join such bright and well-connected people, not to mention get involved with some really interesting work in a cool startup environment!

Primarily as a result of the new position, I’m starting this blog – because with the access I’ll get and work I’ll be doing, I should have some real insights worth sharing (as allowed, obviously).
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments