Social media has been in the spotlight especially from a political standpoint ever since Obama mobilised its powers to assist with his election win. Unfortunately, this week in the UK, its demonic powers have been demonstrated with riots and mobs running rampage apparently using digital methods to organise themselves. This is not new and has even already been labelled in digital terminology as A Flash Mob.

For years, Flash Mobs have existed and have been purely for amusement.For example, social media helped 400 total strangers to show up on a certain day and time at Liverpool Street station to perform a dance in Jan 2009, and then leave. Watch the video here.

However in London this week, this is how mobile phones and social media were utilised during the riots for good and bad purposes.

THE THUGS

Thugs used Blackberry Messenger and Twitter to gather quickly in different locations to riot (well, they were hardly going to print posters and organise formally). THE MEDIA Violence was recorded using mobile phones and shared quickly on YouTube and Twitter including a scene of an injured boy getting robbed by so-called "good Samaritans"! This video has already had more than 500,000 views on YouTube.

THE POLICE

The police used text and twitter to quickly contact off-duty and part-time staff to quickly swell the force from 6,000 to 16,000 overnight to crush the uprising. Police also using captured CCTV images to create a rogue gallery to identify culprits on their own website, on Flickr and in the newspapers. More than 1,000 people have been captured to date (1 week since the incidents). 

THE COMMUNITY

Opinions all round have been gathered and shared via Twitter and Facebook. Also, communities have organised to clean up local areas and show a sign of force and strength as a response. Hashtag #riotcleanup has managed to gather more people via Twitter than actual rioters

One of the saddest incidents was the destruction of a furniture business over 100 years old. How crazy that such resilience was ultimately defeated by a) kids, b) without any purpose or cause and c) using meagre weapons like bats and fists ... succeeding where two World Wars could not.

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with the following thoughts:

• I hope that the forces of good will prevail above evil, despite the fact that the younger generation are more adept at digital media and are at the centre of this terrible behaviour.
• It's a relief to know what the likes of Martha Lane Fox are working with the UK government to ensure that digital media is an powerful force used by ALL sides.  
• The quick response of the police proves this and, while they are highly criticised for their hands-off approach,  they will hopefully show their true power by catching the culprits with the help of social media and the community using tools like their "rogue gallery" and inflicting harsh punishment as a deterrent to this ever happening again.

Sharon

P.S. Since posting this - both NBC and BBC have been covering this topic extensively. There are interesting discussions about the policing of social media and ability to access RIM network information by the police. All very interesting new topics for society since the advent of social media. Another interesting one - should children 'friend' their teachers on Facebook? 

Within 5 minutes of trying Google+, I feel confident to give it my thumbs up. This is because it was obvious from the get-go that it addressed one of my biggest problems with Facebook. Specifically, the separation of our social groups into circles and the control over what we share and with whom. While Facebook does allow the categorisation via checkboxes, I just don't feel that this has been made easy enough in the current user interface. We already know that usability and simplicity separate the winners from the losers – just look at the Ipod vs. the Walkman. So people end up creating separate profiles (business vs. personal), regularly 'culling' friends and generally posting less but basically am imperfect situation currently exists.

What is Google+?

It's Google's social network on invitation only at this stage (and called a 'project' as its development is ongoing – nice touch!). To learn more about the key features of Google+, I recommend you just play around with it. It looks significantly like Facebook once you're at your homepage but appears less cluttered (perhaps due to the absence of advertising … ahem). The features it offers are:

• Circles: a great way of organising (and separating!) your contacts
• Streams: equivalent of Facebook status updates
• Hangouts: like groups but with ability to use your webcam
• Huddle: basically a group chat
• Sparks: a content sharing tool organised around topics using +1 function
• Photos, Chat & Mobile

For more on the functionality, I refer you to this Slideshare deck by Nixon McInnes, "Google+ - What is it and should we take notice?" or this post by Anton Koekemoer, How to get started with Google+.

To learn more about the content sharing capabilities of Google+, I recommend reading

Will it succeed where Facebook hasn't?

This is the $64 billion question with initial critics comparing a snapshot of the numbers and declaring "No!". However Google+ has reached 18 million users in a record time that it took Facebook 2 years to do. Looking at the trend though, while in net numbers Facebook is edging towards 1 billion people, the winner of the social media war will be based on success in the following 3 areas.

• Content Production
• Search
• Revenue

1. Content Production: Content = Time Spent

Facebook's success in raw numbers is also potentially its downfall in the fact that people have too many "friends" and time spent is based on the fine mix between content production (status updates and pictures), participation (likes and comments) and consumption (the reading).

This problem arises when there is:

• Blurring of circles: Your nanny, niece, client, mother and next door neighbour are all your "friends" but you don't want to share the same information in the same way with all these people. Normally, one would control finely what you tell, to whom and when as part of your relationships with people in your networks and the intimacy created when someone shares something with you decide to share back. This is incredibly difficult if not impossible on Facebook causing a hesitance to post.
• Annoyance: I have recently heard of various people annoyed with other people based on their posts e.g. someone told me "I never post pictures of my children as there is a guy who is constantly posting pictures of his baby – does he think we are all interested?" Of course, when I heard the latter comment, I did wonder, 'are other people thinking the same about me when I post a picture of my baby?'. Needless to say, I am much more reluctant to post now. Is this how others feel too?
• Too many contacts: According to anthropologist Robin Dunbar, humans are cognitively capable of connecting with only 150 people at a time. With more than that, it becomes impossible to manage your relationships on Facebook and you end up neglecting contacts and not being able to return an email, comment, wish happy birthday or poke back when perhaps you should have. Here is a great article on Wired.com about the limits of our friendships.
• Less contribution: Facebook taps into our voyeuristic interest in "other people's lives" as well as our inherent laziness to avoid emailing or picking up the phone to get the information. Facebook dishes the information up on a silver platter but it only works if people keep up the dishing. Since social media is reliant on the 90-9-1 principle (90% of people read the content, 9% contribute and only 1% actually produce), the poor ability to share and control what to share with which 'social network' or circle has and will result in less content production and therefore less interesting content for consumption. If you check Facebook 5 x a day and the same people still have the same content, you're just not going to check as often and spend less time on Facebook. This can result in less time spent.

Google+ has its circles organised from the get-go with a clearer system of what to share with whom. This is outlined in greater detail in this excellent post "4 things to know about Google+" by Urs E. Gattiker of ComMetrics.

1. Search: Where Google+ is Great

It's interesting that the battle for social media will boil down to integration with search. The Sparks and Huddles are great features offering a consumer benefit combining social networking with the content on the web on the basis of interest. It clusters people not just around other people they know (Facebook) but around interesting content and relevant topics (Twitter). This is an area where Google are perfectly poised to marry the two and where Facebook has yet to do. The partnership with Microsoft and Bing will be able to combat this if Microsoft is able to further integrate the two technologies and platform to mimic the same utility.

1. Revenue: Facebook Monetising Fast

Audience reach is achieved through the model of Paid-Earned-Owned media. Facebook seems to have become the "one-stop audience shop" as it achieves all 3.

• Paid Media: Facebook pages have contextual display ads and while I feel it clutters the interface) but I'm sure there are enough click-throughs on these ads to justify its existence
• Earned Media: This is traditional PR in social media form and the ever popular 'like' function. There is debate as to the actual value of a like, while some say it's worth 29p in media value, others argue its worthless since its often achieved through the trade of content or a discount rather than being a genuine like. Groups, communities and fan pages strengthen this further by facilitating the sharing of brand related information. Google have this in their +1 feature, so the path is paved for further monetisation.
• Owned Media: When I worked at Microsoft, specifically in the area of custom solutions and branded entertainment, we were always delivered a microsite as well as a traffic strategy. These days brands just host a Facebook page i.e. "fish where the fish are" and don't even need to claim their own URL, entirely keeping traffic in the Facebook ecosystem and eliminating the need for a (micro)site.

PLUS

• E-commerce: The online transaction side of Facebook is also increasing as a distribution channel. Check out this article on F-commerce with interesting facts and brands.

Of course, the commercial success of Facebook does depend on the usage by the audience. For example, Microsoft has a huge audience base on MSN (Windows Live) Messenger, but if less people are logging in and using IM, what value is this to advertisers at the end of the day? The fatigue or decline of Facebook is only just beginning, however it is something to be aware of.

Google+ on the other hand doesn't have ads or fan page equivalents (yet) however one can envisage later down the line 'sparks' and 'huddles' around relevant topics e.g. P&G could sponsor a 'Spark' around toddler tantrums 'brought to you by Pampers' and then arrange a 'Huddle' with Jo Frost - Supernanny.

In conclusion, I predict that:

1. While Facebook has massive global audience, the usage will decline further due to the poor separation of social groups and ability to control over what to share with which group. Google+ has benefitted from social anthropological hindsight gleaned from Facebook's first mover advantage.
2. Combined with the content from search, their technological expertise and their own critical mass as everyone's entry point to the web, they have a strong chance of creating a winning social network for the future provided they pursue the monetisation path and engage with brands for advertising and e-commerce on the paid, earned and owned levels.

Please let me know your thoughts and comments below. Thanks!

* This isn't really a gadget but an app, and actually its more than 1 app

** This isn't weekly either but you can't deny the zing of the "...of the Week" headline 

Business Cards on the Fly

My favourite app of the moment is called Camcard. This handy app allows you to create business card contact entries on your phone by taking a picture on your phone. Even handier is the ability to select an email signature which automatically gets imported into Camcard. The fields get mapped to a contact entry which is seamless and extremely useful. 

 

Handwriting Made Easy

Further use is the writing ability of the tablet. Thanks for JaffeJuice for informing me of this. His recommended note apps are: Noteshelf and Penultimate. He describes Noteshelf as "awesome".

You be the judge! 

I just received my first ipad Stylus purchased from Amazon so I'll be able to take notes very soon and will let you know how it goes. Now I'm just missing an ipad cover that can store the pen ...

 

Juice Pack for iPhone 4

This one is an actual gadget! Having purchased a Mophie Juice Pack for my iPhone 3, I was very unexpectedly impressed with the same product for the iPhone 4 (which is just slurping up battery life since I'm using it as a mini-PC thesedays as every app under the sun is available enhancing my otherwise dull life). The product is sleek and stunning, doing the trick impeccably. It simply looks like a cool protective phone cover and battery life is amazing. It brings a host of intelligence to the simply job of extra battery life, like the fact that it depletes itself first before calling on the phone's battery life. I highly recommend this product! 

 

My Next Laptop

What will it be? I've had the same PC (a Sony Vaio) since starting JaffeBlend nearly 4 years ago. What a better gift for my 4 year anniversary than a new gadget.... ? Of course, I also have a MacBook Pro - but that's primarily for family video and photo storage and editing. I'm interested to hear back from you with some suggestions and your personal favourites. Shall I stick with Sony Vaio....? Feel free to comment or email me with your suggestions. 

Check out this fabulous detailed summary of the event by Babs Rangaiah, Global VP Marcomms at Unilever, in Marketing Week. Try not to miss the picture of me (smile) sitting across Natalie Massenet, founder of Net-a-Porter. 

 

 

I've just returned from attending the second Google Zeitgeist conference. It's a surreal experience considering that its an event in which you rub shoulders with key executives, politicians and leaders. Last year I shook hands with Sergey and Larry whereas this year I sipped my coffee while Stephen Hawking passed by. Another personal highlight was having lunch with Natalie Massenet, founder of Net-a-Porter, and Babs Rangaiah, VP Global Marcomms at Unilever.

The content was top notch with a high level established from the get-go with a keynote by George Osborne. I was extremely impressed by the vision and detail of the UK's strategic initiatives around technology (to be honest, I was expecting a high level talk in which nothing new gets said, so I confess to being blown away). Actually it was *my* mistake expecting to be disappointed, as Osborne is a young man himself, so he is of the "Facebook generation". This touches on another theme at the conference - the fact that 60% of the world's population is under 30 (and what are industry leaders doing about this?).

On the topic of youth, a panel of "kids" was freakishly refreshing and awesome considering 2 out of the 3 kids were from Cape Town (one chap invented the Drybath gel allowing one to clean without water, an essential need in impoverished Africa with limited water supply). He charmingly asked the audience for $100k (and I'm sure he got it tenfold) so he could run a trial needed for a $8 M rollout. He apparently typed his 8,000 word business plan on his mobile!

Many a joke was made about DSK and much entertainment was had in a session run by Benjamin Zander, conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, which saw the entire room sing Happy Birthday to a poor guy called Stan, proving the power of possibility.

I was impressed with some of the newest Google products and chuckled frequently to myself at the similarities having attending several of the Microsoft Strategic Account Summits in Redmond, Washington. The similarities between the 2 companies are uncanny. Seems to me that Google is imitating Apple more than Microsoft if any comparisons in product should be made. I'm slowly becoming open to this Android business...

In depth content is available on Twitter: @ZG2011 or @Zeitgeist 2011 and on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/zeitgeistminds

Firstly, apologies for the blogging hiatus. Having 2 kids in 2 years meant a razor-like focus for every minute of my day and my blog took a back-seat to my family blog which I maintained religiously. 

Secondly, it's time for the more interesting topic of the day, Microsoft buying Skype! Wow! My view is that this looks and smells like a strategic move to stop Skype getting in the hands of Facebook or Google who, let's face it, just haven't cracked the chat market. Facebook chat is really a Mickey Mouse application at the moment.

I find this interesting as you may know, I worked for 5 years for Microsoft and sold the first global instant messaging theme pack (to 20th Century Fox). I also completed a strategic project for Skype however remain bound by confidentiality of course.

Skype certainly bring audience (reach) to the table integrating talk with chat with video. What more could you want? The real challenge which Microsoft will see is the peer-to-peer nature of Skype. Since the application is hosted on local machines, it's my understanding that user date is not stored. This will make the integration of advertising opportunities, serving of advertising and gathering of user data a real challenge. Interestingly enough, Microsoft can bring the answer to the table. PLATFORM. The aQuantive acquisition ties in nicely here.

The reality though will come in the execution. Acquisitions have historically proven very challenging and time-consuming. I do believe that Microsoft will crack this nut, however it will take a very, very, very, very, very, very long time. The promise of the solutions brought about by technology often involve a lot of wishful thinking combined with a migraine. 

From an advertising perspective, there is untapped potential in Skype in figuring out how to incorporate brands into the conversations. The IM advertising opportunity goes beyond display ads to live chat with agents (bots), peer-to-peer games/application (e.g. a movie finder with trailer viewer), text links (call-to-action) or even integrated search results. The opportunities on mobile go even further with integration of a "local" aspect and location-based slant.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this topic (and your views on my comments), so please take the plunge and post below. Thanks. 

 

While most of us know of the event, we hardly know when it took place, who played or even who won (would you think less of me if I confess that I STILL don't know this at the time of writing this post?). What we do know that Janet Jackson had a famous wardrobe "malfunction" and the fact that the ads shown in the commercial breaks are really really really really REALLY expensive. How expensive, I hear you ask? In 1967 it was $42,500 and today the ad cost $2.6 million reaching nearly 78 million viewers. Note also that this cost does NOT include the production

This price is directly correlated to the original principles of "reach" and "awareness" and takes advertising and media planning back to its original roots – using the least amount of people, to reach the most amount of people in the least amount of time (and somehow using the most amount of money!).

When I was a student at university in Cape Town, I was so desperate to see the top ads at the Cannes Lions, I somehow located a copy of the showreel and managed to get an entire cinema packed with students to watch it with me. The advantage was that I was President of the U.C.T. Marketing Society, so I managed to get my hands on the valuable showreel. The disadvantage was that after I'd ushered everyone in, the only remaining seat was on the cold hard floor!

I found myself catching up on the ads on Rohit Bargava's "Influential Marketing" blog. I really admire him and learn a great deal from his posts. I recommend you read the post but if you're pressed for time, scroll down and check out the ads here.

My personal favourite is the Google ad – costing a mere $5 million and marking the company's first entry into mainstream advertising. I love the irony that such a a) strong brand and b) internet marketing/media company by simply having such an ad has said that it a) believes it needs to build brand and b) reach massive audience with loads of money. Nevertheless, the ad showed the power of original and traditional advertising by building brand awareness and favourability through storytelling. It stuck to Google's core brand and product value of simplicity, yet it delivered an emotive message which I could relate to.

For some reason, the online buzz didn't place it first, and favouring slapstick humour instead for the Dorito's ad. Perhaps this is because of a suspected larger male skew to the audience?

BUT....

This is where my disappointment came in. I searched for the ad on YouTube and instead did NOT find the original in the top 5 hits!! Instead I found a parody of the ad. Was this their intention?? Why-oh-why is there only a sponsored link to DOWNLOAD CHROME instead of a link to the video? When I clicked on the 6^th link, there is an error in the video as it was posted by someone else. What a missed opportunity in extending the long tail of this ad!

My second favourite is the Audi ad, using a lot of humour and simply entertaining in the same way advertising did back when I was a student. Am I going to buy that new Audi though? No?! In fact, after seeing the ad, I can't recall the model number. But more importantly, I'm not in the market for a new car. Targeting's a bitch, ain't it? 
 

So here are the lessons I think we can learn:

1. Brands still think they need to build awareness and favourability (or retain/reinforce brand values) through emotive or entertaining storytelling
2. Brands still think they need to spend a lot of money to do this (do they?)
3. Don't forget to monitor and influence social media channels as brands need acknowledge that these will be active in conversation and content creation (old marketing meets new marketing)
4. Emotive storytelling is brilliant but is that the right relevant emotional hook your audience are looking for?
5. The 30-second spot may be dying but it's not dead yet