The subject of influence has cropped up here earlier, but the focus was on new media platforms and people. The above conversation made me think about the challenges that brands face on content that’s created on multiple media platforms.

Even as traditional media platforms are being unfavourably compared to new media thanks to their constraints, the abundance of content -- the media tsunami, on the latter does make one wonder how much of consumption by the intended crowd really happens. Meanwhile, despite the constraints,  technically, the reach of the traditional media platforms is still significant. A brand’s consumers exist on/consume these media.

That really poses interesting questions on the notions of brand imagery, consistency etc, which have been holy cows of a previous era. Take this video, for example. Its a massive hit on Facebook and YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTl3U6aSd2w

“Where’s the Gillette logo?!”, if this were a traditional TV spot, and what’s the message here? A close shave? But at 5 million + views, surely this must count for something. But what? This fuzzy nature of social media content and the media on which its propagated is exactly what raises difficult  but important questions on brands’ participation in social media.

The answers are obviously not simple ones, and would have to be adapted to each brand’s needs. But as these lessons from Old Spice would suggest,  an important requirement is to understand objectives and define roles for each platform. The challenge then would be to create a content strategy that not only uses the inherent strengths of the different media, but also understands the motivations, consumption habits and preferences of the different kinds of people who use them. Instead of blind adaption across various platforms, exploring content options and finer segmentation is perhaps the order of the day.

Perhaps Apple’s success is because of what the original post says “It focuses on users. And Apple lets them decide how and where they’ll use its products.” I wonder how many brands use that kind of understanding in their communication and brand strategy.

until next time, iWash

Related posts:

1. The evolution of Content Marketing A few weeks back, the eMarketer released some statistics about...
2. Hairsay So, the Old Spice man  increased the sales of the...
3. Twitter lists, Social Search and brand content distribution So its been quite a while since Twitter lists launched,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I thought about it a bit, not in the context of brands or businesses, but more in terms of brand communication as a field, advertising specifically, and brands’ usage of the social web. Consumption patterns, media platforms available etc had pretty much created templates for creative agencies over a period of time. But the arrival of the web, social platforms and the democratization of media have managed to disrupt the ways of the one-way communication age. This post is a good one to read in that context, and talks about the change digital has made to campaigns, and the ‘role of the consumer’. But desperation, hype and the eagerness to get on board makes everyone concerned ‘jump the shark’. And unfortunately, the way I’ve seen many agencies and clients execute it (purely as a consumer), I’m quite inclined to agree with the author of this hilarious letter. (via PSFK)

(click to enlarge)

The job of the brand manager/creative agency is obviously a more difficult one now, and is made even more so thanks to the approach – of tool strategy. Like this (old but) excellent post states, ‘the technology that underpins social media is changing fast’, but its ephemerality ‘is a feature, not a bug’. It made me wonder whether brand communication/advertising, as a process (the way we see it now) had ‘jumped the shark’, mostly because the thinking process still sees  social platforms in the same light as traditional media and has not changed to be in tune with the former’s dynamics. In other words mistaking social media marketing for social media.

Maybe they have to dig deeper, figure out the value that people are willing to pay for, and then find their ‘purpose idea + social object‘, and consistently. But that would mean a sea change in the way brands and creative agencies operate. Is adaption possible, or is complete disruption inevitable?

I juxtaposed this thought with something that Seth Godin wrote recently, about the ‘red zone‘ – the joyless part of the learning curve. His graph also has a green dot, which represents ’someone on the other side.. rooting us on, or telling us stories of how great it is on the other side’. Perhaps if brands can find from the existing consumer crowd a few who believe enough to play the ‘green dots’, they can adopt a more holistic approach to social platforms and carry the loyalists without it seeming like ‘jumping the shark’?

until next time, safe jumping.

Related posts:

1. Crowd Control by the crowd Its rightly said that however thinly you slice the bread,...
2. Social Inside There’s quite a funny video that has got almost 50,000...
3. Big brands, small ideas I ended last week’s post with a note that social...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Facebook Live (via), a live video streaming facility, with features like a live feed, and ‘ask a question’. More interesting is the app that will allow regular Fan Page administrators to add this to their page and the embedding on other platforms – Twitter, Google Buzz etc. But what I’d really like is for Facebook to get into proper video distribution- create an app that will replicate what the Justin.tv and Ustream apps for Facebook achieve. So brands/organisations can stream everything from say, earning calls to new store openings to special brand ambassador promos and so on. Think of the engagement possibilities.

Notes. I have never found Notes very interesting at all – maybe because I blog a lot. So, except for the occasional note, or using it to get the blog feed into Facebook, my usage has been limited. For long, I’ve been asking why Facebook doesn’t allow me to tag Pages that I need not necessarily have ‘Like’d (in the Facebook way) , but would want to still tag in a status. So I couldn’t do say, “visited the @Wrangler store” as a status unless I ‘Like’ the Wrangler Page. I still can’t, but now I can do this in Notes, and I can add photos too. As ‘Location’ looms, it’ll be interesting to see how brands deal with this.

Even as the opportunities for brands to engage increase, I can’t help but feel that its also moving them to some inevitable levels of transparency. The good part about all this for brands, though Facebook may not be the ideal way to do it, is a certain accountability that it creates for people who create content and comment on the brand, thanks to identity.

A few weeks back, Surekha, Mahendra and I had a good commenting session over ‘The Age of Transparency‘ on Reader, an article that talks about the implications of transparency on individuals, society, government, companies. While we’re still far away from a stage when transparency is a default and ubiquitous feature for people, brands and organisations, it might well be a reality in a few years. Like Surekha mentioned in her comment, it wouldn’t do any good for a brand to engage only because it can’t afford not to, but then the question is, will brands/organisations see the trends in the evolution of these tools and more importantly society in general, and be objective enough to start rewiring themselves? Or maybe the ‘forced’ presence and the opportunities that new tools provide will act as a good catalyst for the required change.

until next time, anonymous comments are fine too

Bonus Read: Kapil Ohri’s well researched article on Indian brands on Facebook, (and my earlier post on social media and the scale of organisations)

Related posts:

1. Brands – Maturity, Transparency, Objectivity On the day that gay sex was made legal in...
2. Conversations in social media The Facebook redesign and the possible redefining of brands’ interaction...
3. Social Inside There’s quite a funny video that has got almost 50,000...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When i read (and saw) that Facebook is replacing ‘boxes’ with tabs, and also saw that my ‘Like’s (Interests and Likes seem to be undifferentiated now!) were now displayed prominently on my profile, I wondered if Facebook could really aggregate everything. Imagine, if those Likes+ interests were differentiated – i.e. Interest was ‘Music’ and ‘Greenday’ was a Like. Now, the way I’d like it is, if I had Interests displayed on my Profile page (or a tab, if you prefer) – there could be options of ‘how many’, ‘most active’, ‘most recent’ etc, with the existing ‘who can see’ privacy option, but more finely grained for each interest. For each interest, I should be able to build a page – with third party content included – subscription to blogs on the subject (either through FB Notes or say, Networked Blogs), Facebook Questions  and Quora, it could be Facebook groups, Pages that I have liked (so the interest ‘Music’ could have every artist/band/music media brand/ label I’ve liked), Friends who share the interest, people I ‘follow’ in that interest category (will explain in a minute) and when FB plays location, include that too, and sync Events. Goes without saying that I should have micro-level privacy setting options for sharing with others. I should be able to ‘Like+follow’ an interest of a person even if I’m not his friend (assuming he’s kept his interest public),  and even recommend to my friends.  A sort of ‘Twitter list’ for each interest. Yes, of course I need to be able to import Twitter lists too. There would also be a universal ‘Interest’ page that collates data from all the Interest Pages created by individual users, and also gives suggestions on ‘Whom to Follow’ for that interest – an algorithm based not just on mass ‘Like’s, but also basis contexts like Location, sub-genres, and my previous activity. To scale even further, use (mass and personal) data from services where I’ve used some form of Facebook Connect. Of course, Facebook would then have ginormous data on me, but they have it anyway, so I’ll be optimistic and hope that they use it to ‘personalise the internet – like Hunch, than for anything evil. Of course I’m assuming I get data portability too. Then maybe the different Facebook Search options can also really have fun. The entities who want to ‘engage’ users would also find this useful. I realise that I might be being simplistic about this, but what about the direction?

And though most people are skeptical about Google’s social efforts, perhaps justifiably so (read this at GigaOm and Stowe Boyd’s “Can Google go Social“), and the Wave crash doesn’t really help perception, I don’t want to rule out  the possibility  (like I said in the earlier post) of Google getting over their privacy agony, and surprising us – imagine the ‘Interests’ as a separate service/ something around or integrated with iGoogle/Profiles/Buzz (brrr)/Chrome (browser or OS)/ Search itself.

While on interests, suggestions and discovery, Twitter’s ‘Who To Follow’ hasn’t excited me much in terms of the people it has suggested. It says that the algorithm is based on people you follow and those they follow, but for now everyone’s busy trashing it, using its own acronym – WTF. So, how about using interests (Why To Follow – work harder on the existing Interests structure?) – either ask me when when i register, you can ask me now too, the lists that include me, keywords from tweets and bio, hashtags and hopefully ‘learn’ my preferences over a period of time. Popularity by itself is really not that great a parameter – if they’re popular, chances are I already know, and there’s a reason I don’t follow, even if its ego

Its not as though these are the only guys who can build a more nuanced social platforms – perhaps its possible for someone like Quora to start with questions and build more – eg. relevant posts from say Networked Blogs, and more people from Twitter Lists? Foursquare, or any of the LBS could scale too – from places to activities and consumption that happen at those places.

Meanwhile, interests, context, relevance, building authority and influence, all of these are established on identities,  but there’s a debate on whether an old friend merits a return – anonymity. More on that later.

until next time, interesting?

Related posts:

1. Services, Information, People Even as the first trailer of ‘The Social Network‘ was...
2. Connecting people It might be time for Nokia to rethink that line,...
3. Twitter lists, Social Search and brand content distribution So its been quite a while since Twitter lists launched,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I recently read Kapil Ohri’s article on afaqs, on the site’s makeover -- the shift from blogs and gangs to trends and forums and the ‘mandatory’ buttons -- Facebook and Twitter. Its early days, so it’d be unfair to make a comment on the numbers, even if they were to be considered a parameter of success/ failure. But while, on buttons, I think YouTube videos would’ve been a help. More on that in a bit. A revamped GoG, and the Pantene vs Dove war for hairspace being fought offline and on blogs (Karthik, L Bhat) gives me enough food for thought.. and opinion.

Sunsilk Gang of Girls: GoG could have (like an industry person commented on the afaqs post) integrated Facebook in a much better way. Check out what Levi’s has done at their online store. Instead of separate registrations and profile, Facebook’s plugins could make life easier for the user and automatically bring in the ‘gangs’. It could get them to pull their own photos from Facebook for the ‘Makeover Machine’, suggest it to friends, and so on. Or build a Twitter app that uses the display picture. It could have perhaps thought bigger and had their ambassador (Priyanka Chopra?) interact with the users through her own identities on these platforms. Or used a location based tool like Foursquare (or FB Pages or later Google Places) to start building a resource for salons and tips at each place (think of a Burrp! for salons), maybe in sync with a YouTube channel for tips.

Pantene: Good Morning! They obviously missed a little thing when they didn’t pay attention to the pwnage of DNA at the hands of the Times Group during the former’s launch campaign in Mumbai back in 2005 (?), or the more recent Airtel- Reliance DTH fun. Not to mention the cliche that after a certain point, the only person who gets teased is the brand manager. Ok, I won’t overstate, but c’mon this is a real-time era AND they did walk into a Dovetailed ambush. Since the internet already has made them un-mysterious (thanks for that info, Karthik), maybe Pantene should have just added those FB page and Twitter links to their mass media communication, and solved the mystery immediately online. Mind you, thanks to our dismal internet penetration, they could still demystify it again on mass media, later, after perhaps, adding the content from their online and offline activities. (think non market research agency 80%) That way, there would’ve been at least some buffer against a Dove’s sneak attack. Arguable, but possible.

Dove: All of us should take the time and remember the controversy over the ‘campaign for real beauty’. But hey, they saw an opportunity and used it. Effects on long term goals are again arguable.

A little note on ‘low involvement’. I wrote about brands, content and new media platforms in the last post, in the context of the Old Spice campaign, and also mentioned the importance of ‘intent’ and setting objectives. Once the ‘why’ is done, the relevant crowd can be identified, along with the platforms and activation strategies -- ‘(to) who’, where and what. (Read Rohit Awasthi’s comment on Karthik’s first post) When the ‘right’ content is pitched to the ‘right’ people at the ‘right’ time (and the ‘right’ platform too), very few categories are low involvement.  (read Naina’s comment on that post) And that’s the beauty of the web in general, and the tools that social media have provided marketers. Old Spice could be seen as low involvement too, until they did this campaign.

But having mostly seen communication as advertising (except arguably PR), creating content for social platforms is in itself quite a challenge for brand managers. Even if they were to  view ’social’ as ‘media’, it requires a complete realignment of how media and content strategy is done, mostly because the mechanics of distribution are completely different. At a fundamental level, brands are dependent on users of platforms to create a buzz, and money doesn’t always work. At this point, tools can help with the ‘time’ (including location and other contexts) and ‘people’ (interest), and the way it works, if the ‘content’ is done right, people will get other people.

Therefore brand managers need to make a more diligent effort. The fragmentation of traditional media does not seem to have made much of an impact on the costs involved in using them as distribution channels. So when ’social media’  presents ‘free’ channels, brand managers see a value proposition and jump right in with a TVC and or/other weapons of mass mediocrity. Brands, I believe, need to invest a bit more on who they’re trying to reach, and then invest some more on building content and designing networks and constructs (irrespective of platform) that will drive the crowd to interact with the content and share it more. Content and people that will drive more connections, and help meet everyone’s objectives.

But yes, until Augmented Reality allows me to scan a shampoo and tell me how many of my friends liked it, and think I should use it, (though my hair won’t last that long ) lets keep playing all the shampoo games we can play. And while on using social platforms purely with a sales objective, I’m reminded of how Grandma uses her laptop. (vid below) Can it be used for those purposes? Of course! But is that its best case use? We can argue

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg6emajJmEo

until next time, sometimes brand strategies can be real poo!!

Related posts:

1. The brand your brand could be like The world seems to have loved the Old Spice guy...
2. Multi purpose content This post over at GigaOm, titled “Apple doesn’t target markets,...
3. @having Maggi A couple of days back, I happened to see the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are many lessons from what is quite obviously a case study – an idea, its amazing execution, the co ordination between creative, social media and tech to get near real time responses done, the confidence/bravery/trust of P&G to allow this team the liberty to make the responses with minimal supervision and as Karthik wrote, the importance of creating some really kick a$$ content. And thus the point of the post – an example of brands being media.

When one way distribution platforms dominated, things were relatively simple – print ads, billboards, radio spots, TVCs, and even internet banners. But then came the tools of self publishing, the acknowledged game changer, with several possibilities.

It meant that brands, not unlike us common people, could create their own channels using multiple tools and services available. Some brands used it just as they would use the channels of an earlier era, and pushed until no one was interested.

When they were done with understanding that questioning the veracity of the content appearing online wouldn’t get them anywhere, some brands figured that the only difference that had been made was that a new breed of influencers and opinion makers/breakers/changers had been created. So, they formed alliances, sometimes transparent and sometimes not so. The thick line is now represented by multiple shades of grey. But that just seems to be the way the world in general works now, the Cisco-CNBC case, for example.

And then there were brands that went deeper and figured out that creating things that would spawn positive content would be a better idea, even if it meant that they had to rework everything. It could mean that they came out with a great product/service which created or mobilised legions of fanboys/girls. They could involve their consumers by asking for ideas. Or they could take on a cause honestly and contributed to the larger society. Not every brand has a CEO who sets a gold standard (here’s an excellent example of Anand Mahindra’s Twitter magic), but it definitely can create an environment that will make ambassadors of employees. It could create such great content or offer so much reward that  others generated excellent content for them (users created an Old Spice voicemail message) , or at least link to them. And if these aren’t possible, a brand could at least ensure that you offered a little value to consumers on the platforms they preferred. And these are by no means the master set.

When brands and their fan boys and girls become media in themselves, it raises many challenges too. What happens when a brand goofs up on a product and makes its vocal supporters seem like losers?  (you got that signal, I hope) How much of ownership can the brand take for the fans and how will their action or inaction affect those common consumers who are watching it all? What happens when there’s random malice that uses your brand name? (the recent Coke Facebook scam) Even for the star of the moment – Old Spice, what do they do, when a celebrity retorts in the same vein, and asks them to donate to a cause, that’s creating erm, waves all over the world. I, for one, am waiting for a response.

But despite all that, I believe that the opportunities make the challenges worthwhile. The work is definitely different – doing an eyewash research, releasing an ad, and adopting vague measurement techniques like reach won’t really cut it. With technology that discovers newer and newer contexts for consumers to express themselves, and their intent, brands have to learn to react, if not be proactive, in real time. So, since the web has successfully bottomed the costs of distribution, it is perhaps time that brands started investing the savings into creating good content, finding their way on platforms and with the people using the platforms.

until next time, content. is. marketing. too.

PS. next post, in a fortnight

Related posts:

1. Hairsay So, the Old Spice man  increased the sales of the...
2. Twitter lists, Social Search and brand content distribution So its been quite a while since Twitter lists launched,...
3. Multi purpose content This post over at GigaOm, titled “Apple doesn’t target markets,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

[Read Mahendra's excellent key takeaways+thoughts post if you need a quick snapshot without having to read 216 pages.]

I was quite impressed with the scope of the presentation – from looking at people’s motivations behind their ’social’ actions to the insights that have been gleaned. I must admit that i was a bit surprised that Google, or at least its employees took social this seriously. Good to know that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s stated aim of 1 billion users in the near future is finally pushing Google to do something other than killing of services (Jaiku, Dodgeball…) or making a mockery of itself in front of its competitors with half baked products. And that they’re doing research too. My first thought, after I finished reading the document was

Its ironic that Google faces a ‘What Would Google Do’ on itself. The good news is that there is enough scope for developing a network for context based social relationships and transactions. Like I said in my last post, the tools available still don’t allow me the freedom to aggregate and disaggregate connections and content at will in different contexts. It is possible to build a social network around many contexts – enterprise/professional use, location, family, interests and so on. I even saw an interesting app built for ‘proximity based networking’ – it syncs your existing networks – Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace with location and thereby does a twist on location based networking, with seemingly good privacy controls.

The bad news is that Mark Zuckerberg won’t take too kindly to encroachments in his space. As if ‘friends’ weren’t universal enough (at least inside the FB universe – including Connect), ‘Like’ is even more universal, and Facebook’s recent play is aimed at pipping Google’s (relative) ability to deliver the most relevant content to the user. It doesn’t help that social doesn’t seem to be what Google’s comfortable with.

But assuming Google Me is a social platform of some sort, what I’m wondering is that how many users would use Facebook lesser for a service which allows context to be brought into the picture. There’s something really simple about the ’sharing’ on Facebook. For a service that used to be labeled ‘complex’ in the Orkut era, it has come far. Users have adapted. Also, how difficult is it for Facebook, which already has a massive userbase to introduce features that allow a user to create sub identities to splice and dice friends (already has lists) and content and choose what to use outside the network? It already has filters to control the kind of information I want to see on my newsfeed, these can be improved too.

The other thing is how/where Google would build this – a separate service/ something around or integrated with iGoogle/Buzz (brrr)/Chrome (browser or OS)/ Search itself ? A lot of the design would be based on this. And how can it balance the simplicity of Facebook sharing with the more complex needs of context and privacy?

A larger perspective is that we’re nowhere close to the end game as far as our (probably seamless in the future) network of digital and real activities go. Its having a larger impact than what we sometimes credit it for. In fact, we are only discovering how the web is changing our behaviour and even perhaps motivations. A few of us have yet to decide whether we want to sync our multiple online identities. And that means that though Facebook is probably the most accepted solution now, its by no means the perfect one, even for our current understanding. Facebook, Google and the ones we haven’t even heard about are all Work In Progress, but boy, what interesting work it is! No monopoly, lots of chance and multiple community chests

until next time, google yourself

Related posts:

1. Whereabouts : The next social play Like I mentioned in the last post on the subject,...
2. Square Routes Despite my niggle with location based services (specifically Foursquare) –...
3. ‘Like’ Minded People I read an interesting post by Dare Obasanjo titled “There...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It was relatively easy when the medium was one way – mass media. The number of influencers were limited and there was really no way to locate or measure the individuals who made up the long tail of influencers. Or at least few were interested in doing it. The web disrupted it. The influenced found an abundance of content, the influencer saw his power being diminished by millions of publishers. The object (including the service provider/brand/organisation/group etc) figured out that it wasn’t at the mercy of limited influencers, but discovered a huge list which had its own quirks, but had the power to influence a multitude. Yes, known stuff, just summing up for context.

I remember touching upon ’social influencer relationship management’ (yes, there is actually a term for it) late last year, and the importance of trust. Influence, for me, has been a difficult thing to wrap my head around. There are so many factors erm, influencing it – time (specific and relative), context, trust (and objectivity) and the fast changing content platforms- each of which seems to add yet another layer. The complex structure has been well illustrated well in the chart below

via ( a post similar to Mahendra’s, but more serious in tone )

At least in the medium term, I think its only going to get more complex, primarily because the platforms are only evolving – Quora, the service I mentioned in the comment to Mahendra’s post, for example, can help in establishing context specific expertise and therefore trust. Facebook, when its QnA service starts, will try to establish it within a known network. Twitter has already tried it too, but I agree with Surekha. I’ve noticed that with web platforms, after a certain scale is reached, the culture starts resembling that of mass (media) and the ‘influencers’ as well as ‘influenced’ begin a relationship that’s familiar from a mass media era. What also complicates is that the ‘object’ of the relationship sometimes discovers that it too has a voice or can hire a ‘voice’ and attempt influence. This is one of the ways it is trying to adapt to new platforms. But while there might be flaws in each approach, I do feel the direction is right.

At this point in time, as a user, I’m still evolving in terms of the platforms I use to establish networks of trust. The tools available still don’t allow me the freedom to aggregate and disaggregate at will in different contexts. That’s probably something brands can identify with too, thanks to the plethora of platforms and influencers across networks. Its perhaps the difficult transition state when brands have to manage traditional communication outlets, new media barons, their own content management systems that need to evolve, and a long tail full of influencers. More importantly, brand processes (like advertising, PR etc) had evolved in a mass media milieu and a struggle to adapt to the disruptions brought around by a two way communication mechanism is what we see around now. We’ll keep that for another post, and quickly jump to an aspect that intrigues me from the four influence factors I mentioned earlier- that of time.

Long back, I wondered how we could juxtapose product and consumer life cycles. Let me address it in this context. Different consumers will ‘reach’ the product/service at different points in its lifecycle. There is a ‘time divide’ that separates the different sets of users. The motivations of this set would differ and therefore , its influencers will also be different, as will their motivations. Brands (using it as a blanket term, includes services too) these days are constantly in the hunt for early influencers, which is why I found this article, which discusses why gadget manufacturers should target late adopters, very interesting. This could apply to platforms as well. I wonder how this thought can affect when and how brands try to influence on new media platforms. Does it make sense to wait till platforms evolve to an extent where they can work better for the brands or is technology moving way too fast and lifecycles of all concerned behaviours becoming too small to wait?

Meanwhile, what if the millions who have never used Facebook are influenced by the movie?

until next time, in flux

Bonus Read: I plan to riff on this soon, but in this context, you could check out pages 147-173 of this amazing document. (via Pluggd.in)

Related posts:

1. Brands and consumer social influence Sometime back, I had read a post on Inquisitr very...
2. Product Life Cycle and Consumer Life Cycles One of the social web’s by products er, products, are...
3. Hairsay So, the Old Spice man  increased the sales of the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In this context, I saw the three kinds of webs (similar to the ones mentioned in the last post) and more that are almost seamlessly connected now – information, service and people. The need for filters in this information deluge is indeed pressing. While I do see some nifty tools that are being developed (eg. Pivot , Avoidr, specific search engines or even Twitter’s annotations) I sometimes wonder if it can ever catch up with the broadening scope of commonly used services. That’s also the reason why I think Facebook’s Open Graph search engine, which aims for social semantic search, is a big step, even while granting that not everyone’s on Facebook and their execution still has some way to go. Add to this privacy/security concerns (even Twitter was pulled up recently), and it does look complicated. Further layers like location will only add to this. And I wonder what new levels of complexity Google Me will bring. With each new service, the deluge of information increases, many times in the form of repetition, and our consumption changes.

The increasing usage of these services has meant that the web of ‘friends’ have also increased. In my case, while FB consisted of only real friends earlier, in the last few months, the number of virtual friends – mostly from Twitter, have increased manifold. Since I don’t usually share anything on the web that I don’t want anyone to see, my problems with privacy have been limited. But as the amount of sharing increases, I realise there are things I share that could be taken out of context. There is also the fact that personal and professional lives are no longer silos. (Read) The other take out from the last point is that its not just communication from brands/services that need to be looked at closely, but people too.

When the three webs are absolutely seamless, we will also see a shift in the kinds of relationship we have shared with brands, services and people. Facebook making payment for advertisers easier, sending me marketplace links, services making it easier for embedding ads, posts from my ‘friends’ plugging services/products with no disclosure, all work as signs for me. I do see a lot of work in setting up new ‘trading currencies’ and even different kinds of social networks (mobile phones – closed network ) and also note that the one factor that all the three entities need to keep in mind is trust. And that’s when I begin to wonder if similar systems are being developed for ’sharing’ trust and whether they can keep pace with the deluge of information, services and people. Or maybe its already working under the radar – new services (endor.se), recommendations on LinkedIn, Twitter lists etc.

until next time, SIP investments for mutual benefits

Related posts:

1. ‘Like’ Minded People I read an interesting post by Dare Obasanjo titled “There...
2. Connecting people It might be time for Nokia to rethink that line,...
3. Everybody, Friendfeed, right now!! In a way, Friendfeed’s latest offering has revolutionised my usage...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Foursquare is the only one I use, and hence I’m a bit biased. But it really has been setting a scorching pace in terms of creating opportunities that widen its scope. Badge fatigue is definitely something I’d been wondering about basis my usage, and I read that they’re now looking at adding more real value to badges, beyond the regular ‘mayor specials’ kind of deals. For example, “users who check-in at an Internet Week venue will unlock a special badge. That badge — when presented to bouncers — will guarantee users priority entrance into some Internet Week parties and events.” (via Mashable) The association with WSJ for the ‘Add to Foursquare’ button- to add venues with a single click when they are mentioned in articles – is quite a good move, both in terms of publicity, as well as utility. (because WSJ also adds a tip, with a link, so they get traffic later)

Scoble has an excellent post with suggestions on what Foursquare should be doing, going forward. I think all of them are essential – especially badges as a platform so companies/establishments can use it too (read recently that they’re doing it, but can’t find a link), giving more importance to tips (I don’t even get points for them), adding multimedia content (Brightkite has started this already), and the checking out feature. I’d also like to add to the wishlist – the ability to (direct) message (not shout) other users, (actually buy Meet Gatsby)  a way for select users to preview my (say) weekend plan, a way to ‘like’ existing tips so future users can have some kind of mechanism to judge,  tie ups with the group buying players (see The Dealmap), and please, an app for Nokia (especially valid for India). Oh yes, these real badges and other merchandise, how about adding some Augmented Reality/Stickybits to it? That goes for the stickers that are coming out soon too.

Meanwhile, Google has rolled out Tags – an advertising feature for local businesses that allow them to post additional information (eg. deals), Twitter is going ‘Places‘ which will allow users to tag tweets with places – its already integrated with Foursquare and Gowalla and automatically goes to a page associated with the place, and as SearchEngineLand notes, could in time, provide some good competition to Google Places. Ok, Yahoo’s trying too, remember, it bought the Indonesian service Koprol last month.  In addition there are new players set to arrive on the scene too, like Placebook!! (via) That reminds me, the Facebook ‘location’ buzz has been happening for long enough now, and I’d say that once the privacy talks have been sufficiently muted, there would be an announcement. For the record, Facebook ain’t the only ones with privacy issues. The aggregators have also arrived on the scene – Fourwhere.

RWW has a classification of three different webs – data, people and services, all of which are the basis of mashups – current and near future. The web of people has thrown up the issue of privacy and the amount of personal data users want to share. Location based services stretch this even further. (Do read ‘Publicy and the erosion of privacy‘) As we live in the stream and move towards new social and data arrangements, what I find interesting is that without the data we share, mashups might find it difficult to throw up personalised recommendations. Users, services as well as brands will need to walk a fine line on this. Services, I think, have to do the balancing act most. They have to keep users comfortable in terms of privacy and what they receive for sharing the data. Placebook sounds good in this context. They also have to help brands deliver value to the user.  But as of now, the business models are still evolving. A recent study showed that only 10% of businesses would be willing to pay for Foursquare.  But as users evolve, consumption, social behaviour and data sharing comfort levels change and intersect, and services gear up to accommodate all this, we will surely see a rapidly changing landscape.

until next time, location based relationships next?

Related posts:

1. Whereabouts : The next social play Like I mentioned in the last post on the subject,...
2. Identity Crisis One of last week’s biggest news was the agreement between...
3. ‘Like’ Minded People I read an interesting post by Dare Obasanjo titled “There...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.