Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘social networks’

Hi all,

Rather than write generally about online communities I figured I’d blog from the inside about one community building effort in particular, Weplay.  A couple of posts ago I talked about my experience and belief that real world structures for the best basis for a successful online community.   We’re putting that theory to the test in a real way on Weplay.

Very soon Weplayers will see much more neighborhood information and features. We all play, practice, shop, study, eat… ya know, LIVE, in the real world.  We believe Weplay should fit as naturally into your offline life as much as possible.   Soon you’ll be able to see what’s happening in your neighborhood, city, county, state and region like never before.  Get the latest news on who’s playing each other (and everything else that’s fit to print!), get the latest scores, find directions to those soccer fields you’ve never heard of, see who else hit a homerun on the local baseball diamond, ask and answer questions of people right in your own backyard.

Of course we’ll make it EASY and FUN to contribute to the Weplay neighborhood experience. We’ve been quietly working on an iPhone application (and figuring out Android, Blackberry!).   We’re being very careful to make sure it’s easy and fast to snap a picture or video and get it up to your group or profile page.  We know when you guys are in the dugout, in the stands, on the team mini van speed is of the essence!  Oh yeah, we also want to make it easy for moms and dads to share pics and keep up to date on where and when to be!

In addition to using a mobile device to update profiles and contribute to the local experiences, we’re opening up the platform for Weplayers to contribute news, venue information, ask and answer questions, tag content and so on.

Read the rest of the post on Weplay >

Read Full Post »

Online social networks as a dominant medium for ideas, relationships and communication is not a fad. Online communities not based on something substantial in the offline world are a fad or rather were the easiest types of networks to get up and running. Today’s leading social networks from Facebook to linkedin to eharmony and other niche communities thrive because they are based on meaningful relationships/structures in the offline world – workplace, school, dating, religion, community activity, teams The social networks in decline or already gone have been based on virtual or entertainment only connections between members – music group fans, gossip, breaking news, Internet memes, pro sports, etc.

The online networks based on offline structures benefit greatly from built in relationships, hierarchies, and connected behaviors. It is much easier to invent functions and services based on well established behaviors and objectives. Additionally the offline structures mentioned above are more important to people in their daily lives than purely virtual communities. This deeper importance leads to better engagement and commitment to the online counterpart of that institution. E.g. Few users maintain a sloppy or misleading linked in or Facebook profile (this isn’t constrained to any age group either). As the online and offline components become more intertwined activity in either becomes reinforcing.

The downside of building an online community based on something offline is that can take considerable resources to get it right and achieve critical mass, the user must do more to get the value – fill out a profile, be real, have substance in interactions, be interesting offline etc.

There are other reasons virtual only communities suffer… Because the interactions have few offline consequences the interactions quickly grow out of sync with offline norms and values. The more out of sync they get the harder it is for their to be lasting connectedness between larger and larger groups of members. The network fractures and often gets too abnormal for mass consumption.

I am definitely making the claim that celebrity worship, loving the same bands, seeing the same movies, disliking the same athletes, being simply in a similar career are not strong enough connections to build a social network around. Shared offline experiences is the basis of long lasting online communities. Last I checked humans still lived, ate, made babies, earned money and died in the real world. And the things most essential to doing those activities are what were all going to post, blog, take pictures, comment and like.

As an aside to those working in the internet biz…. Not all unique users are created equal. Very quickly this industry will have a metric system based on unique people with real names interacting in your system. Of course publishers, networks, media companies will always attempt to shroud those numbers in mystery, but it’s getting harder and harder to hide how many real people use a system. Once the industry makes this shift the offline connectedness becomes more essential.

Read Full Post »

They’re at it again. Yes they are… As part of the Rube Goldberg contingent from Mythinformation Central. From the people that brought you “you’re fat because of your friends” you are now presented with: “your genes influence who will become friends.”

They set up the straw man: that it is an error to suggest people are a function of a “simple model for the metabolic, neural and Internet networks, and the same model is applied to human beings — that all parts of the network are identical and interchangeable”.

They never knock it down but extrapolate beyond the data with innuendo of their own PR. One can only imagine that Christakis and cronies will be doing collaborative work with Steven Pinker soon on the topology of the mind, call it science and write another book on the mind’s influences in support of Pinker’s postulate that the reason the Chief justice misquoted the oath of President Obama was a “blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling Or was it a Freudian slip? Hmmm… Science, huh... How very canny for the Language Don Dr. Pinker to point that out as he knows so much about both people’s histories, relevant factors and ‘mindful’ homunculi like those “inherent characteristics that govern where we [as individuals] gravitate to in the social network.”

“A second implication is that the [current] study suggests that if we really want to understand how things [?what ‘things’?] diffuse in social networks, we need to take into account people’s locations in the social networks, which are due in part to their genes,” Christakis pontificated while showing no data or peer reviewed research.

Please see the Baloney Detection Kit submitted for consideration for those reading content from any media channel, including Buzz Creation or Mythinformation efforts by mainstream print media to get more subscribers and kooks to buy their fading printed words.

I am looking forward to more “sharper predictions” from the Christakis Mythinformation crew.

Read Full Post »

Failure to understand how users and money flow through the Internet costs media and etailers a lot of money every day.  There are huge misconceptions about where the “value” actually lives for user data, advertising performance and profit margins on all this high tech.

The following figures attempt to disambiguate some of the confusion.  The summarized conclusions come from a variety of data sources and real life experiences analyzing financial statements, traffic reports, advertiser analysis and experimentation.  Specifically one could get someone exact figures by combining comScore, Quantcast, Compete, Google Analytics, TNS, @Plan, SEC Filings, internal reports, revenue statements and DART forecasting as I have done several times.

This post is meant to be a demonstration of the core concepts, not a statistical treatise on the topic.

If you hate reading too much, skip to the end for a somewhat realistic example of how traffic flows.

Traffic on the Internet roughly splits 7 segments.  (as shown in the figures below).  These segments are defined by where the sit in the user experience by amount of consumptive behavior (clicks, reading, sharing, watching). How the user gets from segment to segment is not completely linear in actuality, but when you coagulate a users behavior you’ll roughly see a funnel in terms of time spent, pageviews and ad impressions.

Traffic Funnel

Traffic Funnel

The segments can be characterized also by their ad performance, ad targeting (how specific is the user in their activity), and their audience coverage (how much of the particular audience segment does a type of site/service reach)

Funnel Traffic Segments

Funnel Traffic Segments

Each segment has a different cost profile.  Here I look at labor costs to maintain and capital expenses to build and power.

Where's the Cost?

Where's the Cost?

As you can guess, each traffic segment has a different profit profile too.  This is largely the result of combining the advertising/revenue performance with the cost profile.  Certain Internet services simply do not have a strong profit opportunity because they borrow old models and/or cost more than the market is willing to pay. (Perhaps that will stabilize one day, but I think software tools and low cost hardware disrupt the demand curve A LOT because users can often supply their own demands once the cost gets too high, hence why TOOLS are the most profitable segment.)

Profit Margins by Segment

Profit Margins by Segment

Make no mistake about what I’m presenting here.  The profit online is all in retailing, portals/search and tools/utilities.  The stuff in the middle of the funnel is highly susceptible to competitive displacement and has very little intellectual property protection.  You can verify this conclusion by reviewing revenue statements and SEC filings for the big tech and internet companies.

The advent of citizen journalism and self publishing flattened the media market.  Owning a printing press was once “high tech” and a capital investment barrier.  Owning the right location on the main street was once a logistical barrier.  High speed computers and difficult programming languages was once a technical barrier.  Those 3 feature are gone.  Media is now, well, almost purely a creative barrier.  There’s a huge pool of creative talent constantly struggling against each other.  Creativity is worth a lot once it rises above everything else.  That happens so rarely to make it a bad investment.  Every minute more and more people enter the creative market (how many blog posts per hour? how many videos go up each day?… a lot.)

organizing, sifting, filtering, distributing, aggregating… that’s the sweet spot.  There is a technical hurdle, but the investment is worth it as there will never be less of a need to filter, sift, find, distribute.

This week we had a beautiful illustration of these concepts with the Presdential Inauguration.

Most of the US users watched the Inauguration, most on TV, a lot with online video streams and 2 million in person.  During and Immediately following the inauguration the Internet lit up with content creation and massive usage.  The portals and search engines featured as many new links and breaking stories to the news coverage.

The social networks shot pictures, tweets and status updates around, occassionally referencing links to the confirmation gaff, benediction speech text, and satelite pictures from DC.

Micro bloggers summarized everything as fast as they could, while the search engines and utilities sucked in that content.  The original content creators probably released a previously composed story and put that live.

Mainstream users shut down their video streams and took to the portals and search engine, seeking more info on what just happened or insight into a specific moment.  Most times they ended up at CNN or NYTimes.  Many times, but less frequently, they hit a blog that had some recent content.  Most users probably ran into a wikipedia reference link or youtube video.

Some users ended up on amazon to buy Obama’s books or some inauguration swag.  Finally as the day concluded and original content creators finally had enough time to craft something, users might find themselves falling asleep to a good OpEd on the history of the day or an interview with the Michelle Obama dress designers.

By 3 days later the amount of content available on the inauguration is 1000x greater than within the first 10 minutes.  Original content creators are hopelessly buried amongst the blog posts, tweets, continuosly AP feed CNN articles and YouTube embeds.  The bloggers are buried by other bloggers.  The news stories give way to other news stories.

The utilities that sort, sift, filter and monetize on it all just got a 1000x better experience and continue to catch the huge volume of user investigation and digging.  The own the head, the trunk and that dreaded long tail and collect user targeting data all along the way.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE 1-US weekly jobless claims surge to 16-year high
Reuters - 11/20/08 – 1 hour ago

US weekly jobless claims shoot up to 542000 MarketWatch

Boeing layoff of 800 rattles Wichita aircraft economy

HP to possibly layoff 25,000 world wide coincident with merger with EDS

(Update) UTMB Begins Process Of Laying Off 3000 Employees dBTechno

Brady Corp. posts slight 1Q sales dip, announces layoffs
The restructuring means layoffs for about 800 of Brady’s 8000 workers worldwide.

We all know the difficult and sometimes devastating consequences from layoffs from employment. Yes, there is a ripple effect of the shops and the Blackberry sales and the BMWs and the ‘this and that’ affected in the years to come.

All these represent, [say it with me...] “CHANGES IN CONTINGENCIES”.

There is the change in contingencies from what controls the people employed that need to be redeployed by cities and states to control contingencies of the people wanting a job, unemployment benefits, food from food banks and such. There is the toll on children, handicapped, and those with marginal skills that were working just to exist.  All their contingencies change as well only they are not any more a part of the statistics than are the one-room developers working for Macy’s or Mama Mia’s.

All these things are tough. But they are tough for other reasons than given or obsessed over a $5 Starbucks coffee [also laying off and closing retail stations]. That reason is the wholesale breakage in the schedules we have. Hold on. Think about it. We are consumed by work and the things that lead to it and result from it. We normally groan about traffic, litter, bosses, colleagues, food, time and other highly emotional elements. We have all these things on schedules. They are intertwined with each other to a point where changing one, (Starbucks is too crowded at lunch) is met with a lot of travail and consternation in the process of searching for another hangout.

Now consider that for the unemployed, there may be 12,000 to 50,000 changes in what that person does on a weekly basis.

  • Oh, did I mention they have no behavior to replace those 12,000 – 50,000 “things” that they did?
  • Did I mention they have ‘get a new job’ skills ‘cause those behaviors haven’t been used in six years?
  • Did I mention they don’t see people that they considered of value?
  • Did I mention they don’t see the affect of doing work they maybe linked and were good at?
  • Did I mention they aren’t getting paid any more?
  • Oh, and don’t forget the change in value they have of themselves… they are not there and others are there…”What gives with that?”

One solution is to create new schedules. FAST! Immersion into creating behavior for getting a new job as quickly as possible and, in the process, hang out with more positive people, dump all toxic people, don’t drink $5 coffee or attend to any dome and gloom stories from the talking heads. Ignore it all. Those things are out there whether you know about them or not and you can’t effect any of it. Use those social networks you surreptitiously spent time on while working…

Things will come around again if you behave! For now, find some behavior and get back on some new schedules.

Read Full Post »

Edge.com

Douglas Rushkoff
“Social Networks Are Like the Eye”
A Talk with Nicholas Christakis

I read with great interest – as usual – the Edge article by DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF: “Social Networks are like the Eye” – A Talk with Nicholas Christakis.

Certainly no shortage of the point and counterpoint logic on anyone’s part. Rushkoff and Alda both working as part of several social networks themselves show a dismissive stance to marketing but are published in a most pristine record of ideas on the Internet where, despite their claims, they market their approaches. Good stuff for many but wait, what are they saying with all those not-so-grand illusions (‘living systems’ or subsystems of brain numbing metaphor piled on metaphor…) or mentalistic and romantic ideas of a ‘vis viva’ forces to establish value of their agendas over ‘others’ agendas.

YIKES! What’s going on?

Two things come out of all of this:

  1. Social networks are treated as a separate uber-case of behavior apart from other forms of behavior. It reminds me of how in the late 40’s and much of the 50’s the railroads treated themselves as an ‘industry’ rather than part of transportation.
  2. The metaphor is the medium. As such, they are contributing to the slow dilution of the very communication that they are so proud to expound on. Much of the article’s context is spent validating selected metaphors and not explaining how social networks work empirically.

Incased in the strategy being presented it was like I was being induced to look for a communication homunculus but instead was provided a drumming of the numbing anti-parsimonious meme concept of Dawkins. Raise you hand if ‘ideological components’ does wonders here in explaining social networks. Using a metaphor to support an analogy… to support another metaphor is hardly what Edge has built its reputation on.

“It’s the media shell that allows a media virus to spread through the mediaspace undetected, while it’s the memes inside that interpolate into our confused cultural code, forcing their replication.”

Doesn’t this sound a little like ‘vapor’ explanations that resurfaced in the 1850s from Aristotle’s ‘vapors’ theories as what was responsible for behavior? Aristotle and others that followed posited that there were ‘airs,’ just as there were different liquids and different solids that caused behavior. How are vapors that different than memes and metaphors that have nothing to do with people doing stuff?

To interrupt these authors, consider that social networks are based on interaction / access. No one cares about the brand of the camera, phone, or graininess of the content. For social networks to grow there needs to be content to access and the viewer needs to be able to respond. End of story. It defies predetermined categories of demographic gurus. Content gets acted on and in so doing lets the provider know what is of value. Hits and sends to others = important. No action = not important. Move on. Where are the virus – memes – biological systems metaphor required?

The question that begs to be answered is why are these metaphors necessary or used? Do they may provide some communication value leap-froging a more parsimonic or empirical resolution about social network etiology? For Edge it may come down to what was the objective of airing this set of monologues. While interesting, they are diversionary to understanding the subject matter in the title.

The world has more media options and combinations that move a message than ever before. Like reality TV it seems that every TV media exec has the secret and that one more reality show will be better than one less. As if each media exec has blinders on, they don’t get it that the form of media and the content carried live until the predictability and the exposure create habituation. This, along with competition for a viewer’s time, and things changing, variability occurs and gets selected and is the next big (valued) thing. Everyone gets to take credit for the next big thing because no one can show how to do it again. It is as old as game shows, westerns, crime soaps and variety shows.

Mr. Rushkoff asks “What is the cultural immune response related to MySpace or YouTube?” No one knows – which makes the talking heads cranky. But is there any question that there will be another episode change? Of course not. To use the idiom of the article, “if something has value, the code is picked up and carried, converted and re-sent via other shells elsewhere until its value has run its course to the end user.”

As content without a polarity, the media material exists in a vacuum and only becomes viral [and thus of ‘value] if it is attended to on the network… it was not ‘design specificity’ but the lack of specificity in the media channel that gives it value to network members.

Moving on, I was surprised at the vitriolic or at least pejorative tense of some of the assessment.

“Thus “viral marketing” was born. Meanwhile, visionaries interested in the possibilities for organismic awareness offered by mediated interconnectedness were lumped in with the fascists of earlier eras. Anything smacking of “meta-organism” reminded the intelligentsia of Hegel or, worse, Jung. Instead of looking — like scientists — at the incipient reorganization of civilization on a new dimensional level, they cringe like early readers of Le Bon’s The Crowd, incapable of seeing in collective organism anything but the tyranny of the masses.”

The nice thing about Edge.com is that it has an abundance of ‘intelligentsia’ all with identities that with little coxing evolve into priestly pontifications like that above scolding us for questioning the latest epoch of truth. In my experience, ‘scientists’ don’t need to yell. There data is what matters.

One last note on Ruchkoff’s primer on social networks; like artificial intelligence, Boolean logic and internet language code, there is a point where social networks will get absorbed into the fabric of life and the next generation of life without fanfare. We are observing an important yet fleeting data point that has meaning only if the data involved lead to other dynamic social activities. Ultimately none of this will be understood unless a less romantic strategy of study is applied to that behavior.

John H. Bryant

The Woodlands, TX USA

jbryant@CrossroadsAccess.com

4/4/08

Read Full Post »

I received the following from a director of ad operations, Jeremy Jones, in response to yesterday’s post on collective behavior and the other day’s post on vertical media.  His remarks focus on the confusion over social networking advertising (both selling and buying).  I include the full remark here and an annotated remark below.

[Social networks/social sites] struggle with how to sell the concept to advertisers.  No one gets it, not even the sn sites themselves.

I had believed that social networking and behavioral targeting was just a fad.  That it will end up just being another tool in the arsenal once somebody actually figures it out.  I think it won’t really take off until someone develops a standard that everyone can follow.  Until then it’s just a mishmash of technologies and ideas that are just tangents of the same idea.  Being in the industry, we hear about every new concept of trying to aggregate behavior and bucketing those behaviors to try and create useful targeting.  It all revolves around collecting site behavior.  Some of the more interesting ones actually involve trying to apply psychological profiles and social classifications based on the user’s browsing behavior.

Is sn or bt about the consumers or the influencers?  Up to this point, anyone trying to use influencers has typically been exposed.  All those attempts at viral are quickly uncovered as manufactured.  It is true what they say that the internet is the world’s greatest laboratory.  The collective intelligence will typically uncover a insincere effort rather quickly.  SEO has generally been regarded as a good thing.  Even though it has been used by every advertiser to increase their influence.  It has ensured that any content worth knowing can be found.  But what about social networking and behavioral targeting?  The impact of social networking is just beginning to be felt.  So much personal data.  Will the collective eventually see this as a good thing or bad?  It’s influence will be far greater than SEO.  Will they approve of having their personal details used for the purposes of a more efficient marketing machine?  Can they do anything about it if they really wanted to?

One of the current problems with behavioral targeting is that no one has developed a method of success reporting.  What is a success metric for a bt campaign?  Advertisers are still using visits and clicks as success metrics.  Widgets is an interesting method.  It requires adoption by users, and once adopted, do they interact with your widget?  Consume it’s content, pass it along to friends?  Do friends adopt it without prompting?  It certainly opens up a whole new area of measurable behaviors that were never available before.  This gets back to the influencer vs the consumer.  How do you target the influencers?  Heck, how do you identify the influencers.  That, I believe is the tricky part.  The influencers are not a stable group.  They are never the same.  They can be an influencer one day, and an consumer the next.  If you could come up with a method for identifying the influencers for any advertiser then you would really have something.

I think this response underscores the general discomfort with media and advertising right now.  We have the technology to deliver interesting experiences and we collect a lot of data.  We simply don’t have a good enough technology/science of behavior that has left the ivory tower and trickled into business intelligence.

We focus too much on the “biological details”(e.g. who are the influencers, where’s the meme/viral agent/contagion, what is the makeup of the content, onbrand strategies) that we’re losing site of the behavior, in particular the social behavior.  We do not need to know much about the influencers to take advtange of influencer behavior (what are the behaviors, what are the schedules of reinforcement, what are the reinforcers), history (normative behavior, rule sets, discriminant stimulus) and the context of the influence (the environment, the websites, the office, the watercooler, the telephone…).

Here’s my direct response to Jeremy:

[Social networks/social sites] struggle with how to sell the concept to advertisers.  No one gets it, not even the sn sites themselves.

“It” needs definition.   The confusion may stem from unclear values and how to measure achievement of that value.  What do advertisers value?  Transactions?  Clicks? User data? Sales?  “Brand awareness”?  Being hip/cool?  Often advertisers use buying agents (agencies, buying teams, their uncle…), so the values are compounded.  The buying agent may value sticking to budget, being hip, being secure…   The confusion in measurement for media and advertising has partial roots in what the bigger financial market (venture capitalists, board members, stock market/shareholders, banks/lenders) value. Do the financiers value media footprint (eyeballs), transactional value (CPMs), advertising market ownership (spend share), loyalty (repeat spends, repeat users)?   When you look at the two value sets and try to assess whether the social networking sites fulfill any combination/which combination you find that social networks are out of whack with mainstream values.  Social networks drive huge footprints and user loyalty and are good at exposing users to brands/ideas/concepts. Social networks have yet to drive transactions or any offsite activity so most of the values to advertisers with the current advertiser approach cannot be fulfilled.

Don’t forget to add the set of rapidly changing distribution mechanisms (the APIs, social networking platforms, ad implements, publishing toolsets, scripting languages, AJAX vs FLASH vs Silverlight, the tracking systems…)

Thus confusion.

Resolution?  Experience.  That’s it.  Everyone will gain experience and we’ll integrate social networking advertising and not even notice because their will be some other “new thing” chewing up attention on blogs and at water coolers.

I had believed that social networking and behavioral targeting was just a fad.

A common response to an unknown stimulus.  Until you experience new methods enough, everything we don’t know about is a fad.

That it will end up just being another tool in the arsenal once somebody actually figures it out.  I think it won’t really take off until someone develops a standard that everyone can follow.  Until then it’s just a mishmash of technologies and ideas that are just tangents of the same idea.  Being in the industry, we hear about every new concept of trying to aggregate behavior and bucketing those behaviors to try and create useful targeting.  It all revolves around collecting site behavior.

Right, see my note above.

Some of the more interesting ones actually involve trying to apply psychological profiles and social classifications based on the user’s browsing behavior.

Pyschological profiles?  ugh.  It’s behavior that matters.  The psychology, in typical usuage, is a useless abstraction.  As a thought experiment, profile yourself.  What’s you profile?  Another experiement: Go to your amazon.com page – based on the products you’ve purchased and they recommend, what does it really say about you and can you do much to target yourself that you couldn’t do by matching like categorized products that get ok user reviews?

Behavior classifications based on schedules of reinforcement,with historical and contextual classification is the way to go.  Read up on schedules on reinforcement to understand the concept and how it might be applied to online advertising.  Basically, a publisher needs to understand rates of reinforcement and what schedules a user behaves under.  You can have the perfect product and a great message but if you miss a users schedule, they won’t buy.  Schedules can be:

  • buying schedules
  • reading schedules
  • relationship schedules
  • job schedules
  • cultural schedules
  • learning schedules

One topical example that might help understanding. Think about this years elections and why the candidates might be having more success with their platforms vs. in previous years.  The voters schedules are inline with some politicians message.  The context of economy, health care, unpopular war, social upheaval, housing issues are both on social schedules/cycles and personal cycles.   Certain politician presentation styles and stance on these issues fit better in the current schedules than others.

Your own schedules impact how you vote and how others might influence your vote.

I suppose you could say “timing is everything.”

Is sn or bt about the consumers or the influencers?  Up to this point, anyone trying to use influencers has typically been exposed.  All those attempts at viral are quickly uncovered as manufactured.  It is true what they say that the internet is the world’s greatest laboratory.  The collective intelligence will typically uncover a insincere effort rather quickly.

Is there a difference between consumers and influencers?  and does the exposition of that difference matter at all?

Authenticity and credibility are very much tied to values.  A manufactured attempt a buzz is usually the result of the manufacturing body not understanding the values of the consumers. Often agencies, marketers and publishers get the optics (the outside packaging) of a product or service but totally miss the utility. (hint: ipods are much more than music on the go with a nice digital store)

SEO has generally been regarded as a good thing.  Even though it has been used by every advertiser to increase their influence.  It has ensured that any content worth knowing can be found.

I suppose.  A sidenote: SEO was also a product of the search companies themselves to improve their own product.  The better content can be found the more useful the search engine.

But what about social networking and behavioral targeting?  The impact of social networking is just beginning to be felt.  So much personal data.  Will the collective eventually see this as a good thing or bad?

It’s neither good nor bad and will never be labeled as such.  It’s all about value.  You give all your professional data to LinkedIn and Monster because they help you get a job, you do not always share this information with your land lord because he might use it against you.  You give your friends names to Facebook because it helps you communicate.  You give google all of your search queries because it finds the info you need, but you’d never share your search query list with your girlfriend – you’d have far too much explaining to do.

It’s influence will be far greater than SEO.  Will they approve of having their personal details used for the purposes of a more efficient marketing machine?  Can they do anything about it if they really wanted to?

Social networking traffic is different than search traffic.  It’s not greater or lesser in any quantifiable sense, certainly not yet.

Yes, you can do something about your data.  Always.

One of the current problems with behavioral targeting is that no one has developed a method of success reporting.  What is a success metric for a bt campaign?  Advertisers are still using visits and clicks as success metrics.  Widgets is an interesting method.  It requires adoption by users, and once adopted, do they interact with your widget?  Consume it’s content, pass it along to friends?  Do friends adopt it without prompting?  It certainly opens up a whole new area of measurable behaviors that were never available before.

See my earlier notes on the confusion of values.

This gets back to the influencer vs the consumer.  How do you target the influencers?  Heck, how do you identify the influencers.  That, I believe is the tricky part.  The influencers are not a stable group.  They are never the same.  They can be an influencer one day, and an consumer the next.  If you could come up with a method for identifying the influencers for any advertiser then you would really have something.

My focus is on coming up with a way to track, analyze and respond to schedules.  If I know your schedules, I don’t need to know you.  Tracking schedules doesn’t require demographic studies or surveys or other intrusive methods.  I can use the behaviors you exhibit.  The web is excellent for this.

My point is that I can spend time classifying people into various categories by gender, “personality”, social status in an effort to predict behavior OR I can just observe the behavior and schedules and attend directly to that.

~R

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 459 other followers