Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Facebook: Innovator or Antagonist?
My Dad just joined Facebook, and he is currently tracking down family members and reporting the details to my grandmother. Fortunately, I recognized a while ago the dangerous potential ability of Facebook to let skeletons out of the closet. I was in college when the 40 somethings decided to migrate in mass to Facebook. Friends of mine turned paranoid in fear that pictures of their drunken promenade might just reach their parents monitors (or law enforcement).
They were right.
Of course, that was when the user had more control over their identifying data. All they had to do was remove the tag, picture, or album. When Facebook reformatted user metadata under the "Like" function, identifying data was no longer completely in control of the user. Many users have been put off with the recent deals Facebook has made with Yelp, Pandora, Microsoft and others to share their identifying data to enhance an internet experience based on sharing and collaboration. Oh, and to make their advertising partners happy. In a recent blog post Zuckerberg said that
"This flow of social information has profound benefits—from driving better decisions to keeping in touch more easily—and we're really proud that Facebook is part of the shift toward more social and personalized experiences everywhere online."
This sounds a lot like a move to the Semantic Web that we have been hearing so much about (often referred to as Web 3.0). And I have to admit that this has wonderful potential for online marketing. Think of all of the consumer data that the "Like" function will bring. It would be a nice addition to the "pay-per-click" data. I think users would be more likely to "Like" something rather than click on add that pops up in their tweet or some viral, kitten video.
But is the consumer/user ready for Sir Tim-Berners Lee's Web 3.0? There has been a lot of backlash about Facebook's new plan. Two consecutive posts on Wired's Epicenter showed the frustration.
Post 1: Only Old Fogies Hate the New Facebook by Ryan Singel speaks about recent data that Facebook users, 35 years and up (not really old fogies after all) have responded negatively to news that Facebook revised its Privacy Policy. This is not good considering for the past two years this age groups makes up the fastest growing demographic on Facebook.
Post 2: NYU Students Aim to Invent Facebook (Again). We’ve Got Your Back. by John C Abell cites the attempts of a bunch of NYU students who want to create an old-school (as in 2004) alternative to the current Facebook. They just want social networking to be social networking again where the only thing you have to worry about is your Mom seeing all the things did last Friday in a well document album entitled "All the things I probably should not have done last Friday!" This article seems to capture the angst from the younger side of that demographic. The ones that Facebook has counted on to maintain its power.
Web 2.0 is about the user conforming the web to meet their needs. Web 3.0 is about the web doing that on its own. That is only going to happen with initiatives like Facebook to share Market relevant data. Amazon does this to a small extent within the bounds of its own servers by selecting products that users might like based on their purchasing history. Facebook isn't inventing the wheel; there just finally bringing it to the masses.
These discussions are also coming in the middle of the Data Wars. In the 70s and 80s it was the hardware wars. In the 90s that battle shifted to software. Since Web 2.0, that war is over where users will store their data, where will they network, where will they make purchases, etc. Facebook wants to be the Virtual Mall of America, as does Google. And Microsoft just wants to get a piece of the pie while maybe throwing a few jabs at Google and Apple along the way. Users love how these tools help them coalesce, shop, analyze, educate, or just vent. There might not have been a Revolution (2009) in Iran without Facebook and Twitter. Ok Go would not be selling songs without YouTube. But consumers/users are put off by big companies that war over market share because it exposes the companies' inner desire to serve their shareholders and not the user. That being said, these companies are not going anywhere.
But that nasty long tail keeps whipping the head of big business. Those NYU students might create another niche in the market with small, personalized, topicized social networking sites. Ning would not be where the are today without a demand for these sites.
The Semantic Web, or some version of it, is coming whether users like it or not. It is already coming to Facebook. What will probably happen? Users will continued to use Facebook for certain things and move on to newer, more gated, social applications for other needs. It is the nature of Web 2.0 and 3.0 to rise to user demand.
They were right.
Of course, that was when the user had more control over their identifying data. All they had to do was remove the tag, picture, or album. When Facebook reformatted user metadata under the "Like" function, identifying data was no longer completely in control of the user. Many users have been put off with the recent deals Facebook has made with Yelp, Pandora, Microsoft and others to share their identifying data to enhance an internet experience based on sharing and collaboration. Oh, and to make their advertising partners happy. In a recent blog post Zuckerberg said that
"This flow of social information has profound benefits—from driving better decisions to keeping in touch more easily—and we're really proud that Facebook is part of the shift toward more social and personalized experiences everywhere online."
This sounds a lot like a move to the Semantic Web that we have been hearing so much about (often referred to as Web 3.0). And I have to admit that this has wonderful potential for online marketing. Think of all of the consumer data that the "Like" function will bring. It would be a nice addition to the "pay-per-click" data. I think users would be more likely to "Like" something rather than click on add that pops up in their tweet or some viral, kitten video.
But is the consumer/user ready for Sir Tim-Berners Lee's Web 3.0? There has been a lot of backlash about Facebook's new plan. Two consecutive posts on Wired's Epicenter showed the frustration.
Post 1: Only Old Fogies Hate the New Facebook by Ryan Singel speaks about recent data that Facebook users, 35 years and up (not really old fogies after all) have responded negatively to news that Facebook revised its Privacy Policy. This is not good considering for the past two years this age groups makes up the fastest growing demographic on Facebook.
Post 2: NYU Students Aim to Invent Facebook (Again). We’ve Got Your Back. by John C Abell cites the attempts of a bunch of NYU students who want to create an old-school (as in 2004) alternative to the current Facebook. They just want social networking to be social networking again where the only thing you have to worry about is your Mom seeing all the things did last Friday in a well document album entitled "All the things I probably should not have done last Friday!" This article seems to capture the angst from the younger side of that demographic. The ones that Facebook has counted on to maintain its power.
Web 2.0 is about the user conforming the web to meet their needs. Web 3.0 is about the web doing that on its own. That is only going to happen with initiatives like Facebook to share Market relevant data. Amazon does this to a small extent within the bounds of its own servers by selecting products that users might like based on their purchasing history. Facebook isn't inventing the wheel; there just finally bringing it to the masses.
These discussions are also coming in the middle of the Data Wars. In the 70s and 80s it was the hardware wars. In the 90s that battle shifted to software. Since Web 2.0, that war is over where users will store their data, where will they network, where will they make purchases, etc. Facebook wants to be the Virtual Mall of America, as does Google. And Microsoft just wants to get a piece of the pie while maybe throwing a few jabs at Google and Apple along the way. Users love how these tools help them coalesce, shop, analyze, educate, or just vent. There might not have been a Revolution (2009) in Iran without Facebook and Twitter. Ok Go would not be selling songs without YouTube. But consumers/users are put off by big companies that war over market share because it exposes the companies' inner desire to serve their shareholders and not the user. That being said, these companies are not going anywhere.
But that nasty long tail keeps whipping the head of big business. Those NYU students might create another niche in the market with small, personalized, topicized social networking sites. Ning would not be where the are today without a demand for these sites.
The Semantic Web, or some version of it, is coming whether users like it or not. It is already coming to Facebook. What will probably happen? Users will continued to use Facebook for certain things and move on to newer, more gated, social applications for other needs. It is the nature of Web 2.0 and 3.0 to rise to user demand.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Retension and The Long Tail
Why is it that I know enough about the Rocky Horror Picture Show to know that I never want to see the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Answer: Retention and the Long Tail
The Rocky Horror Picture show is a brand that knows how to keep and replenish its base. It is largely kept alive by the fan base, however the fan base doesn't have any control over whether it will stop circulating on DVD or in Theaters or in special big screen releases. 20th Century Fox has the call on that, and as long as they keep making money (as long as there is still a demand), they will continue to supply.
Compared to other movies produced recently, the Rocky Horror Picture Show ranks toward the bottom of the list in overall revenue. Its fan base/followers are a niche group. So why does 20th Century Fox waste their time. Because they are turning a profit. The Rocky Horror Picture show exists somewhere in the Long Tail, a term popularized by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail. He says "if you combine enough of the non-hits, you've actually established a market that rivals the hits" (22). So, if the Rocky Horror Picture was the only niche product they had, 20th Century Fox might have had to cut the ropes long ago. But in combination with its other niche, non-hits, Rocky Horror Picture Show is part of a market tap that runs long. For instance, Anderson explains that 1/4 of Amazon's book sales come from books that are not in the top 100,000 titles. 45% of Rhapsodies purchases come from outside of their top titles (Anderson, 23).
Retaining these niche groups is becoming of vital importance to companies. Anderson explains that The Long tail can be attributed to lower production, shipping, and storage costs along with rises in demand. But, it can also be attributed to social media. These niche groups tend form around an idea or some brand identity like the Rocky Horror Picture Show or some obscure indie rapper. These groups use Facebook, blogs, wikis, YouTube, Twitter and other social platforms to organize and ultimately make purchasing decisions. As long as this group maintains its size in relation to other groups in the Long Tail, then the companies who supply these niche groups will continue to turn a profit. That means that members have to remain involved or be replaced if they become inactive.
So when Jeremy Richardson of Mixpanel, Inc. said in his Mashable post that Retention should be a greater Analytical concern than virality, he may have had a point. He says that virality is measured in three factors:
"It’s computed by multiplying the percentage of current users who invite other people (X), the average number of people who are invited per user (Y), and the percentage of invited people who accept an invitation (Z). Many companies use this –- and only this — to determine the success of a product" (Richardson). This equation is known as the K-Factor. The problem is that Y is the middle man in this this equation.
As Richardson puts it . . .
The first and last numbers, X and Z, are conversion rates. By definition, they are always going to have a finite limit –- 100% engagement. While having perfect conversion rates would be amazing, it wouldn’t really mean much if Y, the number of people invited, was only one.
So, if conversion rates are maxed out, then the only thing left to tweak is the number of invites sent out. There are two main contributors to this:
Invite Rate: The frequency with which users send out invites
Engagement Period: The duration that users actively use a product
By determining the Invitation Rate and Period of Engagement, a social media analyst can determine how well a product, video, idea, application, game, etc. retains consumer demand. Richardson argues that by tracking retention rates, an analyst can determine why consumer demand is decreasing or why users are not sharing at high frequencies.
In a market driven by non-hits, retention becomes vital to the bottom line. Niche groups gather around a product, movement, idea, etc. because they strongly identify with it in some way. If the consumer is not able to act on that feeling, then there goes the business. By analyzing why videos are not being shared, a social media analyst could respond by redeveloping the social media strategy to maintain the community of consumers. That means building strategies for retention and building strategies for virality are both separate and interwoven tasks. Different calculations are applied to determining both, but both are applied for the same goal: positive Returns on Engagement
Answer: Retention and the Long Tail
The Rocky Horror Picture show is a brand that knows how to keep and replenish its base. It is largely kept alive by the fan base, however the fan base doesn't have any control over whether it will stop circulating on DVD or in Theaters or in special big screen releases. 20th Century Fox has the call on that, and as long as they keep making money (as long as there is still a demand), they will continue to supply.
Compared to other movies produced recently, the Rocky Horror Picture Show ranks toward the bottom of the list in overall revenue. Its fan base/followers are a niche group. So why does 20th Century Fox waste their time. Because they are turning a profit. The Rocky Horror Picture show exists somewhere in the Long Tail, a term popularized by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail. He says "if you combine enough of the non-hits, you've actually established a market that rivals the hits" (22). So, if the Rocky Horror Picture was the only niche product they had, 20th Century Fox might have had to cut the ropes long ago. But in combination with its other niche, non-hits, Rocky Horror Picture Show is part of a market tap that runs long. For instance, Anderson explains that 1/4 of Amazon's book sales come from books that are not in the top 100,000 titles. 45% of Rhapsodies purchases come from outside of their top titles (Anderson, 23).
Retaining these niche groups is becoming of vital importance to companies. Anderson explains that The Long tail can be attributed to lower production, shipping, and storage costs along with rises in demand. But, it can also be attributed to social media. These niche groups tend form around an idea or some brand identity like the Rocky Horror Picture Show or some obscure indie rapper. These groups use Facebook, blogs, wikis, YouTube, Twitter and other social platforms to organize and ultimately make purchasing decisions. As long as this group maintains its size in relation to other groups in the Long Tail, then the companies who supply these niche groups will continue to turn a profit. That means that members have to remain involved or be replaced if they become inactive.
So when Jeremy Richardson of Mixpanel, Inc. said in his Mashable post that Retention should be a greater Analytical concern than virality, he may have had a point. He says that virality is measured in three factors:
"It’s computed by multiplying the percentage of current users who invite other people (X), the average number of people who are invited per user (Y), and the percentage of invited people who accept an invitation (Z). Many companies use this –- and only this — to determine the success of a product" (Richardson). This equation is known as the K-Factor. The problem is that Y is the middle man in this this equation.
As Richardson puts it . . .
The first and last numbers, X and Z, are conversion rates. By definition, they are always going to have a finite limit –- 100% engagement. While having perfect conversion rates would be amazing, it wouldn’t really mean much if Y, the number of people invited, was only one.
So, if conversion rates are maxed out, then the only thing left to tweak is the number of invites sent out. There are two main contributors to this:
Invite Rate: The frequency with which users send out invites
Engagement Period: The duration that users actively use a product
By determining the Invitation Rate and Period of Engagement, a social media analyst can determine how well a product, video, idea, application, game, etc. retains consumer demand. Richardson argues that by tracking retention rates, an analyst can determine why consumer demand is decreasing or why users are not sharing at high frequencies.
In a market driven by non-hits, retention becomes vital to the bottom line. Niche groups gather around a product, movement, idea, etc. because they strongly identify with it in some way. If the consumer is not able to act on that feeling, then there goes the business. By analyzing why videos are not being shared, a social media analyst could respond by redeveloping the social media strategy to maintain the community of consumers. That means building strategies for retention and building strategies for virality are both separate and interwoven tasks. Different calculations are applied to determining both, but both are applied for the same goal: positive Returns on Engagement
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
