Thursday, August 30, 2012

Social Media for Big Time Events

(via Fstoppers.com)
I came across this article and thought I'd share it. It's a great way to bring a big time event like the US Open to individuals in a very unique way. It harnesses the power of social media rather than discouraging any "non-official" use. Since I have a photography background, I find that socially sharing photos is a particularly great way to share experiences, especially things like special behind-the-scenes access or one-time events. After so many headlines at the beginning of the London Olympics about not allowing personal photographs, etc, this is really refreshing.

Top Instagram Users Receive Red Carpet Treatment at U.S. Open

via SportsGrid.com

On a related note, I never mentioned the really cool way that the US Men's Basketball team personalized their experience at the London Olympics. As you may have heard, many of the players used Instagram to document things like taking the Metro or having lunch. I thought that was REALLY cool and gave a much better feel for what it might be like to compete and was much more authentic than the overly-produced athlete profiles which NBC provided. Here's a link to an article about some of those Instagrammed photos:

The USA Basketball Team’s Instagram Shots Are Ridiculously Awesome

And more highlights:
The U.S.A. Basketball Team’s Olympic Journey, In Fantastic Instagram Photos



Monday, August 06, 2012

Innovative Social Engagement

There's a lot of talk about how companies and brands should engage their fans & followers on social media. In the title I use the work "Innovative", but let's face it, social media is so new and ever changing that everything could be considered innovative.

But I have seen a good deal of movement away from the stale model of posting brand specific content on a regular/set schedule. I see two aspects of the move away from this model to something which is much more fluid and also not quite as specific to the brand itself. In my mind, the moves broaden the usefulness of the facebook page (or twitter presence) for both the company/brand as well as the fans & followers.

The first simple part of this is the frequency of updates. People check facebook and twitter at different times of the day and for different reasons throughout the day. Mornings might be all about sending birthday wishes. Afternoons might be to see how the day has been going and plans to make for the evening. Nighttime might be for a quick update before heading off to sleep. Each check can be a valuable time for brands to be on the timeline.

This post from PostRocket goes into much more detail and after reading it through, it's obvious that a single daily post isn't really that useful (via @maneesh1):
4 BIG Reasons You Should Be Posting to Your Facebook Page MORE Than 1x Per Day

So it's clear that posting more often is a good thing, but what if the company doesn't have much unique content about their brand to post so frequently? A software or service provider could post tips to make their service more useful (eg, how can Evernote be used while landing on Mars?!), but what I've started to see is something way more interesting than simply "more posts, more often"

I'll call it expanding the relevance of the brand and I'll provide two examples. Essentially, it's all about finding things that brand followers & fans would be interested in. Call it playing to their sense and sensibility.

The first brand who's doing a great job with this is Oreo. They are finding significant news events and tying them back to the simple Oreo cookie. Read more about it here:
Oreo’s Facebook Salute to the Mars Landing Will Make You Hungry

They obviously have a big budget for this, but they've expanded the relevance of the simple cookie by tying it to things that their followers are probably interested in anyways. Whether it be the Olympics, Batman, or Air Conditioning; they've found a way to remind their followers about Oreo cookies (and hopefully go buy some!). I'd consider Oreo's social media brand work to be cutting edge. Finding interesting & relevant news events, creating a cool message about that news event, and inserting Oreo cookies as the key ingredient for the message. With thousands of likes and hundreds of comments for each post, it's obviously getting the attention of Oreo lovers everywhere.

Another simple example is by a company that my friend Maneesh runs, MightyText. The company provides a service for Android phone owners to enable SMS texting from anywhere. You'd think the brand page should focus on texting and the Android OS, but as you can see from their facebook page, there's a good deal of content that's just slightly related to texting or not at all related. But the commonality across those posts is that they are things which MightyText fans are probably interested in.  As you skim through their facebook page, each post has a dozen or so comments and many dozens of likes. So they're getting increased engaged by NOT JUST posting about their service or even just Android phones. As a startup, they don't have a huge budget to create brand new content, but they're finding content which their followers find interesting and running with it.

I'm looking forward to a lot more interesting and engaging ways that brands get their message out. Have you seen other cool social media from brands that keep you engaged with them? Let me know!


Thursday, July 26, 2012

Facebook's Money Engine - "Mid Funnel" Users

Back in March, I wrote about ad placement on social versus search sites. I was basically trying to break down some of the differences in a person's intent when they go to a search or social site and what they might do with ads. It seemed pretty clear to me that someone going to a social site isn't likely to just click on ads and immediately purchase something, but that much of the marketing on facebook is to build awareness.

I just read an interesting piece on Wired about Facebook's advertising products (via @Lessien). The piece is actually an interview with the director of Facebook Advertising Product Director, Gokul Rajaram, and gets at some things which I find really telling. They seem to match with many of the ads or sponsored content I've been seeing on Facebook of late (both on the desktop and on mobile)

Here are some interesting tidbits which align pretty well with what I wrote previously:
Facebook’s advertising mission, then, is not to inject commercial messages into social discussions, but to amplify the messages that are already there. And it’s not to drive immediate purchases, as Google’s contextual advertising does, but to influence buying decisions a little further down the road. 
They use a term, "mid-funnel" which I find a little odd, but makes sense because a person on Facebook typically isn't ready to buy something that might be shown on an ad, but specific other things they see on Facebook may nudge them lower into the funnel to actually buy something (such as a gift for their friend's birthday or a Groupon type offer for a local restaurant that a friend loves.

To that end, here's a quote from Rajaram exactly on that point:
“We always think about, how can Facebook add that extra social, viral dimension to advertising,” Rajaram says. “We always think about stories and how, it’s not just businesses communicating to people, it’s businesses communicating with their loyal lists of fans and how then those fan’s interactions with that message can lead to their friends being impacted.”
It's nice to see that a research article posted recently aligns pretty well with what I wrote almost 5 months ago :)

I've been compiling examples of ads on Facebook over the past few weeks (again, both on the desktop and on mobile). I promise to post those along with my commentary soon!


Friday, July 06, 2012

Facebook - Featuring Pinterest Pins more visually

Yes, I've been very lax in posting updates so I'm trying to get back in the swing of things now.

Since I usually login to Facebook both on the desktop and iPhone everyday, I tend to notice things out of the ordinary. Sometimes it's rollout of new features I've heard about and others I think it's just A/B testing.

The latest feature I saw was a different, more visual way to show Pinterest Pins. One of my facebook friends pinned a few things to her boards and they showed up in my timeline like this:

The tiles go the width of the timeline and graphically feature what she pinned. Moreover, there are "Like" and Comment links for each one. When you hover your mouse over images, a Pinterest logo pops up in the top left and you can click-through to the pin on Pinterest. This was the first time I noticed this new format and I like it.

More broadly, what I've seen Facebook doing is not necessarily about adding brand new features, but making existing features more readily available and customized based on the content. In this case, even though they're featuring the pins prominently, they're also featuring their own Like and Comment features very prominently. They've found a way to make the timeline more visually appealing while also encouraging interaction on the timeline.

Have you seen other similar formatting for other content on the Facebook timeline? I'd love to see!



Monday, March 26, 2012

P'Oh My Gawd! - What you're obsessing about on Pinterest

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the differences in marketing to search vs social users and how Facebook is working towards monetizing user engagement. I thought I'd expand a bit more on this and talk about the hottest social/discovery site out there: Pinterest

If you're not familiar with Pinterest...well then, why are you reading this blog?! Go there and check it out now!

I'm not a huge Pinterest user, but in my several months of usage, I've seen a lot of Facebook friends begin following me on Pinterest as well. Since I don't pin very many things, those followers don't see much from me. But since I follow-back everyone, I see a lot of new pins every time I login. What have I noticed?

Well, safe to say that the stereotypes about Pinterest users are based on some fact :)

  • Lots of female users
  • Lots of pins about recipes, fashion, & home decorating
A series of desert recipes. Hmm...where to buy organic raw sugar?!
The more interesting thing I've noticed is that people seem to pin a series of items all about the same thing in a short period of time. It could be holiday dinner recipes or kids' bedroom designs or hairstyles, but people seem to obsess about really specific things. They may move onto other obsessions sooner or later, but pinning habits definitely show what users are thinking & obsessing about.

I'm not going to get into the pinning habits themselves, but I want to compare this with typical social and search usage:
  • Social - Lots of random sharing about life, things you've read with a few specifics like check-ins or location-tagged photos. It's hard to really know what a social user is thinking at the time they login since the sharing is kind of random.
  • Search - Lots of specific queries typically layered on with location specifics. It's easy to know exactly what a search user needs right at that moment, but the user will move onto different searches and may or may not come back to the topic.
Compare that with a Pinterest user:
  • Pinboards are typically well-organized and if the "Pin-It" bookmarklet has been used, it's easy to link back the pin to the original site, therefore it's easy to build further organization based on where the pins came from.
  • Users seem to focus on specific topics for a day...could be shorter or longer, but it's really clear what they're obsessing over during that time.
  • Users may not be looking to buy anything at the time of pinning, but the pins are certainly things that inspire them or what they want to buy or re-create in the future.
So taking those thought onto the ad/marketing side of things...

There's been a lot of talk about click-through of Pinterest users where they end up on the original site from which the pin originated and maybe even buy. However, I think Pinterest as a targeted ad platform could be just as interesting. Afterall, pinboards are well organized and you can tell exactly what the user is thinking about. Not just randomly thinking about for a moment in time, but obsessing over.

Lots of wonderful decor ideas...time to get DIYing!
Sure, the user may not be ready to re-decorate the living room as displayed in a pin from Martha Stewart's site, but targeted ads from the brands highlighted in the pin or from related vendors will have a step-up with the user since they're already engaged and interested in what they have to offer. It could be an ad from Ethan Allen for a current sale or from Lowe's for paint which matches the one in the pin. On the local front, it could be an ad from Whole Foods for the maple syrup in a recipe or from Target for the mixing bowls.

It may seem difficult to tie-back all of this to specific products for which ads can be placed, but the reality is that most of the details aren't that difficult to obtain. Martha Stewart doesn't always list out brands especially if it's a home tour, but many other sites already do. Recipes already have the details listed out and fashion is typically tied back to specific designers.

My point is that Pinterest is positioned well to monetize the user engagement they've developed. Clicking-through to the original pinned site is an obvious way, but targeted ads are another possible direction. Due to Pinterest user-behavior, those targeted ads would likely be way more relevant than  ads that Facebook users see. Additionally, users aren't at the stage of searching for something they want...they've already FOUND things they love.

It's the perfect opportunity to convert interested and engaged users into buyers.



Monday, March 19, 2012

I'm skeptical of the 2012 JOBS Act. And here's why

If you're on twitter, you may have seen a lot of tweets from people supporting the JOBS Act. The act is actually an acronym for Jumpstart Our Business Startups and isn't a jobs act in the traditional sense where companies are encouraged to hire people through deductions, etc.

Among a host of things it aims to accomplish, the JOBS Act is looking to make it easier for small companies to get funding and go public. Here's a good article about the Act as it relates to Silicon Valley Investing:

JOBS Act to rewrite rules of Silicon Valley investing

In general, I like what the JOBS Act is trying to do. Afterall, supporting startups through novel means of funding should result in a more equitable way of getting innovation out to more people. And this isn't just about technology startups; it could certainly help with many types of small businesses.

The part I'm not too keen on is the transparency requirements for companies which are looking to get funded. Essentially, the reporting requirements that companies have to abide by right now can be pushed out for up to five years. Those requirements were put in as part of Sarbanes-Oxely (eg, after Enron) to help ensure that investors and shareholders know what the company they've invested in is really up to.

Here's a transcript of an NPR report on this matter of transparency:
Unintended Consequences Emerge In JOBS Act

My concern is really around the information that companies need to provide to investors. While I like the open-ness that many parts of this Act allow for (especially around what incubators are allowed to publish about companies they invest in), I just don't see enough reason for lifting reporting requirements on "emerging" public companies.

All it takes is one instance of an emerging company hiding its books in creative ways. Investors will be the ones who are taken for a ride all in the hopes of hitting it big with small companies. It's one thing if you're funding a Kickstarter campaign for a new iPhone tripod with $25 of your own money. It's a wholly different situation if you're funding a company that says they're the next great thing in social networking and you hand over thousands of dollars to get in early.

Incubators, VC's, and Angel Investors take risks, but they're educated risks and they're privy to a lot of information about the ideas and the risks they're getting into. The changes coming due to the JOBS Act may make it easier for the average joe to invest in tech startups, but I think it's with the consequence of inadequate transparency about what those startups are doing behind the scenes. Sure opening up investing to more people will bring more money into the startup world, but will those new investors have any way of really finding out what they're getting into? Additionally, I see this as a fast-lane to another tech bubble if average investors just pile their money into any tech startup with just an inkling of an idea.

It's hard to make it big in tech startups. It's hard to invest in the right startups and actually make money. I don't think we should make it easier to invest in such startups unless we also continue to require enough information about the companies that will help us decide if they're "right".

What do you think about the changes that the JOBS Act has in store for Silicon Valley?

UPDATE: I've added one more great article about the problems with the JOBS Act. This piece goes a lot farther in opposition than me, but it demonstrates very well what we would be losing if this act is passed:
A Colossal Mistake of Historic Proportions: The “JOBS” bill

Tweet

Monday, March 12, 2012

Software design on mobile vs desktop. What drives app choice on each platform?

I'm going to change things up a bit and talk about software rather than social media.

In the past week or so, the idea of the post-PC world of devices has come back to the fore as a discussion point. No surprise since the new iPad and the latest beta of Windows 8 and the Metro UI were announced. I wanted to share some thoughts on how software is impacted due to this movement away from PCs and towards touch & mobile devices. Specifically, I've got some thoughts on how the quality & design of a mobile app can actually encourage me to change my app of choice on my laptop.

In the post-PC world I live in, I may have strong habits based on how I've done things on my laptop. However I'm finding that a well-designed mobile app will very quickly change my mind about how well my laptop apps are serving my needs and, more fundamentally, if those laptop apps even meet the needs they're designed for.

I've been trying out different ways of keeping my thoughts and to-do's organized. I normally keep things very simple by just using text files for notes and Google tasks for to-do's. Both can be accessed from my laptop as well as my iPhone and iPad. My method is barebones, but it keeps me on-track. However, I wanted to see if I was missing out by not using applications designed specifically for staying organized.

So I pulled up Evernote and Wunderlist. Evernote is well-known for providing a robust way to take notes and organize them. The desktop UI has no frills, but it's pretty easy to use. Wunderlist is the relative new kid on the block. It's focused on tasks and encourages short, to-the-point "notes". The desktop UI is pretty, but stil straight-forward.

The desktop versions of these apps have their differences, but if you're looking for a way to organize everything, then Evernote wins. If you're looking to just track tasks, then Wunderlist is more focused for that, but I think a simple text file or Google Tasks may actually be better. The design doesn't really matter, the amount of functionality is what matters. Yes, that functionality needs to be put together well, but the look of the app and the general chrome don't really add to how useful the app is.

For the desktop, I prefer Evernote even though it's overkill for my needs.

However, the mobile versions of these apps tell me a different story. Both apps are essentially ported over to iOS for full functionality that you find in the desktop versions with nods to touch & tap. But in creating a mobile version, the focus on accessing the functionality and the method of interaction really comes to the forefront. Evernote still allows you include notes, photos, etc but if you want to include any formatting or tagging, you have to go through the additional menu and close out the keyboard. It's very robust, but I feel it's actually a little difficult to use for doing anything more than finding & creating/editing simple notes. Wunderlist's chrome and more limited abilities change how I use the app. More specifically, I enter in quick notes or reminders and I'm in-and-out. Even though I can't use it to write full meeting notes, the structure of the UI makes me focus on smaller things and I don't miss the ability to add photos, tag, etc.

So on the mobile platform, Evernote still allows me to track everything under the sun, but that actually becomes a detriment. The main thing Evernote does is track or organize detailed notes for everything in my life. However, if I want to use the full organizational methods it offers, I've got to do a lot of tapping and it can actually be a little frustrating. Wunderlist does a lot less, but it presents that functionality to the user right up front with very little tapping required to do it's "thing": track, edit, and re-order tasks. It's really efficient for the set of functionality it offers.

For the iPhone, I far prefer Wunderlist. It's quick and to-the-point.

And that made me re-think my choice on the laptop.

On the laptop, Evernote is clearly better for note-taking or organizing thoughts, but not so much better for me that it stands out over simply keeping notes as email drafts. On the iPhone, Wunderlist is by far the best way I've found to keep track of tasks. So after comparing both of these apps on the laptop and on the iPhone, I believe I'll continue to use Wunderlist on the phone and laptop. For more detailed notes & thoughts, I'm still going to give Evernote another week, but I'm pretty sure I'll revert back to simple text files or email drafts.

What would change my mind about using Evernote on my laptop? It wouldn't be changes to the desktop app, but changes to the mobile app that would bring me around. Given how fast we're progressing to using phones and tablets as key devices we use all the time, I believe this will happen more and more. Desktop apps can do a lot to differentiate themselves, but the meaningful differences will be more apparent on the mobile/tablet versions and will drive software choices not just on phones & tablets, but on laptops too.

A year ago, I'd immediately say that desktop software choices don't have much to do with mobile software choices. As long as the data syncs, it doesn't matter. However, I'm seeing a greater and greater connection. Sure, I can use different apps for different devices, but design choices on mobile are affecting how useful any app can be to me and I see those choices as driving my decisions on my desktop software too.

Evernote and Wunderlist are just two examples, but I expect to see this happen more and more.


Sunday, March 04, 2012

Ad placement on Social vs Search sites

After my last post about experimenting with the ads on Facebook, I had a hearty FB convo with a friend about how ads on Facebook are almost always less relevant than what could be presented to a user if they're doing a search (Google, Bing, etc). It's interesting, since I sort of had that in the back of my mind, but it didn't click until this friend mentioned it and then I couldn't get it out of my mind.

In fact, I asked others on Twitter as well as Facebook about this and EVERYONE said they avoid the ads on Facebook. The most common reason I heard is that they're just not interested in looking at them while on Facebook and many said that when they did look at the ads, they were usually not very relevant. This general marketing malaise is pointed to in this article about brands shutting down their Facebook stores since users don't seem to go beyond clicking 'Like'.

As I've thought this through, I broke this down as follows:

On Facebook (or any social site for that matter), the user is very casual. They're likely on there to share something about themselves (status, photo, check-in, etc) or see what others are sharing. While they may stay on the site for a long time, the casual nature of their usage means they're not there for any particular reason. So even if an ad is relevant, it may not be relevant at that moment in time. If that's the case, then it can be very difficult to convince that user to spend more than a moment even glancing at the ad let alone actually click on it.

My friend's comments about FB ads
It may happen sometimes, but it's rare. Just to note how rare it may be, I've provided a screenshot of a friend's status talking about the ads she sees on Facebook.

On Google (or any search site), the user is typically very transactional. They're likely there for something very specific and want to get the most specific answer or result. The search results may be what the user is after, but an ad with dead-on relevance can be very important for the user. So even if they generally try to avoid ads, the ad placed at that moment can be exactly what the user is looking for.

I've got some thoughts about why ads aren't relevant in the moment when on Facebook, but I'll get to that in a future post when I talk about "big data"

This all seems so obvious now that I've mulled it through, but it does make me wonder what kind of ads could ever work in the context of a social site?

Well, lo and behold in the last two weeks we've actually seen some glimpses on Facebook itself and at their Marketing Conference (fMC). I saw the first instance as is described in Ryan Spoon's post about a sponsored Macy's ad which shows up at the top of the news feed. When I saw this ad, I was actually kind of confused by what I saw, but I think it's something we should (and will) get used to seeing. Here's a liveblog of the fMC from last week which goes over a lot of the direction that Facebook's headed. In some sense, they're breaking new ground in the ways that ads are presented to users and the ways in which they allow brands to use the platform to build awareness and potentially even sell.

And that for me is the key thing. It's very clear that a brand can build awareness through smart usage of social sites like Facebook. Whether it's a specific ad placement or an on-going engagement with users, I do think users will pick up brand messaging while they're on Facebook for casual, social purposes. However, I'm still very much wondering if that casual user can be converted into a transactional user who will do more than click 'Like' but will also go on to purchase something. That conversion is pretty clear on search sites, but I'm keen to see how that plays out in the new social web.

In future posts on this subject, I'm going to try and tackle the ways in which "big data" could be used to provide more relevant ads. I've got some thoughts on that, but I'd prefer to have further discussions with friends to help crystallize my analysis. For now, I hope you've found this interesting!

What are your thoughts on ad placement on social sites like Facebook? How do they compare to search sites? How does your mindset on either type of site affect your impression of ads?



Sunday, February 26, 2012

Facebook Ads and monetizing engagement

After the Facebook IPO filing, I got to thinking a lot more about what significant things Facebook would do beyond what we currently see on the website. Instead of thinking, as I normally would, about what functionality they would add, I figured I'd focus on how to better monetize what they have.

In my mind, what Facebook has is engagement. Whether it's "social" or not, they've got people scrolling, clicking, and moving their eyeballs all over their website. I didn't really see how they've actually made huge money except through deals with companies like Zynga. But what I had forgotten is that I had been blocking ads on Facebook for the longest time using AdBlocker.

So I turned off Adblocker and started seeing ads in the usual spots along the right-hand side. The odd thing is that the ads didn't really seem all that relevant for me in the here and now. I kept seeing ads for  products and services that professional photographers would use. This isn't surprising since I had a photography business for years and still run a photography site. But for the last 6-9 months, I've hardly said anything about photography.

So it didn't quite make sense. If Facebook was poised to make so much money off ads, how could they be presenting me with ads that haven't been all that relevant to me for the last year?

Then I started seeing ads for things related to internet technology and jobs. No surprise since I've been in the technology world in Silicon Valley for 12 years. Then I started seeing ad polls relate to the Lakers. Not surprising since I'm very active in a Laker Fans group on Facebook. This was getting better, especially as compared to the ads to buy Photoshop actions.

But then I kept seeing the same ads. Over and over.

What was going on?

The quick question I got after choosing to hide an ad
I finally decided to hide the ads using Facebook's function (to hide a specific ad or all ads from that advertiser). Then I started seeing where Facebook was taking things. Upon asking to hide the ad, I'd get a quick question about why I wanted to hide it. Then I was asked to help find more relevant content by telling Facebook what I liked.

Facebook as a site was basically engaging me with a few simple questions. And I didn't really have a problem answering them. The questions didn't confront me as pop-overs or cover up other content that I actually cared about. So I answered them and moved on.

The response after answering the above question
Very quickly I started seeing ads more relevant to my current interests. Like within an hour. Damn, they were already leveraging the simple questions I answered to provide me more relevant ads. That actually encouraged me to take a look at the ads (and hide them if I didn't like them along with giving them more knowledge about what's relevant to me). There are still a mix of photography & technology, but it's way more relevant and changing more often than it was just 2 weeks ago. Compare this with the weird ads I got years ago like a head-shaving razor (yeah, to shave my head), hunting camouflage, and pregnancy stretch-mark cream. Right now, I see an add for a business-technology conference, the Lakers, and Customer conversion through social engagement. Sounds on-point to me!

Of course, along this way, Facebook is learning more and more about me and is looking to make money off me. But the simple way in which they are getting me to look, click, and engage intrigues me. Amazon does a very good job with finding relevant content to show me on their home page (based on my previous buying and product research habits). Facebook is not nearly as good at providing me spot-on content, but I can already see it getting better. Given the amount of data they have on my habits & likes and my friends' habits, I expect the ad content to get more and more relevant.

So I'm leaving AdBlocker off and plan to look at the ads I'm presented every time I login. I probably won't click on them, but it's something I'm keeping a very close eye on this evolution. It's amazing to think it's still in its early stages, but given the speed at which I've seen improvement in relevancy, I can only see that Facebook will be making a lot more money (and very soon) off of the level of engagement its users have with each other and with the site itself.

BTW, as I finish off this post, I checked Facebook one more time and here's the ad I got. Relevant? Well, I love cooking and I'm Indian...so it MUST mean I need a tandoor in my life and kitchen! Right!? Let's just say it's not a perfectly relevant ad, but I see where it's coming from :)

I'd love to hear your experiences with ads on social sites...leave your comments here!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Personas on Twitter - Part 3

Closing out on the topic of personas on twitter, I wanted to talk about what never feels right to me or like it doesn't work. (You can read my previous two posts on what DOES work in Part 1 and Part 2 here)

Now, I personally get annoyed by some individuals on twitter, but this post isn't about individuals, it's about what can backfire in terms of getting a following and maintaining engagement.

To keep it simple, as a business, the last thing you want is for your twitter personas to feel like it's made up in the back cubicle in your marketing department. Sure, the account can be used as a marketing tool, but it's so easy to come off as doing nothing more than bragging about your company and nothing more.

Being upbeat about your products is great, but if that's the only layer you provide to your presence on twitter then it's not something which will get much engagement. It might get some eyeballs, but they'll stray quickly to more interesting or more useful personas.

I was going to put examples here, but let me instead explain a simple way I have of thinking about this: If you only tweet what you have already said/posted/documented elsewhere (eg, your website, your marketing pamphlet, YouTube, etc), then you're not building anything useful to you or to potential followers; you're simply creating noise. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with tweeting those things as part of your stream, but you've GOT to do something more.

Now this may seem quite obvious, but many times, I just feel like companies don't get it. They just want to be on twitter, but don't think anything more of it once the account is setup. Or they may overthink it: They send out tweets only after multiple rounds of review by people in marketing or legal or They setup robots to tweet out headlines. Or they just constrain what their twitter account could be used for.

I'm not going to call out any specific twitter accounts here since, to be honest, I just unfollow such accounts. However, I hope this helps explain what I feel doesn't work in an environment as dynamic as twitter.


Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Personas on Twitter, Part 2

Following up on my last post about brand/company personas on Twitter, I want to focus on bloggers...

I'm actually going to focus on Sports bloggers who go above and beyond writing posts on websites and keep an active dialogue on Twitter. They typically include a variety of NBA game re-caps, league summaries/opinions, and real-time game tweets.

I'm just going to list a couple of accounts that I think do a good job and explain why I think they maintain a great presence and persona on twitter (and not just be tweeting a lot)

@HPbasketball
@LakersNation

Now, LakersNation is obviously an account for fans of the LA Lakers. with 48k tweets to their names, they obviously keep things busy on twitter, but they do it in a variety of ways. Not only do they tweet what every Laker fan might be talking about during a game, but they keep things going in between games. Not just with thoughts about recent and upcoming games, but also about Laker history and trivia. I think it's a great way to keep fans engaged before, during, and after games. And since I'm a huge Lakers fan, it's no surprise that I follow them!

HPBasketball, it could be argued, hates the Lakers (not really), but he keeps followers engaged in a lot of ways. Again, there are blog posts and in-game tweets, but there's a lot going on between games. Some of it is analysis of the whole league, some is specific topics or nits that he needs his followers to understand. A lot of it may rub people the wrong way, but somehow, through 140 characters at a time, he manages to explain himself. There's a lot of times where I don't agree at all with his opinions, but the fact that he gets his thoughts out there and manages to explain things 140 characters at a time keeps me a follower.

So what's to learn about personas from these two accounts? It's fun to live tweet games, but the followers will only stay if you manage to keep their interest throughout the week. It takes more than linking to your game recaps or team/league summaries. And being a passionate fan of the subject shows off in how you engage your followers.

Tweet

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Personas on Twitter

Lately I've been thinking a lot more about what works and what doesn't work in the social media space, specifically on Facebook on Twitter. The reason I started thinking about this is because I had noticed some "random" photos on Facebook being liked and/or shared thousands of times. These viral photos may be one-offs, but more often than not, specific websites/account would get large numbers of likes over and over. Anyways, it piqued my curiosity and lead me to look at my twitter timeline as well.

Now, I'm no social media expert and this post certainly isn't aimed at being instructive about how to increase twitter presence. I'm just going to focus on a few examples and tie them back to personas and try to understand why I think they're successful. I was originally going to do this all in one post, but I realized, it would end up being really long, so I'm going to split this into a few posts.

I'm going to break it down into a few types of personas. Note that I don't call these brands even though some of them are. A twitter profile can be a brand, but I don't consider it to be interesting or worthy of following unless it goes beyond just being a brand. That means I don't follow celebrities or product brands unless they do something other than advertise their products. That also means that the twitter accounts I really look out for establish their personas in strong, unique ways.

So let's start off with the persona that got me thinking about this whole thing:

@littledebbie - Very random that I start with this, but the person(s) behind this profile are definitely having fun with it and show they understand that a brand can provide factual info and help their customers, but also create a connection with the twitter-verse. I won't go into all of the details, but based on some simple tweeting with @Questlove in December and joking about their brand, a lot of people in the twitterverse noticed the tongue-in-cheek humor behind the Little Debbie account. I definitely noticed the fact that they go beyond just responding to "help me" tweets (in this case about nutritional contents). Before this, I hadn't thought of Little Debbie since grade school when my mom would pack a snack cake in my lunch bag. Now? I think they're maintaining a pretty cool persona on twitter. That is reason enough to say they've done a good job establishing themselves as something unique on the social internet.
More brands have done a pretty good job:

@eyeficard - They run a pretty standard support profile, but they have employees with other jobs also man this profile and get to the bottom of customer issues. From what I've seen, it's allowed them to provide consitent responsiveness in a world where waiting 10 minutes feels like forever! For a small company like this, I think it shows that you can establish a helpful presence for your customers no matter how big or small you are. Besides all this, I walk my dogs past their office all the time and they look like cool folks :)

@comcastcares - Back before twitter was a household term, this account became known as a place to go for help with Comcast issues. The reason it got noticed is because it seemed to be more responsive than the Comcast phone lines. That's actually a bad thing to say about the normal Comcast support process, but a really good thing when it comes to leverage the internet. It may not seem like it now, but Comcast was at the leading edge of this. The account content itself is kind of boring, but I think they've established themselves well as a consistent place to go for real help.

So my takeaway for these company/business/brand accounts is that just getting on twitter doesn't do much for you. However, there's a variety of ways to make a name for your company. It can be as simple poking fun at your brand or as another way for your customers to ask for help. The point for me is that some companies do a pretty good job at maintaining consistency in the persona they've chosen for their brands and that consistency is key.

Okay, that's it for now. I'm going to get to more interesting personas in the next post so keep an eye out!

[UPDATE: Check out the next post on this topic here: Personas on Twitter, Part 2]


Thursday, February 02, 2012

Continuous, Iterative Improvement (or The Hacker Way)

Over the past day, a LOT of attention has been focused on Facebook's IPO filing and it's actually pretty interesting to see the numbers behind FB's business. One of the areas that caught my attention though is the cultural focus on continuous, iterative improvements. In Mark Zuckerberg's words, it's "The Hacker Way"

This post on Startup Lessons Learned has a nice summary and way to think about this.

Whether or not you call this a way that hackers think about their work, for me, it comes down to a commitment to iterating and improving at every step. Facebook's a great example of that especially since they are clearly pushing the envelope of Social but bring their users along for the ride and improving based on their inputs. I've lost track of how many big changes we've seen to the timeline and other features, but in the end, what I see when I login there today is FAR better than what I saw in 2008.

So by total coincidence, before the IPO announcement yesterday I had talked to some folks at work about accomplishing big things over time using fast steps. On one occasion it was in regards to an organizational announcement which was solidifying the work that a small team was doing around trying out new "innovations" even if it required a lot of manual work to start with. The idea was that it's better to test it out and see what you can make of it, but not get too bogged down by the need to make it everlasting. If it works, great, we can figure out a way to make it last. If it doesn't work, not a huge deal since we tried it out and quickly determined there may be better ways of spending effort. Effectively, this is The Hacker Way even if it wasn't in the context of hacking code.

To be honest, this org announcement sort of surprised me, since this ethic isn't all that common where I work. In fact, it goes counter to the way that most things get done around here.

And that was the second time this idea came up in conversation. In doing some planning, I felt that the group was trying to do too much and it may make sense for them to decide, example by example, whether something should be in scope or not. My take was that it didn't make sense to put something on a release roadmap if you had very little confidence in getting it done and especially if it would require such a long timeframe to plan & execute it. I wasn't suggesting to think smaller or to drop the idea, but to think more tactical and not get stuck in the idea that everything that could possibly be aligned to their goals should definitely be in scope. If it's such a great idea, we can probably find someone else to take it on while we focus on the goals at hand.

The response I got was interesting since it was a bit of the Hacker Way of thinking since they were suggesting that if they can get it done, they should give it a try. I still don't agree since "it" was just one of 20 other things they wanted to get done at the same time. Lending even more reasons for me to believe that "it" wouldn't get done and it would be better to find another team to give it a shot.

About an hour after this, Twitter blew up with news about FB's filing and I got to thinking about these two conversations. My takeaway is that the iterative, continuous improvement way of working is definitely a winner, but you have to keep that in the context of not trying to get too many disparate things done at the same time. Trying to get too much done will likely cause you to lose focus and incorrectly think that all the mad-crazy work you're doing is actually getting you to your goal.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

More on the REAL Need

I took my daughter to a dance class yesterday and somehow I left with a reminder about how technology can address fundamental needs in creative ways, but still connect people with something they know and are comfortable with.

As we were getting ready to leave, I noticed parents lining up to sign their kids on for more classes. Near the end of each conversation, a credit card came out and the organizer swiped it through her Square reader hooked up to her iPhone.

Forget about the mind-blowing nature of this transaction. We all know that five years ago, nobody could have imagined such a thing. What clicked in my mind was how second nature this transaction has become in Silicon Valley. Whether it's a dance class instructor or a food truck driver, people are willing to hand their card over to be swiped through this device.

Now, I know there's a level of comfort people have simply because they're more comfortable with technology and everyone seems to have a smartphone nowadays.

But what I started thinking about was why people seem to be so willing to finalize a transaction in this way. Afterall, who knows what could be on the dance coordinator's iPhone screen? She could have been stealing the info for later use.

I think a lot of this comes from the fact that this mind-blowing technology is couched in something we're all familiar with:

  • The physical card itself
  • The swipe to pay.

We whip out our cards and swipe away at the grocery store, the gas station, and the ATM. At those locations, the machines are hard wired devices with presumably high levels of security to prevent theft. The mental leap of doing online transactions is actually pretty big if you think about it. There's good reason to distrust random websites and avoid entering in your CC info there. But there's something about the physical swipe of a CC that lends an air of security. Nobody typing in your CC info. Just swiping and you get an email to confirm.

There are lots of payment solutions out there. However, I believe part of the reason Square is succeeding is by tying their payment method back to something everyone understands: the card in your wallet and swipe through a device. Of course they've made things easy for small business owners too, but ease of setup & standardized fees can only go so far if the consumer doesn't feel comfortable using that payment method.

And that's exactly what Square is addressing...the REAL need isn't simply the ABILITY to pay, but having confidence in the WAY to pay. And the way they're providing that confidence by tying it to something that's been in our pockets for years.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Making Social Networks Something Constructive

In my last post I mentioned that I was practicing my coding my building a simple task-list and connecting it to Facebook. This gave me the chance to learn a lot more about Facebook's Open Graph and see examples of how it could be used.

Most of the FB-connected apps I've seen are cool and potentially useful, but typically not constructive. Spotify's connections into FB are slick and I've found new music or re-discovered stuff I hadn't heard in ages just by seeing what my friends are listening to. And I don't need to go anywhere except down my FB ticker.

But let's face it, something like Spotify's postings are cool, but far from constructive. And I know my task-list is similar. It's cool to be able to assign tasks to friends, but it's not going any where if that's all there is. That wasn't my point anyways since it was just coding practice. But as I was building it out I really started to think about how something really useful or constructive could be built to leverage FB's Open Graph or Twitter, G+, etc.

So this morning, I started playing around with Votizen and it's one of the first times I've seen something take advantage of the simple aspects of FB's Open Graph and make it potentially very constructive. Now that I understand more about FB's Graph, things started clicking in my mind as I went through a few pages on Votizen. Simple things like pulling in my friends' Likes of Political candidates or their frequency of voting is something which can be built upon and made into something much greater.

I won't get into what may scare people in terms of whether they want a site to track their voting preferences since there will always be detractors who don't want personal info shared out. Those folks needs to figure out what's personal to them and avoid posting or talking about it. Meanwhile, I'm happy to tell people who I plan to vote for and I want to know what my friends plan to do in that regard too.

Back to the idea of building something constructive on the back of FB's Open Graph...

I see Votizen as trying to change the paradigm of candidate endorsement. Rather than focus on famous or well-connected people or newspapers endorsing political candidates, let's focus on who WE want to endorse. Let's focus on who our FRIENDS want to endorse. Sure it'll be nice to know who Jerry Brown or the LA Times endorses this political season, but I see Votizen as a wonderful way to leverage the social networks we built-up so well and use it for a constructive purpose of getting and staying engaged about political matters. And rather than just seeing endorsements on my FB ticker, I see this as a way to build engagement amongst friends about this.

I look forward to what Votizen has to offer this political season.

I also look forward to what other constructive ideas are built upon our social networks. It's what will take FB/Twitter/G+ from a simple "time pass" activity to being way more useful and meaningful.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

What's the Real Problem?

My friend Maneesh posted this article about BIG problems and, interestingly enough, it got me thinking about SMALL problems. Well, more like fundamental problems, whether they're big or small...


The problem with startups is that they can’t solve the big problems.


I've been putting together a simple to-do list for a little coding practice and it got me thinking about what it could be used for. While thinking about that, I found countless task list applications (web apps, mobile apps, etc). While they each tend to have a compelling feature and some are more elegant than others, I realized that the PROBLEM isn't about the task list itself. I mean, a piece of paper (or txt file) is more than enough to keep track of things that need to get done. Even the prioritization of those things isn't the problem. Again, you can just add a number in pencil to each item and change it as you please. The problem that I think most people are looking to address by using a to-do list is more around actually GETTING THOSE THINGS DONE. The tasks could be in the most elegant app with the coolest font, but that doesn't change things when there's a lack of motivation or thought process around actually getting those things done. Sure many apps add in functionality around helping to organize those thoughts and prioritize to just the most important things (thereby helping with motivation I suppose), but in the end, if the person writing those tasks down (or typing them up) doesn't actually follow-up, then what purpose does any part of the app serve?

So what's my point?

Well, from my week of looking at task lists, I've found there are great apps out there which are clean, elegant, & simple to use. But they gloss over what most "to-doers" likely need (eg, the problem they're trying to solve). They're not looking to write down their tasks. They're looking to get them done. And continue getting them done.

So maybe less fluff in a task app helps focus on actually getting things done and automated reminders can help with the on-going motivation, but I think that unless a solution actually helps clear the way to getting those things done, it may as well be a simple sheet of paper (or text file) with numbers noting priority. Anything beyond that is fluff and doesn't actually get at the real problem.


In the case of task lists, I think a "Getting things done" philosophy is way more important than any app designed to help you track your tasks. I can attest to this since for several years now, I've followed it religiously and it keeps my inbox to a minimum and my tasks keep getting done. So while many app developers may think of great ideas to make managing tasks a little easier, I don't think they're addressing their users' fundamental task oriented problems unless they push David Allen's GTD philosophy.


Of course there's not much money to be made in just pointing to an existing approach or website. So it's no surprise that developers keep trying to re-build task lists. And in the meantime, people will continue to hunt for the perfect task app to solve their real problem.

I'd love to hear more about your thoughts how apps can focus more on the real problems that people face, thereby solving those problems.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Just write it down

I had drinks with a friend today and we got to talking about how much I'm learning as I delve into the world and people behind startups. A lot of it is eye-opening. However, the key thing I told Asad is that my mind is finally racing with thoughts based on what I'm reading.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not having epiphanies or anything. But I feel like I'm finally thinking about things other than my daily tasks. And it's exciting.

So Asad suggested I should write these things down.

So that's what I'm doing.

I've used this blog for various topics over the years. Now I'm going to use it to note down my thoughts as I read and learn. I'm going to try to keep the posts short, but knowing me, I'll end up with long posts since I want to articulate my thoughts and I become wordy in the process.

Anyways, I hope to post short-ish entries many times a week. I may simply comment on an article or I may write down my crystalized thoughts on a huge topic. But I'll get it in writing for all to read.

Thanks for stopping by and I hope you continue to do so!