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?