Ads, ads, everywhere

So you think my discussions about monetizing social media interactions are esoteric?

Well, the ad execs at Google, Facebook, and Twitter certainly don't :)

I've written in the past about how users of search sites and social sites react differently upon seeing ads. I've also written about how Facebook is working to connect online ad views & interactions with offline purchases.

Well, here's a very interesting panelist dialogue about how Google, Facebook, and Twitter want to measure the success of ads.

Facebook, Google Ad Execs Spar Over The Value Of A Click

It's not surprising to me that Facebook's Rajaram is focusing very heavily on offline interactions as a result of online ads. As I wrote before, users of Facebook may not click on ads and directly buy products they see in banner ads, but the visibility of these ads at the right time and place can help guide them to purchase. As I called it back then, these mid-funnel users are key to Facebook's monetization of  its userbase.

Twitter is focusing on engagement metrics such as tweet responses or retweets. Google, unsurprisingly needs to look at a wide swatch of metrics including engagement (for social aspects such as on Google+), but also views, clicks, and ad forms (for ads based on search or context)

I suppose I'm overly enamored with this, but to me, these companies are finding new ways of growing their businesses. From the perspective of ads, they're finding new ways of getting people to react to the ads they see and eventually buy. People say Google is not really a search company, but an advertising company. I'd say that the way social media is evolving, Facebook and Twitter are as much about ad & media engagement as they are about social engagement.

Tweet

Getting the right social content...it can be more involved than you imagine

Earlier this week, I wrote about how LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter still live and breathe content, even though we think of them as social companies.

LinkedIn's mechanism to show content to users is much more traditional in the sense that people (Influencers) write articles and they're in the feed that users see when they login (or when they read their emails)

Facebook has long had something called EdgeRank which determines what you see when you view your newsfeed. It's actually somewhat of a mystery how any particular piece of content (photo, status, link, etc) gets posted onto someone's timeline, but a recent infographic has been making the rounds since it helps explain the major factors really well.

Demystifying How Facebook's EdgeRank Algorithm Works

All of this interest in LinkedIn's Influencers and Facebook's EdgeRank just confirms for me that what's displayed on social media sites - the content - is still the most important thing which drives usage and really helps to connect people to what is important for them

Tweet

Is Content Still King?

What's more important about Social Media Sites? The "Social" or the "Media"?

I read an interesting article earlier this week about how LinkedIn has created a massive media empire. Of course the headline sounds a bit outlandish since most people typically think of LinkedIn as a social (albeit professional) site, but what the article gets at is something which is pretty core to any social media site: the content that matters in your social group.

Each of the major social sites has a different focus of content, but it's still the content which users are typically referring to on the sites themselves.

As the article above states, LinkedIn has created a unique niche with Influencers and the daily emails which are sent recapping a series fo interesting articles. In fact, I actually subscribe to those emails and find them pretty interesting. So I can personally vouch for the idea that this method of having a small number of content creators and very focused articles drives a lot of views and engagement.

Unlike LinkedIn, I'd say that most Facebook users aren't heading to facebook to read articles. They're typically looking to catch up on their friends' activities. The activities are listed in the newsfeed are content. But if you've visited your newsfeed lately, you obviously know that it's not just a listing of random status updates. People post articles they've read, photos they've taken, music they're listening to, etc, etc. So the newsfeed is actually full of a wide variety of content posted by a large number of users (ahem, the content creators). So while Facebook may seem like just a place to read about the lives of your friends & families, when you visit the site, it's about a lot more than that.

Similarly, Twitter has long tried to enhance the content of the timeline after recognizing the types of things people were tweeting about. So rather than just seeing 140 characters of stream of consciousness, you'll see content summaries of articles, you'll see twitter cards linking out to other sites, and if you go to the #Discover tab, you'll see summaries of that. In way, it's quite similar to what Facebook is doing.

On the face of it, it may seem like LinkedIn is taking a completely different path to engagement than what Facebook and Twitter are doing, but at the core of it, it's quite similar. LinkedIn has determined what can drive interest, engagement, and page views. Facebook has done the same. Twitter has done the same. Yes, it's social, but it's still about content. It may not be long investigative articles, but it's still content.

The methods of displaying that content may differ between sites, but it's clear to me that content is still king.

Tweet

Being more social

There's been a lot going on with features recently introduced by some of the major social media sites. And I want to take a few moments to talk about how these features are built to encourage us to be more social.

Some of the most recent rundown of features, as you may know, are:

• Facebook Home for Android phones and a revised Facebook iOS app featuring chatheads and some other goodies
• Twitter with it's #music foray
• LinkedIn with its completely revised mobile apps

Facebook's Chatheads

What would be the purpose of these new featuresets other than to entice users to stay on the site longer? Of course, that's the purpose of any website (or storefront) improvements...get the user to stay on the site longer and come back more often (or get the shopper to browse more in the aisles). But the major features we've been seeing lately aren't just about spending more time on the websites or apps, but about using the services in new and different ways.

LinkedIn's new mobile app

Chatheads is meant to pull people into using messaging more like a IM app and not just the pseudo-email it has been typically been used as.

Twitter's new music suggestion

LinkedIn's new apps re-focus them and shift a lot of the intended use to researching people you might be meeting with (the website continues to stay more focused on news & article posts)

#Music is meant as a new resource connecting your twitter-verse with other services that you'd probably not connect otherwise.

So this isn't just about showing more updates from your contacts, it's about connecting with them in different ways...whether it's real-time updates & messages, quick lookups for their professional background, or about what type of music their listening to, these companies are finding new ways which they're hoping pull people back over and over and over. Just like we instinctively head to google to look up anything and everything, these companies are looking for their own sort of "just google it"

Facebook's "Suggested Page" layout has
improved to be clear and separated

Facebook's "Suggested App" started
showing up last fall, but its layout has
improved over time.

Now, let me also say that the features these companies have been focusing on are not just whiz bang new features like chatheads or #music discovery, the features also include incremental improvements to each of these sites & apps which make them easier to use or just plain more useful.

The facebook website and mobile apps look quite a bit different now than they did just six months ago and many of those differences are about making the app look better and I've definitely noticed the improvements...and yes, I'd call them improvements. I've provided just two examples from the Facebook iOS app, but Twitter has made lots of tweeks which make it easier to scroll through your tweetstream, click on links for other users or websites. Each of these seemingly small improvements make each service more friendly to use

I love to see all of this change in this space. While we may sometimes wonder what big new feature a site may release and we may sometimes be underwhelmed those big features, each of those big changes is a try and expanding and changing our usage on the site. Additionally, between those big feature announcements, there are so many little things done that over the course of just six months, those incremental changes amount to big things.

And I believe that is all designed to encourage us to use their services more often, for different reasons, and help us all be more social.

Tweet

Is Facebook following you to the supermarket?

Are you paying attention to ads
like these on Facebook?

I've been trying to get back to documenting some of my thoughts and one of the things I keep coming back to is about the engagement that users have on social media sites is turned into something more for the company itself. I wrote before about how Facebook is looking to monetize user engagement on their site and how Facebook gets "mid funnel" users to act on things they see on the site. 

I read a really interesting article by Farhad Manjoo about the very structured analysis Facebook has done to determine how users are actually responding to ads they see on the site. They may not be clicking the ads, but they seem to definitely making buying decisions based on the ads they see on Facebook? Don't believe me? Well, read the article to learn more:


Facebook Followed You to the Supermarket: Even if you never click on Facebook ads, they are making you buy things.


What do you think? Do you pay much attention to the ads? Even if you don't pay attention, do you at least notice them?

Tweet

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!

Tweet

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!

Tweet

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!

Tweet

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.

Tweet

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?

Tweet

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!

Tweet

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.

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.