Posts Tagged ‘facebook’
Google changes the rules and upsets Twitter, among others
January 12th, 2012
Earlier this week Google announced a number of changes, which apply to the U.S. only at this stage, and are designed to accelerate personal search, and move towards social search.
The three changes fall under the following categories:
First: Personal results, aimed at helping you to find more relevant to…well…you.
Second: Profiles in search, meaning you can more easily identify people you’re close to or want to follow.
Third: People and pages, which focuses on helping you to find profiles and Google+ pages related to memes or topics of interest.
The additions offer more meaningful ways to connect with people around you, straight from the search results.
This all sounds well and good, and personalising and or customising results to be more relevant can only be more positive, can’t it?
Many commentators such as the Guardian and BBC have picked up on the other side effect of these changes which is to make Google+ much more relevant. For example, when you search for information, particularly about individuals, results from the social network will be prominently displayed on the first page of results, assuming you are a member.
That makes Google+ a much more attractive social network, as users will see fewer results from outside it when they search for information.
As you might expect, Twitter has offered its opinion on the issue, as it has perhaps the most to lose. Twitter’s lead lawyer, Alex Macgillivray, called it a “bad day for the internet“, and suggested - as a former Google employee - that there would have been dissent internally “at search being warped this way“.
Twitter later made a formal statement: “For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results any time they wanted to find something on the internet.
“As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter, as a result, Twitter accounts and tweets are often the most relevant results. We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organisations and Twitter users.”
Others have also criticised the change, Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land commented: “Search engines are supposed to send you away to the best information, even if they don’t have their own in stock. Google has previously been excellent at providing links to the most suitable information.
“Today’s change is one of the few times where I’m thinking ‘What the hell are you doing, Google?’”
Getting to the heart of the matter, Google was always going to find a way to move its social network, which is so far behind the game, to the front. Its best strategy to achieve this is to link its social network more closely to its search engine, which is after all the most popular in the U.S and Europe. But is that fair?
Google’s decision to favour Google+ posts which would not rank highly by its normal criteria (defined by the number of “authoritative” pages on the web linking to it) could suggest that it is favouring its own product in order to grow it more quickly. That in turn could breach antitrust (or competition) laws.
Twitter and Facebook content does not generally appear in Google search results because neither site provides Google with unlimited access to their content.
Twitter formerly had an agreement in which Google paid for access to index its database directly, but Twitter chose not to renew the agreement, according to a statement placed on Google+ by an official Google account, which said it was “a bit surprised by Twitter’s comments” because “they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer“.
Although these changes are likely to head to Europe eventually, the Guardian piece suggests Google may have to think twice about introducing the changes over here because it has a greater share of search in European countries, meaning a ruling on it affecting the market is more likely, and also if the changes extend to results on Android phones, then it may face more urgent calls for an antitrust investigation.
This wouldn’t be the first time that there has been a call for Google to be investigated on such grounds, but if these changes do come to Europe as expected, we could be on the verge of a few interesting legal actions.
Why take the Google+ page plunge?
November 18th, 2011
Google+ launched Google+ pages last week, in direct competition with Facebook, and the evidence shows that many brands have set up a page over the first week of activity, at least according to research by SEO firm BrightEdge, who confirmed ‘61 percent of world’s top 100 brands have already created Google+ pages‘, which is pretty impressive considering the time frame.
The question that keeps coming up is: ‘Why do I need a Facebook page and a Google+ page?’ Many of those brands that have taken the plunge already will have grabbed their Google+ page, simply to secure it, which is reason enough at least in the short term. Some may be surprised to hear though that it’s easy to set up fake pages so look for the verified badge when you visit the site.
So why does a brand need a Google+ page? Well, there are many reasons, 18.5 of which are defined in Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s piece on the Drum last week, and as he suggested, the integration of Analytics, YouTube, Adwords, Picassa offers an advantage over Facebook, and perhaps an insight into the longer term strategy.
Obviously Facebook is the prime motivation for the Google+ launch, and many feel Google+ is too far behind to mount an effective challenge, but the issue here is not so much about the stand alone effectiveness of Google+ vs Facebook, but the sheer scale of Google products that Google + already integrates, and will undoubtedly increase in the future. Let’s also not forget Google’s strength, its search engine, which has led to its Google+ pages already out ranking Facebook brand pages, which is reason enough for some brands to get involved.
The BrightEdge analysis showed Google+ pages on average appeared in the top 12 Google search results for the corresponding brand, while the brand’s Facebook pages on average appeared in the top 13 or 14 listed results.
The flexibility in connectedness, and search, gives Google the long term edge in terms of synching with its full range of services. Of course many services also synch with Facebook, but Google’s vision seems to take this to another level. We’re not talking about beating Facebook, Google is simply building around it and making it less relevant.
The reality is we’re a long way away from that today as 94 percent of the Top 100 brands analysed by BrightEdge have a presence on Facebook, and in terms of the big brands, like Coke, McDonalds and Verizon each only has dozens of fans on Google+, but millions of Facebook fans. The review of Facebook and Google+ properties for the top 100 brands showed a collective total of almost 300 million Facebook fans, compared to approximately 148,000 Google+ followers for these same brands.
Looking at the figures today, the task ahead of Google+ seems insurmountable, but i suspect the gulf between Facebook and Google+ will fall as the connected battle gets into second gear, and Google has already announced a pilot program that will allow businesses and brands to manage their Google+ Pages using a number of third-party applications, including Buddy Media, Context Optional, Hearsay Social, HootSuite, Involver, and Vitrue.
The issue is not so much about Google+ catching Facebook, but about offering a viable and useful reason to have a Google+ page as well. We may see different verticals opting for different networks based on reach and audience in the future, but with these options brands have ever more increasing routes to listening and engaging with their communities.
Social Media adoption stagnates among Fortune 500
October 27th, 2011
Interesting research from the University of Massachusetts shows that for the first time in 4 years there has been virtually no change in Fortune 500 companies adopting Facebook, Twitter or Blogging, which is a surprise to say the least.
According to the research by Dr. Nora Ganim Barnes, PhD, Senior Fellow, Society for New Communications Research & Chancellor Professor of Marketing at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, nearly one third of Fortune 500 are without either a Twitter or Facebook account. While the percent of companies blogging remains at 23%, that number now represents 114 companies with blogs instead of the 116 recorded last year.
Dr Barnes, suggests: “These results may signal a levelling off and possibly retrenchment when it comes to the adoption of social media among the 2011 Fortune 500. There is also evidence of change in the adoption of these tools by industry and a clear sign from some companies that these are not part of their communications strategy. Given that the Fortune 500 are the titans of American business, we may be seeing the slowdown in business adoption of social media. At the very least, this group appears to have slowed or stopped its adoption of the three most prominent tools - Blogging, Facebook and Twitter.”
The full research can be downloaded here and key findings include:
• 23% (114) of the primary Fortune 500 corporations have an external corporate blog. This represents a levelling off since 2010 and only a 1% increase over the 2009 study.
• Fortune 500 companies are blogging at a lower rate than other business groups, specifically the Inc. 500. In 2010, 50% of the Inc. 500 had corporate blogs and in 2009 45% had externally-facing corporate blogs.
• 62% (308) of Fortune 500 primary companies have corporate Twitter accounts. This is an increase of only 2% over the 2010 Fortune 500.
• 58% (289) of the 2010 Fortune 500 have a Facebook presence. There is an increase of only 2% over the 2010 Fortune 500.
• Specialty Retail stores are most likely to have a blog. These include Home Depot, Best Buy, Toys-R-Us and BJ’s Wholesale.
• 31% of the 2011 Fortune 500 do not have a Twitter account or a Facebook presence.
The figures are interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, does this really show a slow down in social adoption among the biggest organisations in the U.S? Or simply a reflection of the vertical structure of the Fortune 500, which at this (still) relatively early stage of adoption means those outside of the key sectors (Retail, Auto, Finance, Travel for example) are unlikely to adopt as yet.
Could this slowdown be linked to a pull back on budgets as a direct result of the economic slow down, and a more sustained focus on traditional and boardroom-accepted communications / marketing focuses?
However, whatever potential excuses we put forward, it’s clear that there is still much to be done in terms of educating large corporates in social media adoption, and more specifically its potential benefit. We also need to put more focus on making social relevant to vertical organisations / sectors, by highlighting specific approaches such as Social CRM, and Social Business.
Facebook introduces a subscription button, while Twitter launches analytics
September 15th, 2011
The giants of social networking have been busy this week with the launch of new features which will prove useful, and change the focus and reporting for digital campaigns.
First to Facebook, which announced the Subscription button yesterday. This allows users to choose exactly what they see in their news feed, both in terms of narrowing the noise from friends and expanding subscriptions beyond friends to include contacts of interest, e.g. journalists, political figures, bloggers etc.
From a marketing perspective it will place further emphasis (if any was needed) on quality and useful content that can be subscribed to, even if pages are not liked and individuals followed.
The total number of people subscribing to posts and the number of people you’re subscribed to will appear on your profile. Facebook has also confirmed that the subscribers tab will replace ‘likes’ as the most accurate engagement indicator, which will change the focus of many Facebook campaigns and again reflects the push towards being useful rather than just popular.
You can read the full update from Zach Rait who posted on the Facebook blog yesterday and Mashable has also posted on the launch.
In brief, Facebook says: “In the next few days, you’ll start seeing this button (the Subscribe button) on friends’ and others’ profiles. You can use it to:”
1. Choose what you see from people in News Feed
2. Hear from people, even if you’re not friends
3. Let people hear from you, even if you’re not friends
Over to Twitter, where Twitter Web Analytics is now being introduced.
Christopher Golda at Twitter posted about the launch on Tuesday, confirming:
“Today we’re announcing Twitter Web Analytics, a tool that helps website owners understand how much traffic they receive from Twitter and the effectiveness of Twitter integrations on their sites. Twitter Web Analytics was driven by the acquisition of BackType, which we announced in July.”
The product provides three key benefits:
• Understand how much your website content is being shared across the Twitter network
• See the amount of traffic Twitter sends to your site
• Measure the effectiveness of your Tweet Button integration
The tool will allow brands to understand how website content is being shared across the Twitter network and view the amount of traffic Twitter sends to a site.
Golda continued:“People have struggled to accurately measure the amount of traffic Twitter is sending to their websites, in part because web analytics software hasn’t evolved as quickly as online sharing and social signals.
“Twitter Web Analytics will be rolled out this week to a small pilot group of partners, and will be made available to all website owners within the next few weeks. We’re also committed to releasing a Twitter Web Analytics API for developers interested in incorporating Twitter data in their products.”
This will be a hugely useful tool for the digital marketing industry as it offers a standardised, if basic, insight into Twitter analytics for all. Twitter has also recognised that it must open up to existing analytics providers to be successful.
Banned from using social networks for 5 years
September 14th, 2011
A man in the UK has just been jailed for 18 months, is banned from using social networks for the next five years and has to inform police of any phone he owns or buys that provides internet access.
The man in question is Sean Duffy and the reason for his punishment is internet trolling. To be more precise, Duffy mocked a dead teenager who had committed suicide by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank Engine with the deceased girl’s face in place of Thomas.
After the hearing, Detective Chief Inspector James Hahn, of Thames Valley police, said “Malicious communication through social networking is a new phenomenon and unfortunately shows how technology can be abused. However, our investigation shows that offenders cannot hide behind their computer screens.“
It’s official! Facebook does not rot your brain
August 8th, 2011
A very black week indeed for millions of us across the world but I did see a scintilla of light at the weekend because it’s official – Facebook does not make you brain dead, autistic, sociopathic, psychopathic or any other –“ic”. Hooray!
The incredibly productive Jamie Doward (and Nick Boyle) told us in the Observer newspaper that “Logging on to computers helps us get out more, insist economists … Internet’s social networks and access to information bring people together and keep us sociable, not lonely”.
Three economists - Stefan Bauernschuster, Oliver Falck and Ludger Woessmann of the Ifo Institute in Munich - reject the claim that the internet isolates people and erodes traditional social foundations. They will explain in detail through their paper presented at the Lindau Meetings towards the end of this month (August 2011).
The trio say their work demonstrates the internet is actually making us more socially active. The study shows that a home broadband connection positively influences social activities of adults as well as children.
Yet, less than 28 weeks ago we were being reliably informed that social networking was well dodgy, as tide of cyber-scepticism swept the US and here, (but in an understated British way). The coverage around Twitter and Facebook suggested that a rising number of academics believe that social networks don’t connect people – they isolate them from reality.
These academics pointed to the way in which people frantically communicate online via Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging which could be seen as a form of modern madness.
The story rolled out a leading American sociologist, MIT professor Sherry Turkle who was quoted at the time as saying: “A behaviour that has become typical may still express the problems that once caused us to see it as pathological.”
Mind you, she was publicising her book, Alone Together, apparently was “leading an attack on the information age.”
Madness? Pathological behaviour? Hardly. I agree with the three economists – the internet is a force for social good. Other networks, ooh let’s say, the financial global networks, are a force for bad. These are the networks that rot our brains, make us feel powerless and stupid.
They are weapons of mass destruction and they will kill us all, slowly but surely. Perhaps Professor Turkle and her Facebook-fearful colleagues might want to turn their forensic gaze towards these networks and leave the socialising to us?
Should Facebook be worried that only 1 in 10 customer use apps?
August 5th, 2011
New ComScore data that shows how Facebook users spend their time on the platform are very intriguing. According to ComScore, users spend most time engaging with News Feed, learning about Friends.
By way of contrast, users spend only 10% of their time using apps. It’s that nugget of information that interests me.
At first view, it appears that companies seeking to engage and convert Facebook users through apps might have spent ever-dwindling marketing cash on Facebook apps that do not deliver ROI. But closer examination shows why apps rule.
Facebook statistics indicate that people spend around 700 billion minutes per month on the platform. I have no idea whether this figure is independently audited by trusted third parties.
Whatever, 10 per cent of 700 billion is the reason why the biggest app company, Zynga has filed to go public while other apps developers are in investor heaven as VCs queue up to dump development and marketing cash on them.
If Facebook is the meta Social Object, then apps are a range of Shared Objects or Instances. This is the way the web works now, and how its broad culture will develop.
Facebook says that its users install more than 20 million apps every day. Given the evolving social nature of the Web around the concept of Social Objects, apps’ sharing capabilities help to embed businesses and allow them to engage in new, useful and relevant ways with their customers and influencers.
The app as a Shared Object becomes a perfect marketing tool. I’m indebted to Cite Social for its categorisation of Facebook Apps:
1. Showcasing your company’s products or services. This type of App enables Facebook users to learn more about a company through participation. Often they involve releasing new information or targeting new audiences.
2. Gaining followers quickly and for a short time. In some instances Apps are time-sensitive and focussed on gaining short-term activity. They are generally used as part of a promotional push for a specific campaign. Often this relates to subjects that are deadline driven like competitions or special events.
3. Creating long-term interaction with users. These Apps offer some sort of value that encourages the user to keep returning. They focus on developing relationships over time and help improve brand loyalty. Examples can include games and apps that users can regularly update.
July 6th, 2011
Want to check out Google + but don’t have an invite? Well here is the next best thing. It’s called Circle Hack and has been designed to copy the circles feature on Google +. It is simply a way to organise friends into lists that can then be interacted with directly. Once a circle is organised via drag and drop the user clicks on the “Create list” link in the centre of the new circle to name it, and it is created.
Circle Hack is defined as “a one-night experiment with Javascript”, and is not affiliated with Facebook.
Bing adds Facebook ‘Like’ to searches
May 18th, 2011
It is turning out to be a bit of a Facebook ‘Like’ week on the Liberate Media Blog. Today’s Facebook-inspired ‘Like’ news concerns Bing’s announcement that it is rolling out a full-on Facebook integration, referring to it as the “Friend Effect.”
What is the Friend Effect?
From engadget, “Microsoft found that most people usually want opinions from friends and family before they make a decision on something. So by including friends’ and families’ Facebook-based Likes in the search results the company lets you know their input without ever having to ask. At the same time, Microsoft has added a universal like button to the Bing Toolbar that you can use to mark your approval on anything you find on the web, which in turn, can help out your friends’ searches in a socially, antisocial kind of way.”
View the video to see how it works
Would you name your baby after Facebook’s ‘Like’?
May 17th, 2011
Guess what, someone did. A piece on Huffington post confirmed: “Parents Lior and Vardit Adler have named their newborn daughter “Like” after Facebook’s “like” button, the parents were looking for a unique name for their baby girl and liked the sound of the word “Like.” The name was not intended to be a gimmick, nor an ad for the social networking site”
Apparently, according to the same article this is not the first Facebook related name check, “an Egyptian father named his child “Facebook” in a nod to the social networking service’s role in the country’s revolution.
I understand the Beckhams calling their son Brooklyn and actors Kim Basinger and Alec Baldwin naming their daughter Ireland, but naming children after social networks takes it to a whole new level. What should we expect next, a boy called Digg-it and a Girl called Re-Tweet?