The most surprising thing about the sentiment expressed during the panel showed how little the attitude towards Social Media has changed within business. Much of the visible discussion about ROI for Social Media is focused on arbitrary “value of a fan” figures, engagement, conversation and raw fan, like, retweet and follower metrics. Revenue and cost rarely get discussed.

What is the ROI of Trolls?

Return on Investment is actually a very straightforward concept. An old textbook from university defines it as “a ratio of required costs and perceived benefits of a project or an application” (King, Lee & Viehland, 2004 p. 569). At its simplest you measure what goes into a project or business process, be it cash, time spent by employees and other resources, and compare that to what the business gets out of it. It is practically gamification, where businesses keep score on what what is working and what is not by the numbers in the bottom line.

Finding the ROI of a Telephone

One of the persistent memes dogging the discussion compares finding the ROI for Social Media to establishing a return for using now ubiquitous, common technology. Kind of like this remark seen bearing the #SXSMROI hastag:

 Asking if there is ROI for Social Media is like asking if there is an ROI of the telephone or a pencil.

It is a witty statement and fits into Twitter’s 140 character limit. It is also wrong. You can find the ROI of a telephone, or a pencil for that matter. Service and technology companies such as Intel (PDF) think so. Aside from the savings of switching to a VoIP system, Intel’s case study also outlined another business benefit for adopting their systems: productivity gains. The return on a project is not always in creating a new revenue stream.

The worst part of the analogy quoted above is that practically every piece of technology in common use now at some point had to be shown to have value. From the phone, to mainframe computers, desktop machines, mobiles and the Internet.

Business systems often provide more benefits to the bottom line than just directly generating revenue or cutting costs. In many cases it is how these tools create efficiencies internally or assist in acquiring and serving customers that creates the return for the business.

Meet Ms Revenue and Mr Expenditure

There are two things fundamental to running a business and ROI; revenue and expenditure.  Most organisations attempt to link expenditure to a source of revenue, either directly such as in the case of marketing, or indirectly in the case of business functions such as customer service and HR.

A successful, sustainable business

The one simple, inescapable fact at the centre of this discussion is that Social Media projects cost money. Either as cash for supporting marketing, tools and external experts, or the money spent on the wages of those involved with posting content, creating cat-themed memes and responding to customers.

Just don't cross the streams

It is important that posting cat photos and building love and trust contributes to the business’ bottom line. Knowing what works for the business makes it possible to decide if the marketing department should spend their time drafting tweets or creating another eDM. It means knowing if customer service staff should stick to the phones, or be trained to respond to questions on Facebook. Pouring money and resources into projects with no return is not a sustainable practice, no matter how many Twitter followers a brand might gain or the number of happy Facebook fans who have won an iPad.

Finding the Return on Social Media

Tools like Google’s Social Reports in Analytics and Assisted Conversion funnels do make it easier to track the effect of a Social Media campaign on online activity and sales even if they don’t reveal much about other channels. However measuring the return on engaging in Social Media for business is not limited to last click attribution and cross channel sales tracking.

Social Media is more than just another marketing channel. Because of the nature of the platforms, an organisation’s Social Media spaces will inevitably be used by the community as they see fit. Social Media sites such as Pinterest and Facebook have more in common with shared public spaces than dedicated media channels.

One of the more common ways an organisation’s audience appropriate these spaces is to expedite customer service and to make general enquiries. In fact a number of very successful Social Media initiatives have taken advantage of this behaviour, such as Dell with @DellCares.

Because of the ease of disseminating information and the access they can give to a pre-existing audience, Social Media is a natural fit for Business Communication and a powerful way to serve customers directly. These functions often do not directly generate revenue but they still create value for the business.

For example, while I was with Greyhound Australia the brand’s Facebook page was often used to respond to product questions and customer service enquiries, in addition to normal promotional activity. By responding to questions in public in a shared space the brand was able to communicate with the person who ask as well as others with the same question.

Under normal circumstances using online spaces to address customer queries helped to improve customer service in general, it was during extraordinary events where it created the most value. During the Queensland floods Greyhound’s online spaces, including Facebook, were important for keeping customers informed, and managing direct customer enquiries. It made it possible to communicate with customers directly and en masse.

Using online tools such as the company’s website and Social Media spaces made it easier for customers to find the information they needed to be aware of changes to services and manage the load experienced in other customer service channels. While this is an extreme example, it was an expansion of existing practices in response to an extraordinary situation. Facebook was already used as a communications and customer service channel as well as a marketing tool, and the return on the time and resources invested were measured as such.

Love, Trust, Engagement and Staying in the Black

Social Media projects for business will be treated like any other. Goals will be set, processes put in place and KPIs assigned. Until someone discovers a way to pay for servers with love and trust, some form of economic benefit will be expected, which in turn will be weighed against the costs associated with the project.

The idea that Social Media is different really should be dead and buried by now. Developing and managing online communities takes effort, and in a commercial setting, this costs money. Likes and retweets don’t pay bills, and at some point, people need to get paid.

King, D, Lee, J & Viehland, D 2004. Electric Commerce; A Managerial Perspective, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Quick Hide the Typewriters!

Online, reading and news are doing OK. It’s just writing and journalism as a profession that seems to be in trouble. Specifically journalism, at least according to the current narrative. The big problem is that writing is easy, and with the Internet, publication is even simpler.

Most of the developed world is literate and the tools needed to write are very common, from mobile phone handsets to desktop computers, tablets and laptops. The sprawling ecosystem of platforms and media the Internet has spawned means making something available is simple. These days the hard part is having something worth saying, and that someone else will care enough about to share.

Before the Internet, the hard part for a writer was making their work public on some kind of scale in the first place. Getting words onto paper, in bulk, and with access to a distribution network of some kind was hard, very hard. Plus the entire process was in the hands of a relatively small number of gatekeepers who only had so many pages that they needed filled. In turn this allowed them to be as picky with content and writers as their business model allowed, restricting access to a handful of professions who met certain standards or had a specific marketable skill set. However, the Internet has changed this, and since the earliest days, creating and sharing content online has been endemic and a major part of the identity of those that use these platforms, from the RFC forum all the way through to Pinterest.

Arguing for Value in the Race to the Bottom

Making content available to the public is easy, far easier than being interesting or articulate. The ability to press ‘publish’, ‘post’ or ‘update’ has no relation to being able to spell, or being interesting, or even understandable. It is easy to do, there is no reason for most people not to, and they mostly do it for free, or in some cases with an optimistic expectation of making millions working from home.

When anyone with an Internet connection is potential competition, where does this leave professional writers, and more importantly, the organisations that package and distribute their work? Even narrowing it down to just the articulate and interesting, there are lot of people giving it away for free.

The quality of content created and consumed both online and offline by news organisations, businesses, consumers and other publishing entities is not arguing strongly for the value of a professional content creating class. It is plainly obvious that you don’t need to be a journalist to churn out content or copy and paste a press release. It is not surprising that building a business based on generating huge volumes of low investment content and sticking ads on it has been popular online.

Bulk Content for Bulk Ad Views

The problem is the number of pageviews required to make it work. To generate the interest and get the required attention, new sites and others using content to generate advertising revenue need a lot of divisive, polarising content.  Stuff that provokes an emotive response, headlines that attract clicks and opinions or stories people will want to share. As fast as some legacy media is racing to reach the logical conclusion of this trend, their online-only competition is already there, and doing it cheaper.

A lot of blogs and online news services, from personal blogs to the Huffington Post are accused of lowering the tone of public discourse at the expense of professional writing. In fact, these criticisms have become common place enough to have developed their own collection of predictable tropes. As Arianna Huffington pointed out, “Self-expression the new entertainment”, and it is this trend that has spawned a tidal wave of content posted everywhere from private and public social networks to personal and commercial blogs. Individually they don’t have much of an impact, they don’t scale. What does make a difference is the amount of activity they produce as a group. For every blogger who gives up after their fourth ‘Top Ten Reasons Pants Rock’ post fails to make them internet millions, or walks away from a Tumblr meme blog because their friends don’t share it enough, there are still more who continue to write, post, photoshop, tweet, and so on.

However, to make a play for the mass audience that legacy media is pitched at, they need scale. It is the content farms that have scale, creating masses of content either through aggregation or software tools, or with large teams of underpaid writers churning out short pieces to match a list of targeted search queries. Underpaying for bad content in a way that scales was working so well that it got to the point where search engines had to appear to be doing something once the mainstream press started to criticise the ‘spammy’ search result pages.

Professional Writers versus Professionals Writing

At the other end of the spectrum there are subject matter experts who put their work online. For many, such as scientists, talking directly to the public is an attractive alternative to being misquoted, misrepresented and edited down to a misleading sound byte by journalists from a legacy media channel. There are other benefits for professionals in publishing online and reaching their audience directly, and none of them have to be getting paid per blog post or AdSense revenue.

The critical thing is that there is no shortage of accessible, findable content and specialist content online. There is a large number of experts from a diverse range of fields either already producing content as a part of their job, or doing it because they they enjoy it on their own time. Many are actively engaged in their work and their professional community, and can reach laypeople who are interested in their thoughts and fields of expertise without needing a journalist to act as an intermediary.

Generalists for Cash and Experts for Free

Just as there are a lot of people sharing good quality content just because they can, there is a lot of content created for reasons other than a direct financial return, some out of pure altruism. There are many bloggers and other creators that happily give their content away as fast as the audience will take it because it will help them make money through other means. Their written work might help when pitching for new projects, or build a public profile, sell books, t-shirts, events or just get a new job.

Left in the Middle

Where do the ‘genuine writers’ fit in this world? Content written for broad appeal does not seem to require a lot of skill or attract much return, and material written about niche topics created by subject area experts is easier than ever to find. Writers in general, and journalists in particular, do not seem to fit either end of this spectrum, if literacy and access to a printing press and a newspaper brand is all they can offer.

Professional writers who only provide a link between the information and the means of publication are an artefact of the economics of scarcity. Scarcity of printers, scarcity of platforms and distribution, and even a scarcity of the skills needed to use these tools. In the past to participate in the media you had to be chosen, be employed by an entity that controlled the means of production. It was easier to get picked if you were a professional writer, and because the industry could only support so many writers, most of them seemed to be generalists. With a few exceptions, it was not economical to support someone full time just to write about a niche subject area.

Now you don’t need to be chosen to reach an audience. It does not have to be a full time job just to get access to a good distribution network. There are more writers specialising in obscure topic areas than before, and it is also easier and cheaper to get mass, general, click bait content produced or to aggregate press releases and news feeds. On the whole, journalism appears to be caught in the middle. No longer vital for collecting and interpreting expert opinion, and faced with the falling value of general content. The future demands that writers offer something more than the ability to spell, and the luck to work for someone who owns a printing press.

According to Google, the three big features will be:

1. Personal Results, which enable you to find information just for you, such as Google+ photos and posts—both your own and those shared specifically with you, that only you will be able to see on your results page;
2. Profiles in Search, both in autocomplete and results, which enable you to immediately find people you’re close to or might be interested in following; and,
3. People and Pages, which help you find people profiles and Google+ pages related to a specific topic or area of interest, and enable you to follow them with just a few clicks. Because behind most every query is a community.

Google has not provided a single universal search experience for a while, so the first of these three features is not as significant as it would seem. The second and third however are a different story.

Profiles in Search

This is probably going to the most significant feature in terms of actual user adoption, and it is also in line with the steps that Google has been taking towards becoming a key identity provider online. Search is as much a destination in itself as it is a directory, and Google is close to filling the same role as portal sites like Yahoo! used to in the 1990′s.

Adding the profiles to which the user is connected and those they might want to add to their Circles is an important piece of social functionality for Google+. On sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, the people search tools have been one of the tools driving the growth of their users’ networks.

Making Google+ profiles more visible in the results and autocomplete also creates social proof for uncommitted users that Google+ is used, and I suspect will encourage people to use it more.

People and Pages

The third feature being introduced with Google+’s closer integration with Google’s search results is the inclusion of personal profiles as  results in search, outranking older, more active and ostensibly more linked-to web properties. The importance of personal Google+ profiles in search was hinted at earlier with Google’s replacing ‘+’ with quotations for marking a word as exact match.

Google+ on a logged out vanity search

Considering how Google has used YouTube, Google Places and a number of other services within their search results, this should not have taken anyone by surprise.

How well Google+ profiles are performing in search compared to other web properties has certainly drawn criticism, although not much astonishment, from the more cynical commentators online.

There is a positive side to the performance of Google+ content in search, and that is in reputation management. It is another way to get content ranking for a brand or name that could outrank less than favourable results and bury them.

With More Social Content comes Greater Transparency

As well as the new social features, Google also announced a number of changes to their interface to give the user greater control over their search experience and to create more transparency in how the social content is used in search. The search engine also made it easy for users to remove personalised results, which feature is accessible through a toggle button:

That means no results from your friends, no private information and no personalization of results based on your Web History. This toggle button works for an individual search session, but you can also make this the default in your Search Settings. We provide separate control in Search Settings over other contextual signals we use, including location and language.

Crowding the Social Bandwagon

The most interesting reaction to Google’s Search, plus Your World came from Twitter, who seemed understandably annoyed. Even though the two companies parted ways, Search, plus Your World became an opportunity for Twitter to state their concerns on how as a “result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone” to find the breaking news and event information that Twitter has become known for.

Google+ could become a competitor for Twitter as a realtime news provider and aggregator by displaying breaking information inline with organic search results, and it is interesting to see Twitter publicly take a shot at Google over this. However, it has been a while since their content agreement expired without renewal, leaving Google’s realtime search tools dead just as Google+ was being launched.

With Search, plus Your World, it seems that Twitter is concerned that Google might be able to revive the functionality of realtime search, without having to enter another deal with their own social network.

Social without the Site

For Google+ to pay off for Google, it does not need to replace Facebook or Twitter. To succeed as an identity provider it just needs profiles, and for its users to remain logged in while using other Google products.

The search results themselves are shaping up to be the most important part of Google+, with the addition of everything from friends, personal photos and shared content, to potentially realtime updates on subjects of interest (Remember Sparks? Maybe they will come into this at some point). Google+ is not about being a destination in itself, and frankly, it does not need to be.

Whenever a brand throws out the old in favour of something topical it gets attention. It is bold, and both the professional and amateur media love it. In the end the numbers will either vindicate or invalidate the experiment, assuming they measure the ROI in a way that reflects reality. Everything else is speculation, informed or otherwise.

Facebook has got to be better than email...

As interesting as the lively debate between the social media exponents and eDM professionals was at the time, it just begged the question: ‘Why not just do both?’ After all, I am sure you won’t get tarred and feathered at your favourite morning coffee do if you dabble in the black arts of using stuff that works.

Social Media and Email: With, not Instead Of

How you can use a social media platform, such as Facebook, Twitter, et al, is different from the tools available with email, from users’ expectations regarding content and frequency to how the user can interact with the material, and the platform’s restrictions on what can be delivered in what form to whom.

To borrow from Mitch Joel, it is ‘With’ not ‘Instead Of’. Using both social media and email gives you more options, and increases the size of your potential audience. Connecting with customers across multiple platforms facilitates different interactions, and gives the customer the choice of how they want to connect with the brand. Maybe a Facebook fan that finds no value in your updates would actually love the email newsletter, or perhaps the Twitter account amuses them during their work day while they find eDM invasive. Giving the customer the choice can mean that when they opt out of one channel, they might still connect through another.

Building Audiences on Other People’s Platforms

Building eDM and Social Media Audiences

Facebook fans are not really yours; neither are Twitter followers. Without the accounts they are connected to, these audiences don’t exist. Unlike email. There is also little point in building different engagement strategies for multiple channels without cross-promoting them.

Competitions, surveys and other data collection or content driven special events can accomplish both of these goals:

• Making the brand’s audience aware of other touch points and
• Collecting contact details and other information through either a microsite or the brand’s main web presence.

The nature of eDM as a one way communication channel without the ability to demonstrate social proof makes it better suited to direct customers to a range of appropriate social media touch points, where most of the content would be published during the campaign. Cross promotion of the brand’s social media touch points and a call to action that would lead to further entries in the brand’s email database and CRM will generate better connection with and a better picture of the audience.

Promoting campaigns such as these should not be restricted to just eDM and social media. Getting the most out of it requires that other media is added to the mix, be it print, broadcast, SMS, MMS, PR, online display and promotional activity on the brand’s site. However it is executed, there should be two returns to the business:

• More information on the brand’s customers
• More points of contact with the brand’s customers.

Do Everything You Can Do Well

Limited access to resources and avoiding uneconomic channels are the only reasons that should affect what tools are and are not used online. There is no reason to abandon one kind of promotional activity online in favour of another. With so many ways to go online and consume information, arbitrarily limiting a brand’s options in how it can reach and be reached by its customers is not a winning strategy.

Diaspora's Kickstarter t-shirt

Diaspora’s privacy management is based on Aspects. The user groups their connections by a set of personal criteria, and can choose who gets to see which updates, and which stream of content they consume. Grouping people in this way isn’t really new; Google’s other social network, Orkut, employs a similar system, as does their new social project, Google+, with its Circles. Diaspora’s big point of difference is as a federated network. Anyone can take the software, install it on a server, and connect it to other installations, called pods. Now after almost a year and with Google+ live to a limited audience, how has Diaspora gone?

The View from Diaspora

The view from Diaspora

Since launch the development of Diaspora has not stopped. The interface has been improved, Diaspora supports mentions and hashtags in status updates and searches on public posts. Users can post from Diaspora to Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook, and anyone’s public stream is available as an RSS feed.

Diaspora has a few more tools than it had at launch that make it easier to share sites and images while not on the site. A bookmarklet and an awesome photo sharing tool called cubbi.es (It saves an image on shift+left click, posts it to your cubbi.es account, into your stream on Diaspora, and can back it up to your Dropbox account as well). But there is one part of Diaspora’s user experience that has been stagnant for a while, and that’s mobile.

Personally Diaspora never really took off within my own social circles. No-one I know in real life, or through other social networks, is currently active within Diaspora. All the people with whom I currently interact on Diaspora, I met there, and they all sit in a ‘People from Diaspora’ Aspect.

Adding Google to the mix

A Google+ Perspective

And now there is Google+. The project has had an awesome take-up rate and already has over 10 million users. A lot of my acquaintances who were on Diaspora but never really used it are now very active on Google+. Whether this is the result of a solid product on Google’s part, or simply of the initial hype, remains to be seen.

Google+ does a lot of things differently to Diaspora (and Orkut) even if there is some overlap of the core mechanics of Circles vs Aspects. Notifications for activity on Google+ are visible while on other Google products, like Gmail and Google Reader, and can be acted upon without returning to Google+.

Eric Schmitt’s “Put your best people on mobile” is obvious on Google+. The project’s mobile experience is awesome on both mobile web and the Android app (which I love). Google+ has a number of other features, the most talked about being their desktop video feature called Hangouts, and mobile group messaging feature called Huddle.

Google+ probably won’t ‘kill’ Facebook. The size of the networks most users have built on Facebook represents a massive switching cost should they wish to migrate to another platform. Google+ will, at least for now, be a second social network, similar to how many people have active LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and other social media profiles as well as their Facebook accounts.

Where Google+ can clearly replace Facebook is on mobile. For ages the Facebook mobile experience has been bad, bordering on malicious. The only reason that Google+ isn’t actually replacing Facebook on mobile for me is because I stopped using Facebook on my phone ages ago. Facebook’s app and mobile website are horribly slow and unstable, and do not offer me enough as a user to make it worth the aggravation to use. Google+’s Android app is the opposite. It is fast, easy to navigate and use, and lets me see public posts by people near me and tag posts with my location.

Why Google+ will expand and Diaspora will remain niche

Diaspora is a solid, open platform that gives the user as much control as they want to take on, and judging from the work the team has put into it so far, will continue to improve. Google+ has a lot of awesome features on launch and has the benefit of the Google brand and integration with their other products. Both platforms have good reasons to use them and both cover areas that Facebook does not. Diaspora is more sensitive regarding user privacy and Google+ offers features that Facebook either doesn’t have, or does badly.

The biggest difference between Google+ and Diaspora is that while both do things that Facebook does not, most people don’t care about the needs that Diaspora meets, whereas those Google+ cover are obvious from the start. There are a few small differences, like how Diaspora sorts posts either by the date of the post, or the latest comment, which Google+ does not do. There are also other similarities, in that both let the user export their data easily and fully, unlike Facebook.

Diaspora does have a future, but it won’t be as large as Google+. Facebook will probably start to fill the gaps that Google+ seems aimed at, and this can already been seen in the rumours surrounding Project Spartan. For now though, Google+ will continue to gain users at a greater rate than Diaspora, and for all its flaws, Facebook isn’t going anywhere.

Post frequency over time

It was only a matter of time, but with the post Click Throughs in the Search Results, this blog finally turned 100. Specifically, 100 posts published since the 2nd November, 2008. Topics have varied from football clubs, fans and crowds, to mobile, search, search engine marketing and social media, with a few more esoteric subjects covered occasionally. Ultimately though, this blog has been about marketing and the Internet and how information is communicated.

Reaching an arbitrary large post number is an ideal opportunity to look back on the blog, and what happened to date. Information such as what tags were used, what posts were popular, what spread and what the return is on doing it in the first place are all interesting questions to answer.

Common Content by Common Tags?

A network of tags and posts

• Online
• Internet
• Search
• Social
• Advertising

Search related tags certainly dominate among the first hundred posts, with other online terms such as brands and tools appearing almost as frequently. Outside of these topics, the tags used to classify the blog posts were diverse and covered a lot of subject material. In the active version of the graph you can explore the posts within the network of tags.  But as diverse as the tags used were, the top five listed above were far and away the most common ones used to describe what I wrote.

What Worked?

The most viewed post to date was Bing Powering Facebook’s Search. This was the result of ranking well for the query ‘facebook search’ on google.com.au. That month also saw some interesting use of the blog’s site search.

The two posts that generated the most social activity were written about the Queensland floods at the beginning of this year. Their success was the result of good timing, engaging topics that were highly relevant to the people I could easily reach in my social network and a relative lack of competition.

• Floods, Brisbane and What Worked Online
• Floods, Tourism and Search in Queensland

My favourite blog post to date was The Narrowcast Internet, though it isn’t one of the successes. Both the text and the overly elaborate graph that accompanied it took the most time to produce, with very little payoff. It was also on a topic I find very interesting, regarding what structures our online experiences and what mediators can influence it. These are ideas I keep on returning to in my other posts.

What Was The Return?

There is a cost, if only in time, in writing a blog. But what is the return? With no publication schedule, no consistent format or word count and a wide range of topics covered that were usually discussed by other, more established and competitive blogs or aggregators, this blog has broken almost every best practice.

However there are benefits – creating and maintaining the blog has improved my writing, made me develop my ideas before exposing them to the world and given me another site full of content to experiment with. This blog has been worth the time that has gone into it, and I look forward to doing another of these posts when this blog turns 200.

Explore the graphs from this post here generated using Impure.com.

Apparently Google Does Search Too

What do you love? The obvious answer.

This week Google also announced a cool search tool called ‘What do you love?’ and the inclusion of author attribution in the search results. Google’s core strength is information retrieval. Becoming the Internet’s content curation tool of choice and consequently becoming a major source of attention and traffic is why the company is where it is today.

One of this week’s releases was a cool new search tool with an engaging interface. ‘What do you love?’ runs a query against a number of Google services and products, including search, books, images, 3D objects and maps. The result is more of a subject orientated page than a search result, and it links off to each Google service listed. The tool is very new, and there is a small box at the bottom of the page promising ‘More coming soon’.

Finding the Authors or the Publishers?

Earlier in June a blog post titled Authorship markup and web search was published on the Google Webmaster Central blog. Only two weeks later another blog post called Highlighting content creators in search results stated that author attribution would be added to the search results pages.

This feature is powered by the authorship markup which we announced two weeks ago. We hope as more authors link to their content, it will improve your search experience and the quality of content being created on the web.

Authors, Attribution and Snippets

People develop preferences for certain content creators. There is no need to look further than traditional media like books and movies for examples of this behaviour. Selecting content by author is about trust and choosing a style and view you prefer. On the Internet most methods of content discovery, from search to social media, draw more attention to the publisher of a piece or the platform than the author.

Trust in exploration and selection of information is skewed heavily towards the source, be it a link from a friend or a listing in an aggregator or a search tool, and the publisher who provided the space for it online. Most of the time the author is invisible at the point where the user decides what to click on.

Google seems to think that authorship and attribution are important. Solid attribution is a real issue online in an environment where it is increasingly separated from its origin. Tying individual identity to work has potential for authors developing their personal brand or apps collating an individual’s work for easy consumption. It will be interesting to see how author attribution and the tools to make it happen in search will affect other personal aggregators as online content consumption becomes even more separate from the sites that host it.

Google+ Project

Reading through the features list, nothing stands out as revolutionary, but that’s OK, because this does not actually matter. Google+ seems to be aimed at refining tools and features that already exist in other networks. +Circles appear to mirror Diaspora’s Aspects (you add people by dragging and dropping on both too), topic-focused groups will be called +Sparks, and +Hangouts look interesting, almost like a video IRC channel. +Mobile and +Huddle look like the real point of difference for Google+ in a market dominated by Facebook. A better mobile experience and well-executed group messaging are both areas in which Google+ can sidestep their competition.

Google’s “mobile first” approach is potentially Google+’s best chance of success, and their love affair with web-based applications will probably be seen in a polished browser-based product. However Google+’s biggest problem in gaining engaged users is other networks. The more connected a user is in an existing social network, the higher the cost of switching to a new platform.

Jumping on the Social Bandwagon

Joining the Social Bandwagon

This does not mean that Google+ and its range of services can’t become someone’s ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’. Facebook’s galleries didn’t stop people from using Instagram, and Twitter seems to be doing OK even though Facebook has the Wall. A solid mobile experience providing services Facebook either doesn’t offer or doesn’t do very well, like mobile sharing and group messaging, is Google+’s biggest opportunity.

Google+ isn’t likely to become 750 million people’s primary social network anytime soon, but there is a good chance that if it delivers something genuinely useful it’ll become one of the many other social tools we use. Google+ won’t replace Facebook, but this doesn’t automatically mean it will fail either. After all, how many people use just one social network?

Living in a Fishbowl

When certain Queensland Association for Healthy Communities (QAHC) ads were pulled from bus stops around Brisbane this week, my Facebook and Twitter feeds filled with protests, jokes, demands that the ads be put back and a…

Read the full post on MarketingMag.com.au

In this case Microsoft means more than just Messenger, and will also allow the user to access Facebook chat through the same system. I imagine Skype will be added as well at some point. The phone will also select the service based on the activity:

For example, if we’re both online in Messenger, it will use Messenger IM so that we can share rich photos and more, but if we’re Facebook friends or just have each other’s phone numbers, it will automatically select the right service for our conversation.

Adding SMS and IM to the same conversation thread makes a lot of sense for Microsoft, especially considering how they are building their social networks, including their recent, widely publicised acquisition of Skype (I do not think they will restrict Skype to Windows, that would just be silly). Messenger is also able to connect with Yahoo! and Facebook, and in November last year, their Messenger app was the second most popular on Facebook, after Farmville.

The High Cost of Microsoft's Evil Skype Plan

Networks of Social Networks

When the Windows Live blog published their Preview of the new Windows Live Messenger in April 2010, they made a number of interesting points in line with some of their most recent published studies on user behaviour:

• People use multiple devices
• People use multiple platforms
• Publishing the same message to all platforms is not good User Experience
• People want to see more from some more than others in their own networks

Through building a network with partners and acquisitions, Microsoft is expanding Messenger’s reach beyond their install base. Both Facebook and Google seem to be trying to achieve the same with their social graph, and suite of content and social tools respectively.

In addition to access to a larger network of individuals, Messenger’s network of partners, and the integration of SMS through the Windows Phone 7 update, creates a unified communication experience. The user can follow a conversation they are having with another across multiple platforms in a single coherent thread. Other platforms appear to be implementing the same ideas, for example, Facebook Connect’s new Comment Box plugin is another example of effectively expanding the activity of a social network site beyond its own domain, creating a more unified social experience for its users.

With huge growth expected for mobile, providing better tools that offer a seamless experience across computers, tablets and phones is more important than ever. The growth for smartphones and numbers of users using multiple devices for 2010 show how big this can be:

Global Internet Use by Device Type for 2010

• 2 billion Internet users in 2010
• 400 million Internet users only use a personal computer
• 975 million Internet users use both a personal computer and a mobile phone
• 625 million Internet users only use a mobile phone

• 1.38 billion new mobile phone handsets sold 2010 (almost all with a browser and a colour screen)
  • 22% of all new phones sold 2010 (298 million) were smartphones
  • 1.2 billion personal computers in use globally 2010

(Source: All the Numbers, All the Facts on Mobile the Trillion-Dollar Industry. Why is Google saying: Put your Best People on Mobile?, Communities Dominate Brands, Ahonen, T)

What Are They Doing, not What Are They Using

Integrating SMS and IM on mobile makes sense: both are predominantly text based (posting images, video and MMS aside), both tend to use short messages, and both use similar interfaces. Their differences are more a result of the associated technology than user behaviour. SMS, voice calls, IM and voice over IP (VoIP) were separate because they had to be. As devices become more powerful and able to perform a greater range of tasks and support more functions, the differences between them and other computers diminished.

The popularity of applications like Tweetdeck, and others that support conversations held across multiple platforms, indicate that there is a desire for this kind of integration. Ultimately, the user cares about what they want to achieve, such as following the news, catching up with friends or organising to meet for coffee. The platform doesn’t matter, only the interaction.