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.

Brisbane Roar Season Crowd Average

*Not counting rescheduled games played at Skilled Park.

Brisbane Roar is through to the Grand Final, and the tickets for this game are selling very well. The crowd numbers have not always looked so good this season though. I wrote a blog post near the start of the 2010 – 2011 A-League season, about Brisbane Roar, and their crowd numbers. Now that the regular season is over, I can compare the 2010 – 2011 season fairly to previous ones. The crowd figures from the season don’t flatter the team, especially considering their unbeaten record, and just how well they played.

Even ignoring the two games played at Skilled Park due to the floods, the average is less than other seasons that featured only mediocre performances on the field.

Roar Crowd Average by Team

But is it enough information to get an idea as to what will get people to come to the games? A quick look at the average attendance by opposing team and by day would suggest that Sunday games and games against the Gold Coast team bring in the best crowds.

Brisbane Roar Average Crowd by Day

Small Dataset Problems

Unfortunately the dataset is pretty small, and as it turns out, the higher averages for Sunday matches and Gold Coast United are both due to single games. There is only one game on Sunday from the regular season, and the crowd was above average. Gold Coast United was also the team with the single highest attended match of the season, at over double the average for the season. The only reason Saturday did not average higher than Sunday was because of a number of below average attendances for that day.

Average Crowd by Team and Day

A Rebound

The Brisbane Roar have certainly improved their crowd figures from the previous season, but have not yet been able to match the 2007 – 2008 crowd numbers. Considering that this is the club’s most successful season on the field in its short history, this is unfortunate.  With a higher percentage of home games being held on Saturday night this season, along with the team’s great performances on the pitch and a substantial reduction on ticket prices, the club seems to have started to rebuild match day attendances.

Often it is the club’s name and NSL era history that are blamed for the football public’s absence. Last season’s off-field dramas and the raised ticket prices, since reduced, are also blamed. The problem is that people did turn up to watch the club play in orange and under the name ‘Queensland Roar’. The club’s last links to its NSL past only ended last year with the departure of Queensland Lions management. These are not new developments and did not stop people from coming before now.

Brisbane (formerly Queensland) Roar Crowd Numbers

Crowd figures have taken a hit in previous seasons, but 09/10 was one of the most dramatic drops. The stadium staff and lack of home wins are often blamed, but the club’s on-field performance has been patchy through its history and the stadium staff have always been controversial to some fans. Adding higher ticket prices, on- and off-field drama, too many Sunday games and a few poorly managed personal problems seemed to be just enough to push many supporters away. Once they left, the decline seemed to accelerate.

Social Causes

Fans do not attend games as individuals.  They come as a part of a group. The crowd is not just a homogeneous whole, but a loose collection of small groups of varying sizes. For members of large groups with loose ties, it is enough for the members to know that there will always be others they know there when they attend matches. Supporter groups can maintain their cohesion outside of the match day experience too, through social interactions both on and offline away from the stadium, and shared experiences relating to the sport or club itself.

Even if they miss a few matches, the fans are still a part of the group, and will meet up again at the next game they get to. As long as the group as a whole maintains a viable presence at the games, the group supports and encourages attendance, because there will always be someone there you enjoy spending time with. It is the stability of the group’s membership that ensures its cohesion (Group Dynamics, 2009, Donelson R. Forsyth, p 123-124). As long as there is a consistent level of attendance, then the group will remain stable.

Group Cohesion Death Spiral

With the latest drop in the match day crowd, I suspect that a lot of the groups passed a tipping point. The drop in numbers created a disruptive breakpoint (Poole, Marshall Scott. (1981), Small Group Development Theory), altering how the groups behaved, fragmenting some and obliterating others. The social scene around match day that kept people coming fell apart for a lot of fans. You were more likely to go if there were a few people you knew, than if you were going to be alone.

Friends can keep you watching a losing team team playing ugly football, but watching a win all by yourself can be very boring. There is utility in the size of the groups. The Network Effect, or Network Externality describes how the value in some networks increases with the number of participants. The same is true as a network reduces too. Myspace and other online social networks, some defunct and some hanging on to niche audiences, have seen this as users spend more time on other sites.

Watching football is social, and like social events and social tools, it benefits from the Network Effect. As stated above, crowds at football games and other events are not a homogeneous group, but a collection of a number of smaller ones, built from strong or weak ties. Studies on group decision making and cohesion hints at a number of fan behaviours that can affect the group as a whole, and either diminish or dissolve it. In any collaborative exercise, from supporting a team to creating a Wiki, there is a point in a group’s decline where its dissolution will accelerate, even as some members remain engaged.

Update: 10th March, 2011.

A follow up post, with an updated graph of the whole season is now available.

The growth of trending topics during sporting or entertainment events or popular TV shows like Q&A (hashtag #qanda) show how realtime media can shape experience and conversation in realtime social networks. Twitter is certainly aware of this:

We’ve long discussed what the interplay between Twitter and television would look like. As a first step, today we’re announcing Twitter for Google TV. It brings Twitter to a platform that merges the Internet and TV into one experience.

Twitter is not the only third party building for Google TV. When it launches in the USA, Google TV promises the following:

Google TV will be shipping with at least the following applications: Netflix, Twitter, CNBC, Pandora, Napster, NBA Game Time, Amazon Video On Demand and Gallery.

Most of these apps provide content with only limited scope to add more to the feed or space. The user interface of Google’s YouTube Leanback is a good indication of where Google TV is heading for now in regards to user generated content. For example, the highly active comment threads from YouTube are not visible. In this case, it might not be much of a loss. However, content sharing is still a part of the experience.

Google TV will be more focused on content consumption over creation, but given how it is expected to be used, this should not be a surprise. Where Google TV will be interesting is in how existing and new social interactions through commentary, content creation and content sharing will be implemented, encouraged and involved with user participation.

Anonymity

Online user behaviour is shaped by the features and rules of the environment within which it takes place. The tools available have a significant impact on the kind of community that develops and the social norms it adheres to. The contrast between the behaviour of a loose, anonymous community verses that of a close knit group of people using their real life identities is one example of how small differences in features can lead to contrasting behaviours. The difference between how people on Facebook act to anonymous or semi-anonymous members of forums such as 4chan (Link omitted), SomethingAwful.com, and the MMORPG forum of your choice is significant.

How people act free from moderation through investment in their avatar, peer pressure, authority or social norms is different from when they actually have something to lose. The behaviour of a community’s members is the product of two conflicting factors:

• Moderation by a perceived or real cost of violating enforced social norms
• A tendency to maximise their own enjoyment through interaction.

Being a forum warrior or trolling is a lot more fun when people only know your avatar, but not when it loses you friends, respect and access. Any change to the user’s level of privacy can come with a high perceived cost.

The outcry over each of Facebook’s privacy setting changes and the storm that erupted when it looked like World of Warcraft (WOW) was going to introduce Real ID to their forums demonstrates just how significant consistent levels of privacy and anonymity can be to a community’s members. It is not that they may lose their privacy, but that the community evolved to match the current level, and a change would be immensely disruptive.

In some communities there are benefits to linking offline and online identities together. Twitter, as used by many marketing and design professionals, is a good example. The value of Twitter as a networking tool when used in this way is high. Like other open networks, Twitter can create opportunities for discovery within groups of shared interest and through mutual contacts. LinkedIn and other dedicated professional online communities also thrive in this paradigm.

Visual Vernacular

Visual symbols and other memes are an important part of human culture. As a product of shared experiences they can make a one group or subculture distinct from another. The creation and appropriation of symbolism and cultural artefacts for a differnet purpose predates the Internet. Sampling in early hip-hop, appropriated religious iconography, symbols tied to a common experience (like ‘Kilroy was here‘) and in-jokes are all examples of how ideas and imagery can become a part of a cultural vernacular.

Social media does not mark the birth of these tendencies, it merely enhanced existing behaviour. Through new accessible tools and expanded open networks it is easier than ever for an idea to spread and content to be created and find an audience. Before the Internet it was almost impossible for most people to create or appropriate media and incorporate it into a conversation. The change is not that Rick Roll videos and parody ads are being created at all, but that the tools are more readily available, publication is cheaper and more accessible and they are being posted as a part of normal online conversation via forums, new social media, email and instant messaging.

Video, images and audio are as much a part of interpersonal communication online as the written word. On Facebook, forums, Twitter and other forms of social media they are as much a part of the conversation as its subject. The difference between publication and conversation online has disappeared as the conversation around the media becomes more visible.

People will always be people, even when they are online. Actually, people will be people especially when they are online and assume a certain level of anonymity. These emergent patterns of behaviour are not that radical, and are an extension on existing tendencies. The change is in the options open to the individual.

Segmentation by demographics can be important when media reach and consumption is limited by time and geography. Traditionally in broadcast media intent is hard to quantify, leaving demographic information as the best basis for good decision making. Online, there are more tools to use in identifying the audience in a more meaningful way.

There are a large number of variables which can indicate intent and interest online, and a number of ways these can be used to reach and communicate with potential customers:

• Behaviour on site
• Online community participation
• Search query selection
• Inbound traffic source
• Upstream & downstream activity

Behaviour data can also help to find the value in traditional demographics as well.

The broad generalisations implicit in demographic classification of traffic are problematic for a number of reasons. Online media fragmentation and differing skill levels mean diversity of experience within previously homogeneous demographic groupings can be very high. The efficiencies that demographics created in identifying and communicating with targeted markets within mass media are no longer a concern on the internet. With programmatic solutions that allow for finer targeting of small groups within a site, or through a network, breaking the audience up into large, general groups is not much easier than catering to smaller, more focused audiences.

Every weekend this season I feel like I am closer to just not going, and this is with the sunk cost of a season ticket too. There are really only two things that keep me turning up.  I have no Foxtel so I can’t watch it from home and I like the guys I hang out with at the game.  Obviously if a few of them stopped going, then I probably wouldn’t either, and I am sure this would apply to a few others too. So potentially, should three or four of the regulars stop going, potentially twice as many will not show up the next week. This is only a small group, but how many of the rest of the crowd are made up of the same kinds of social groups?

Unfortunately for the clubs, this is something that cannot be reliably tracked through watching for trends. It is the unpredictable failure point which can lead to a response greater than anticipated that is the issue.  So how do you measure for the failure point of a crowd?  Quantitative data, qualitative data?  Guess or try to gauge the opinions of the loudest members of the groups through their preferred social networks?  It might just be easier to provide them with what they want in the first place, and just maybe, play a few less games on Sunday.