Best Of — Social Media Philanthropy

Ideas for how Twitter can make money

September 12, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 4 Comments

I’ll admit, even with the introduction of Google’s fabulous new social network, Twitter is still my favorite. I love the simplicity, I love the openness, I love so many things about it and I want Twitter to be around for a very, very long time. Because I want Twitter to stick around, I often worry about their profitability. The lack of significant revenue in conjunction with the increasing costs of servers and development makes me worry about Twitter’s longevity.

Google already has revenue streams and can feasibly operate Google+ at a loss if it drives revenue in other areas; Twitter doesn’t enjoy that benefit. Facebook is already selling ads and is getting into other revenue generating activities, plus it has the population of the 3rd largest country in the world.

It doesn’t matter how tall of a building you compare the number of tweets sent per day, the simple fact is Twitter needs to make money at some point.

Selling ads, the current proposed strategy, is a double edged sword, it must be implemented carefully or it could piss of the users which, quite frankly, is Twitter’s only asset right now.

So how can Twitter make money? I want to open up this discussion. I’m going to pose a few ideas, but I’d love to hear from you, how do you think Twitter could/should make money?

Here are my ideas…

Twitter Pro

To me, this is the most obvious starting point. Twitter is a HUGE network with over 100 million active users. Of those active users, a small fraction of users make up the majority of activity. That small fraction of everyday power-users, would likely purchase a Twitter Pro account provided the additional features were worth it. Why do I think this? For starters because I already pay $5.99 per month for use Hootsuite Pro [affiliate link], $99 per year for Flow, $45 per year for Evernote Premium, $25 for Flickr Pro and $22 per month for Harvest [affiliate link]. Why do I spend all this money on these programs? Couldn’t I just use other products instead and pay less or nothing? Of course I could, but I believe these products are awesome and carry more value than competing products. So I willingly dish out the cash to use these pieces of software.

Twitter could create Twitter Pro and offer a number of upgrades.

Archive feature, go back and see ALL of your tweets EVER.
Get an end of year document with all of your tweets, and an executive overview with personal trending topics and top 10 connections
Expanded Profile information. Non-pro users may want to sign up just to have the expanded profile, in the same way that we ALL crave the “verified account” badge.
Expanded Direct Messages. 280 characters.
Account Analytics: top referring users, conversion rates to follow, etc.
Multiple account support. Fast switching between accounts.
Expanded access to Twitter search. Additional advanced search capabilities. Greater access to the “firehose.”
Etc. Etc. You get the point. Make it good.

I think the cost of Twitter pro could not exceed $6 per month, but imagine $6/month from even 10 million users. Sure beats living solely off of investor money.

Access to the firehose

The “firehose” is the overwhelming feed of information that flows through Twitter. This firehose is a wealth of data that can be mined and utilized for market research, trend analysis and other insights. Twitter could charge for varying levels of access to the full firehose. This could be sold to social media monitoring services as well as average users that want expanded search. Twitter Pro users could get a bump to the next level of access for signing up.

Accept donations (a la Wikipedia)

The birth of Wikipedia was a revolution in how we find information. Now years later, millions of articles, in dozens of languages Wikipedia is fighting to stay alive as expanding server costs put the community knowledge base in jeopardy. Wikipedia is actively seeking donations. And as someone that uses Wikipedia regularly, I don’t think it’s a stretch to throw a few dollars towards a site that has made such a difference…Twitter is not much different.

Twitter, especially with the accepted use of Pseudonyms, has made revolutionary events in politics and world governments into an entirely different experience than at anytime prior to the existence of these technologies. I feel that Twitter, as a service, is important. It is important that Twitter remain available for free, I think donations could help make that happen.

Verified Accounts

I’m not advocating that Twitter let people buy access to Verified Accounts, however, I think Twitter could charge a $25-$50 administration fee to process your request for a verified account. That verified account badge goes a long way on Twitter.

You Idea HERE

So that’s all for me for right now. What are your ideas? Sound off in the comments. Let’s see what comes out of the big brains of my readers.

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: evernote, facebook, Flow, google plus, harvest, hootsuite, twitter

Will this phone call increase my Klout score?

August 23, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 3 Comments

It’s time to address a problem that is rapidly growing out of control:

The Klout Problem

Recently, I’ve been seeing more and more articles talking about Klout. People exclaiming how important it is, how it is bringing efficiency to PR and other professions, how you should be REALLY concerned. These Kloutheads make the claim that it makes it easier to filter out the unimportant people and quickly reach influencers.

This article is the one that really set me off though: Without Klout, Google+ is dead to Me.

These asinine conversations are cropping up everywhere and I want to vomit:

“What’s your Klout score? Mine is two points higher than that, I’m more influential than you. Kim Kardashian is a 91.”

I even saw a segment on CNN talking about Klout.

Are we happy now?! We’ve effectively reduced people to a number and we’ve put our faith into that number believing that it actually means something about influence. Are you people insane?!

I can’t let this go on. Get real…

Klout score is meant to measure influence, right?

Klout measures several different metrics from 10 unique social media sites. 10. That’s it. 10.

Here are the 10: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Foursquare, YouTube, Instagram (?), Tumblr, Blogger (?), Last.fm (?) and Flickr

So here’s a fictional person that would theoretically have no Klout: John Doe – Blogger and Columnist for the Wall Street Journal and NY Times, #1 podcast on iTunes, most popular video blog on Vimeo, sits on the board at 5 of the top Forbes 100 companies but no profile on any of the 10 sites that Klout measures.

Warren Buffet doesn’t have Klout. Neither does Steve Jobs, or anyone else too busy succeeding to spend time on these networks. Are they not influential?

Furthermore at what point did someone decide that last.fm, blogger and instagram were hallmark networks of influence. What does influence even mean in Klout’s mind? To me it means: the ability to alter or change someone else’s opinions or actions about a certain topic. There are surely more than 10 ways to do that.

Your Klout score does not, and may never be able to, factor in offline connections

Have you ever called a good friend and in conversation mentioned a product or service that you really like? How is Klout measuring that interaction?

What about this real life scenario? I LOVE Apple products. We’ve got it all: Macbooks, iPads, iPhones, Airport Extremes, AppleTVs, magic trackpads, you name it, we’ve got it. I don’t tend to talk about Apple products all that much on Twitter, Facebook or the other 8 sites Klout measures. BUT I’ve gotten my mom to switch to Mac, my sister-in-law, my wife and several of my good friends. Am I influential about Apple products? I would assume so. If Apple were to seek out influencers about Apple on Klout, I would likely not come up.

Klout is unable to, and may never be able to, measure offline influence.

Egometrics: You may be part of the problem. Stop obsessing.

The gaping holes in Klout’s ability to measure influence isn’t what bothers me. What bothers me is the gaggle of chuckle-heads putting the full weight of their faith into that Klout score and obsessing over their score.

In our zeal to measure social media, we have adopted Klout as our golden metric and all because the numbers make us feel better about all the time we spend online. A Klout score is a way to say my d*ck is bigger than yours. That’s all.

If you want to use Klout in your decision making, at least understand the breadth of it’s limitations. It currently measures 10 networks, that’s it! And within those 10 networks, the system can be gamed. I have one Twitter account with a 41 Klout score, not great but not bad. Did I mention that the Twitter account is completely autopost driven? No one answers @mentions, no one follows back, and no one puts ANY thought into the content that goes through the account. I simply took all of my favorite tech blogs and fed them through Twitterfeed into the account so that I could read them and occasionally retweet them.

If you are making business decisions based upon Klout score alone, you are missing the point.

Instead of obsessing over your retweets to increase your Klout score, start thinking about getting new business and driving revenue.

You can’t escape doing the work

I know, I know, it all seemed to be going in the “right” direction. We could just plug into the Klout API and determine if a person is important. PR firms were so excited and then I had to come along and rain on the parade.

Here’s the truth as I see it: Do the work. That means talking to people, researching people, and making a sound business decision based on all available data, not just Klout score. I have no problem with factoring in Klout score as you go about your day, but please take it with a grain of salt.

PS. I’m currently at 63…and I really couldn’t care less.

- – - – -

More Evidence Why Your Klout Score Is Bullsh*t

On the contrary:

King Klout and Why Its Power Makes Me Nervous.

Web 3.0 Is Here – Why Klout Should Matter to You Now!

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of, Measurement and Analytics Tagged With: influence, internet, klout, metrics, online, scores, social media

Considering offering a Groupon? Read this first.

August 15, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard Leave a Comment

I’m going to break down why I don’t like Groupon and why I think group-buying as it stands now is horrible.

I’m going to use Groupon in this post to stand for all group buying platforms (with some small exceptions).

#1 – Groupon does not make financial sense for businesses

Let’s get right into it. Let’s say I’m a business offering a $40 Groupon to customers for $20. I don’t even get $20, I get $14 after Groupon takes their cut.

That’s 35%, I’m losing 65% of my revenue to bring in a (hopefully new) customer.

OK, so maybe you’re thinking “but what if I bring in a new customer that comes back again and again?” Yes, that could happen, but is it REALLY worth it? Even if you do bring in a few loyal customers, they would have to vastly overcompensate to allow you to recover the lost revenue from offering the Groupon.

Here’s something else…

#2 – Groupon buyers are bargain shoppers

You know why Apple makes so much money? Besides great marketing, they stand for the value of their product. They don’t discount, they don’t make special offers. Apple customers are used to paying full price, they’ve been conditioned to. I don’t care whether you agree with the fact that people do that or not, it’s the truth. Apple sells full priced products.

Groupon on the other hand is creating a legion of bargain hunting shoppers. How are you supposed to charge a customer $100 for a spa treatment when you just gave it away for $50 last week and a competitor of yours is giving theirs away at $50 this week?

This creates another problem…

#3 – Groupon does not build loyalty

Do you think Groupon buyers are coming back to your business or going back to Groupon looking for another deal? Maybe you think you’re THAT good…you’re probably not.

Groupon encourages customers to come back again and again…to Groupon. And they are there looking to get another deal, which we’ve discussed is at the businesses expense.

So…

..if it’s not financially sound for the business and brings in bargain shoppers with a low likelihood of loyalty, WHY OFFER A GROUPON?

A Better Solution

Here’s what I think. I think offering a Groupon is lazy. No seriously, it’s lazy. You want to bring in new people? You want to get more business? Then stop focusing on these bargain shoppers; instead focus on YOUR CUSTOMERS! If you have people walking in the door already, why not turn them into your marketing department. Take some time to build a community on Facebook, Twitter or wherever your customers are and offer them the discounts instead.

Here’s an idea: Offer YOUR CUSTOMERS 50% off to bring in someone new (who will pay either full price or a slightly reduced price). This way you are rewarding your existing customers with a discount AND getting new business at full or nearly full price. They already come in, they already like you, why not use that to your advantage?

Here’s another idea: Why not build a strong Twitter and Facebook following of customers and people that already like you? That way if things are slow and you are considering offering a Groupon, you can save yourself the cut that you’d pay to Groupon and bring your customers back in. Reward your loyal fans and followers with 50% off, not just any stooge with an email address and a taste for daily deals. You might even find that your customers will tell their friends. And at the very least, you are saving yourself around 15%.

My point is this: if you are going to offer 50% off, why not offer it to your customers either as a reward for being part of your community or incentivizing them for bringing you new people that they would serve as word of mouth representatives for?

Why give Groupon 15% to bring you the wrong kind of customer?

Are you a visual learner? Here’s what it looks like:

Final thoughts

If you really feel compelled to offer a Groupon be smart about it. Make the amount small.

In fact…

Here’s an idea: Offer a $2 Groupon for $1. Plan something exciting and unique for those that get it. Ask them if it’s their first time with you and if it is reward that tiny Groupon with something extraordinary. Maybe make a special menu entirely for people who bought the $2 Groupon. Whatever it is, don’t just give a bargain, give an experience. Do something different.

Or just buy a standard Groupon and throw money away trying to get new businesses. If the math I just showed you didn’t make sense then you might be the right type of business to offer a Groupon. Don’t worry about it too much though, your business will probably be closed soon anyway if you are that desperate that you’re willing to take 35% from bargain shoppers on the off-chance that it brings you substantial new business. Good luck.

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of, Marketing, Social Business Tagged With: bad ideas, deals, discounts, good ideas, group-buying, groupon, livingsocial, loyalty, new business

The rise of microcelebrity

August 8, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 7 Comments

What is a micro-celebrity?

via Urban Dictionary:

One who gains a cult or mainstream following due to viral internet distribution. Does not refer to those who have gained limited or cult followings through traditional media. Does not refer to has-beens or “B-list” celebrities.

Essentially a micro-celebrity is someone who, without the benefit of social media, would not have gained notoriety.

This is a phenomenon that has emerged over the last 5-7 years. You see these people, they are well known within certain small circles.

The two primary kinds of micro-celebrity

In my eyes, I’ve seen only two kinds of micro-celebrities: those that are a**holes and those that are humble and gracious.

The Spiteful Jerk: You used to be a nobody

I'm kind of a big deal | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Perhaps the most common micro-celebrity is the jerk who used to be a nobody but now thinks that a high Klout score means that they’ve “made it.” You’ll see these jerks, 3 years ago they were begging for more Twitter followers, ragging on people who refer to themselves as experts and reposting articles from Mashable. Now they’ve got 10,000 followers thanks to team #followback and a few controversial blog posts and they think they’re god’s gift to social media. They’ve even started calling themselves a “Twitter-Ninja”

My advice when you find one of these people is to move on quickly. Don’t put fuel on their fire, let them learn to be humble. Block them, unsubscribe and move on.

The Appreciator: You’re so glad to be somebody

The other type of micro-celebrity is the type of person that you couldn’t convince is a celebrity if you tried. They blush when you refer to them as a guru. They often downplay their numbers and instead choose to focus on the anecdotes of people that they’ve helped or outstanding serendipitous relationships they’ve formed. This micro-celebrity is humble and constantly focused on moving up, not by ego but by ambition.

Are you a micro-celebrity?

A micro-celebrity doesn’t have to have 1 million followers. They don’t have to have an 88 Klout score. The micro-celebrity is someone that is known amongst a community of people that they might never have been known by if it weren’t for the conversational platforms of the web 2.0 movement.

Micro-celebrities range from widely known (Chris Brogan) to known in smaller circles (Gloria Bell). Sometimes it’s that people recognize you by your Twitter avatar, as is the case with Marilyn Moran (@PhillyMarketing) and her trademark hat. If I see her in Philly, I can spot her a block away.

Here’s the thing, as you get started in social media, and you grow your network, make new friends and become known in circles beyond where you could otherwise reach, be sure to respect how you got there. When someone approaches you for the first time as if you are a big deal it may be shocking. Take a deep breath and appreciate the flattering gesture, but keep being REAL. Don’t take yourself too seriously. We’ve all been star struck before. Don’t start believing you are anymore than one person doing your best.

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: celebrity, facebook, klout, micro celebrity, social media, star struck, twitter

Facebook is hiring designers!!

July 18, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 3 Comments

Calling all designers!!!

Ok I lied, I have no idea what sort of positions are open at Facebook but I can tell you this, they need designers. Not developers, but designers. Look at this screenshot. No seriously, click on it and look at it. Someone at Facebook, in fact, probably many someones allowed this page to go live. Facebook needs to pay more attention to the design decisions they make and how it impacts the user experience.

How much crap can we fit on one page?

Maybe in the next iteration we can get a toolbar at the top. Perhaps there could be a scrolling banner on the bottom displaying my friends most recent “likes?” We could call it the “Likebar.”

I still see white-space on the page, I think we need to do something with that. Maybe we could fill up all the white-space with a tiled logo wallpaper of brands we “like” on Facebook. That’s a great idea!

Fixing problems that DON’T exist vs fixing ones that DO exist

Facebook is the innovator in fixing problems that don’t exist. They are constantly shuffling the layout and keeping the users on their toes proclaiming the next great evolution in Facebook user experience. Here’s the problem, that’s NOT what users are complaining about. In fact, they are often complaining about the changes that were just made. No one complained about the old chat, or the one before it. It was pretty easy and took up way less screen space.

I’ve been complaining from the beginning that it is far to cumbersome to get to my friends lists as I despise the Facebook default newsfeed.

How about fixing the wonky iPhone app? How about tagging people in status updates from the iPhone? How about posting videos from the iPhone?

How about the myriad of spam issues?

How about giving ME control of how MY Facebook is laid out?

Social Media

One of the great benefits of social media is the ability to get feedback from your customers, from your prospects, from your critics and your fans. In spite of the fact that Facebook virtually owns all of our Social graphs and is synonymous with Social Media, they have yet to understand how to listen for feedback? In the history of Facebook, the only time I remember them changing as a result of user feedback, was when the privacy settings were “simplified” as a result of a pending lawsuit. Beyond that, they seem to be deaf to criticism.

So now we’re stuck with this page and all it’s clutter and nonsense and noise. It’s really no wonder I like Twitter and Google+ better. Here’s that pic one more time, just in case you missed it the first time around:

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: communication design, design, facebook, google plus, twitter, Web design

How does it feel when you Google yourself?

July 13, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 8 Comments

When I Google myself, it feels great!

Sounds dirty doesn’t it?

If you can get your mind out of the gutter for a moment I’d like to make a small case for why you should participate in social media.

Google Me

If you Google “Jeff Gibbard” you will find pages upon pages of results. I own those results, almost entirely. I own those results because I created the majority of the content that shows up in the search results. You might be able to go 7-8 pages deep and find something that I didn’t create, but overall I am in control of my own reputation online.

I blog, I tweet, I create and share tons of content from photos, to videos, to comments on blogs.

But I’m just one person.

So you’re a company

As a company you may have more press than a single person would. You may have people talking about you. You may have fans and also critics. That means that content is being created by OTHERS.

On the other hand, you have more resources, presumably than a single person. Figure out how to utilize those resources…or bring in a social media agency to help with that.

You will need to create content if you want to balance out the content created by others and influence your own search results.

Are you interested in influencing your search results?

You should be. If you aren’t please read this article on Wikipedia about the Internet.

We get our information online now; get with the program. Most of us use Google or another search engine to get our information. And here’s the real deal, EVERY search engine is trying to figure out social. Every search engine is trying to make search results more relevant by integrating social content from each individual’s social and interest graphs.

So what can you do?

To start with: participate.

Join a few social networks and join in some conversations. Find things that interest you, find people that inspire you, share information that’s valuable. The larger and more engaged your network is, the more likely you will show in search results when appropriate. Additionally, the mere act of having profiles will add new search results, so go protect your brand and generate some new search results, but remember, only join sites where you are willing to or plan on participating.

Next, start a blog. Yeah, seriously. If you are blogging yet, you are leaving a ton of searchable content off of the web. You are awesome at something. Trust me. Take your knowledge of whatever your business is good at and get to it.

Next, make sure that you are being deliberate in how you share. Start to understand keywords, and if you can’t do that, at least get ScribeSEO for your blog and let software help you optimize your posts.

Now go on my fine readers and Google yourself until you smile!

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of, Blogging, Marketing Tagged With: Content Creation, google, Online Reputation, Online Security, participation, privacy, Search Results, seo

The BIG problem with Facebook ads

July 6, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 13 Comments

I know I’ve been ragging on Facebook a lot lately…so why stop now?

Let’s examine why, in spite of their ever increasing ad revenue, Facebook ads are just terrible (for users).

For the purposes of this post I’m going to compare Facebook ads to search ads, and let’s just narrow that to talk about Google Adwords.

What are both type of ads trying to accomplish?

Here’s my assumption:

Both Facebook ads and Google (search) Ads are trying to deliver more relevant advertisements to their customers. If you choose to disagree with this assumption, please do so in the comments. I honestly believe that is what both companies (types of ads) strive to do.

More relevant ads = more clickthroughs = more business demand to place ads = more ad revenue.

What is the difference between them?

With Facebook ads, users are served ads in the right-hand sidebar based upon information in their profile, I assume public profile information only. Facebook also looks at the pages that a user “likes” and shows ads based upon that information as well. Users are shown ads as they browse around Facebook commenting on each other’s walls, reading their newsfeed, playing games and looking at photos.

On Google, users enter a search query and along side of the organic search results are paid search advertisements based upon the keywords in the search query.

To summarize, on Facebook users are served ads while browsing, on Google users are served ads relevant to what they are searching for. Why is this important to acknowledge?

The mindset

Facebook

When I’m on Facebook, I’m not looking for something to buy, I’m not looking for another company’s page to “like.” My newsfeed is cluttered enough and Facebook makes getting to my friend lists a 3-click process. I’m on Facebook to socialize, which is odd given that it’s a “SOCIAL NETWORK.” What that means is that the mindset I’m in is relatively impervious to advertisements. I mentally block them out. Actually now I use the adblock plugin for Google Chrome and just bypass them altogether.

But to illustrate the point, I turned off the plugin. Here’s a few ads I saw today while doing things completely unrelated to the content of these ads:

I was looking at someone’s honeymoon photos. How is this at all relevant?

Google

When I’m on Google, I am actively searching for something. In some cases I’m just looking for information, but in other cases I am looking for information about a business, product or service. The mindset I am in, is more susceptible to making a purchase.

Search ads are far more effective at driving conversions that result in dollars, otherwise known as sales. Facebook ads are better at driving people to “like” another page, which businesses hope will lead to sales once the user becomes a touch-point for the company’s Facebook page.

My Issue

All of the information that Facebook gleans from my “likes” and profile information is used to serve up ads that I don’t want and don’t acknowledge. When I see them, I find them obnoxious and an intrusion on what would be an otherwise clean white space on the page. Facebook needs to make money, all businesses do, but I don’t believe that ads are the way to do it. Given the issues Facebook has had with privacy, I don’t trust them to use my personal information responsibly. I expect that they will sell every ounce of information on me to push ads in my face, in a space where I am not receptive.

So last night, I went from 283 pages “Liked” to 42 and from 190 connected apps to 32. I think Google is a better company to give marketable data, but I’m sure you can guess why, it has something to do with search.

Thoughts? Am I wrong? Do you LOVE Facebook ads?

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: facebook, Facebook advertising, Google AdWords

Protected: Google Plus (Google+): The Painful Realization

July 1, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 15 Comments

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of, Reviews Tagged With: facebook, google plus

Google+ First Impressions and Thoughts

June 30, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 6 Comments

I write “The Case Against Facebook” and shortly thereafter, Google Plus is released to a small select group.

The news took the internet like wildfire, lighting up Twitter and Facebook with begging and groveling for an exclusive invite. Lucky for me, I know some great people and secured a highly coveted invite to Google+. I feel very lucky to have gotten the chance to play around with Google Plus and provide my perspective.

First of all let me say…

It’s fantastic.

No seriously, it’s great. It’s great in so many ways. Yes there are some bugs and some quirky things going on from time to time, but overall this is not only a good product, it’s a great product. So what’s so great about it you ask? I’ll tell you.

It’s the good parts about Facebook with some HUGE improvements

Networking & Selective Sharing

On G+ you can share photos, interact with friends and family, comment, and like (or +1 in this case).

Similar to Facebook you can selectively share with different groups of people, however G+ has a lot more going for it in that area. To begin, instead of ”Groups” G+ has “Circles.” Here’s a HUGE difference. Circles are MINE, and MINE ALONE. No one can add someone else to my circle. I own my groups functionality. In Facebook, everyone in the group owns the group. Anyone can add anyone they want to a Facebook group and tough crap for them, now they’re a part of it. Sure they can leave the group but doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

With circles, I follow and interact with different circles and others interact with their circles, it’s more personalized.

It’s not just what you share but also what you “consume.” Facebook gave us the ability to make friend lists but then made it difficult to find thereby forcing most people into that stupid F-ing “news feed.” It’s so damn noisy on Facebook. I want to see only my family without having to force them to post into the group. Circles allows that. Anything people post publicly or to a circle I’m in would show up in any circle I have them in. Sounds confusing, it’s not really.

Beyond circles I can choose to privately share something with only selected people. I can choose to share with selected people and a circle. I can choose to share publicly but tag someone in the post. Options, options, options, but one thing is consistent, the control is MINE and MINE ALONE. No one else dictates your experience on G+, that’s up to YOU.

G+ Circles takes the best part of Facebook friend lists, Groups and selective sharing and combines it into something much simpler and with far more user-control.

It’s a social network

Did you read that correctly?

Yes, a social network meaning a network of people that socialize with one another.

It’s what Facebook was several years ago before it became everything to everyone.

Google Plus doesn’t have “Which Marvel Character Are You” apps, it doesn’t have Farmville and it doesn’t have 1,000,000 settings to control what information different websites take during the middle of the night and post to your wall. It’s a plain and simple social network!

You know what? That’s awesome. Because one click away I can play Angry Birds in another tab in chrome. Another click away I can check my email. Plus is what it sets out to do, connect people on their terms in a simple, straight-forward way, that THEY control.

Data Liberation

Sure, you can download your info from Facebook. I just happen to like this. It’s plain and simple and one of the six options under settings. Nice and easy.

Is it a Facebook killer?

Anyone who thinks yes is suffering from a delusional episode. Facebook has 700 million users. Let’s be real, Facebook isn’t going anywhere and brands have just invested a ton of money into Facebook. I think it will challenge Facebook, I think it will change Facebook (read as: Facebook will copy some features). Is it going to take down the behemoth? Probably not.

It is an awesome alternative that I surely hope all of my real life friends will use. I for one am excited at the big picture of a socially integrated Google. I still search as much or more than I ever did and Facebook does NOTHING to improve that experience. If you think that Facebook and Bing integration is a step in the right direction you are fooling yourself. All that either Facebook or Microsoft got right was mass adoption.

Should you join Google Plus?

Undoubtedly. Facebook is not the best social network, it’s just the best we’ve gotten so far. It’s in your best interest to see what’s out there. Determine for yourself. It’s all personal preference. In my eyes, the only thing that makes Facebook valuable is that all my friends are there. If they came to G+, I’d connect with them there.

Facebook doesn’t want to be a social network anyway, they want to be a salesforce profiting from the largest database of personal preferences out there. They only care about selling your data, belief in anything else is absurd. I honestly think Google just wants to use plus to provide more relevant search results and search ads. Advertisements are more relevant when people are seeking out something than when marketers seek out a certain demographic to pitch them something.

It’s an opt-in future. I suggest you opt-in. And since Facebook is so fond of opt-out, perhaps one day I’ll get to opt-out of using it for personal use entirely.

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: facebook

The case against Facebook

June 23, 2011 By Jeff Gibbard 29 Comments

I’m not suggesting that Facebook is all bad. Facebook has done a lot of good in connecting people across time and geography. However, Facebook has been doing that since the beginning, when it became open to the public. In recent years however they’ve been on a crusade to win the internet.

There’s a number of reasons to like Facebook, but today I want to build a case from the other perspective; the case against Facebook.

Why did you join Facebook in the first place?

I’ll tell you why I joined. I wanted to keep in touch with friends and family. I wanted to share some photos with friends and family.

THAT’S IT!

For a while, that’s basically what it was.

What is it now?

Crap, crap and more crap

Join my mafia family, feed my sheep, Horace answered a question about you, answer a question about Bobby, blah, blah, blah.

Facebook has become a platform for applications, upon applications, upon applications, and 95% of them are pure garbage. It’s difficult to seperate the ones that are legitimate from the ones that spam your wall, collect your sensitive information and spread like a virus.

Facebook is spending more time adding new features (that copy existing services) than it is cleaning up the nonsense and spam all over the site.

Which brings me to my next point…

There are better platforms for virtually EVERYTHING that Facebook does

Facebook is undoubtedly the Microsoft of the internet.

Facebook tries to do everything and no matter what it is Facebook does, there’s something better out there doing the same thing.

Some examples…

Facebook Places? Ever hear of Foursquare? It’s more feature-rich, has shorter release cycles, more rewards and doesn’t have that stupid tagging feature in it.

Facebook newsfeed? Ever hear of Tumblr? Way more flexibility in design, an archive feature, and you own your data. You can even pull out your data, how novel?

Facebook Photo Albums? Come on, what about Flickr or Picasa? Not only do you get the benefit of avoiding that horrible lightbox Facebook photo viewer, but you don’t have to worry about your photos being bought and sold in Facebook’s quest for world social domination. I haven’t heard anything about Flickr turning on a facial recognition feature by default, that’s a Facebook maneuver.

Facebook videos? You’ve heard of YouTube, right? Nuff said.

The reasons we don’t all use each of these services are: fragmentation and competition. Facebook ties everything together in one nice, neat little platform, giving you no reason to venture outside of it’s walls. To use each of these other services you would need to know that all of your friends are using each of these services.

Do you REALLY trust Facebook?

Here’s perhaps the biggest point; I personally don’t trust Facebook…at all. If you do, ask yourself why you do.

Facebook has set your privacy settings to public by default on at least five new feature releases. Zuckerberg himself has given plenty of reasons to question his intentions.

For the record this picture is photoshopped but the IM transcript is real.

Facebook recently went out on a PR smear campaign against Google’s about privacy, when Facebook themselves are the poster company for privacy woes.

The list goes on and on. If they are giving you a service for FREE, you might want to question what they are doing with your data in order to pay for their servers.

This is why I dis”like” Facebook’s foray into all things internet. I don’t trust them to be the winner of the internet. I don’t want a Facebook payment system. I don’t want Facebook doing all of these other things, putting better smaller companies out of business simply because Facebook has the numbers.

If I didn’t HAVE to…

I work in social media so I have virtually no choice but to use Facebook. It’s a powerhouse, with over 600 million users. I can’t avoid it, but rarely does a day go by that I don’t think how underwhelming Facebook is as a platform.

I like Facebook pages and I think the new groups are 90% well designed (minus the add anyone you want to a group feature).

I just wish there was a better, more trustworthy, unified platform. Personally, I think it would be nice if Twitter was the platform we couldn’t avoid.

In the end though I’m not trying to get anyone to close their Facebook account, I just want to raise some questions and make some points that Facebook is not and SHOULD NOT be, the be all-end all of the internet. As a social media platform it has a number of strikes against it.

What do you think?
Am I just being cynical?
Do you trust Facebook?
Do you think their platforms are superior to existing ones?

Sound off in the comments.

Filed Under: All Posts, Best Of Tagged With: facebook, privacy issues, social networking