Archives for the month of: May, 2009

I’m a huge sport fan. So this week is pretty busy – the Monaco Grand Prix and French Open tennis at the weekend, the Champions League final tomorrow, culminating in the FA Cup on Saturday.

So it’s with much interest that I’ve noted a few new ventures in the social media space that mix two of my passions – sport and digital.

At the weekend, TEAMtalk – that great bastion of football news and gossip – announced that it was fully embracing the Twitterevolution by starting to cover key events from live football matches through @TEAM_talk. And it seemed to work very well (though I wish they would have separate handles for news and live updates. Better still, have different accounts for different teams etc., otherwise the information overload reaches epic proportions…).

Then today, I learn that ITV are set to capitalise on the feast of football on offer this Saturday by fully integrating a range of social elements on its football website. According to reports, the broadcaster will display recent Twitter chatter through a Twitterfall (let’s hope they’ve learnt from the Telegraph) and use AudioBoo to allow fans to upload audio comments.

This all makes total sense to me and I’m amazed that sport websites haven’t made more use of these channels already.

Sport, by its very nature, is incredibly social. Both watching and playing – just ask gym or pub owners. And its big business for the media too.

Fans are passionate, vocal and vehement in their support. And social media is a perfect melting pot for this. My own team – Hearts FC – have been active on Twitter for a while now rounding up around 500 followers. But I can’t happen to think that more effort could be made. Twitter is more than pushing out news articles.

So it’ll be interesting to see how TeamTALK and ITV explore these new services and embrace social technologies to increase support and enhance the experience both on and off the pitch.

Forrester’s Jeremiah Owyang has just published a new report, following a qualitative study of the world’s 24 most socially active businesses, entitled The Future of the Social Web: In Five Eras.

In it he outlines what he believes as the five stages of the democratisation of media:

1) Era of Social Relationships: People connect to others and share
2) Era of Social Functionality: Social networks become like operating system
3) Era of Social Colonization: Every experience can now be social
4) Era of Social Context: Personalized and accurate content
5) Era of Social Commerce: Communities define future products and services

Jeremiah believes we are just entering the era of colonisation, which I can certainly vouch for.

In the executive summary of the report, Jeremiah outlines a fascinating prediction, which many businesses and marketers would do well to pay consideration to:

“Consumers will rely on their peers as they make online decisions, whether or not brands choose to participate. Socially connected consumers will strengthen communities and shift power away from brands and CRM systems; eventually this will result in empowered communities defining the next generation of products.”

And he has a number of pieces of advice for brands, everything from don’t delay and be transparent, to start adding social elements to content management systems and shattering the corporate website.

For me, this is a thrilling prediction (and no, not just because I work in the social media space!). If everything we do becomes social, then it opens the possibilities for collaboration and sharing of knowledge, data and information.

But it also aims a curve ball at the more traditional business structure:

Your customers WILL be talking about you. It is your choice whether you want to be there or not. But surely its better to be at the game and lose then never there at all…

But this is a seismic mindshift for all but the most uber-connected companies. Consumers will ‘own’ brand relationships. CRM will matter less and less as forward looking companies begin to see customers as stakeholders in the business; shaping developments and having their say over important issues whilst they are at the deliberation stage.

Just as the trend of ‘pushing marketing messages’ disappears, so will pushing products and services. Recently we have seen companies that quickly respond to (negative) customer feedback following new product developments (take Twitter and the reply fiasco last week). In the future, customer involvement in development will come a lot earlier.

This is Owyang’s Era of Social Commerce and will hopefully create smarter, more profitable and more flexible businesses.

I came across the phrase meta-reading today in a post by Judith Townsend on journalism.co.uk. It reports on comments made by Turi Munthe, CEO and founder of the citizen journalism site, Demotix, about how the ‘younger’ generation consumes news content:

“There is a generational split, but not in the way everyone imagines. It’s much more recent than that. They [the younger generation] are getting the Twitter feeds, and the blog posts, and the Facebook messaging and the free papers, and everything else, and are very happy with it. Much more happy with it than I am. Essentially, they process information differently. It’s a ‘meta-reading’. It’s not about individual brands.”

This very much echos comments I have made about the future of news and ‘big-media’. I personally worry less online about who I am getting content from, if the content is good and/or (and here is the interesting part) if the content has been recommended to me by a friend (e.g. socially). Its the content that matters not the creator/owner and the distribution model moves from big media to social media.

I’ll admit I was skeptical about the recent launch of Wired UK. And I’m frequently equally skeptical about the survival chances of print media.

So it didn’t look good.

But, having read the launch issue cover to cover, I have to admit: I love it!

This is how magazines should look, read and feel. Wired UK is filled with great photography, graphics, rich colours and varying textures. Its a great looking issue.

The content is good too. There have been criticisms that articles have been duplicated from the US version, but I didn’t notice it (how would I? I don’t read the US version) and it doesn’t really bother me.

It obviously wont be everyone’s cup of tea. But if you like gadgets and technology, chances are you’ll be gripped too.

It perfectly demonstrates how print media still has a place if done correctly. The features are long and detailed (much longer than anything I would ever read online). And they are be DTP-ed to within an inch of their life, for example, the great 11-page feature looking at the technology of the next 40 years.

As another person put it, the challenge will be whether they can sustain this quality every issue (they will have been planning the launch issue for some time).

I for one, hope they can.

Ah FriendFeed. Loved by Scoble, ignored by many in favour of its leaner, easier, prettier social-media-cousin Twitter.

I can’t help thinking it’s just slightly ahead of its time.

Twitter itself took a while to go mainstream, despite its simplicity, but I fear it will take a while for FriendFeed to reach the same heights.

Interest has peaked again in some circles recently with the redesign (a big improvement cosmetically) and the ability to add subcriptions based on your Twitter followers. But its problems lie deeper. And they aren’t solely to do with the service itself.

FriendFeed is a great concept. A one-stop-shop for all your social mediaryness. Fed up of keeping track of your delicious feed, Twitter and Facebook accounts, Linkedin profile, Flickr friends etc.? FriendFeed solves that by combining everything into one place.

Trouble is, for me, at the moment 90% of updates on FriendFeed are from Twitter.

And that just makes me think, why don’t I just use Twitter (or Seesmic Desktop – my agent of choice).

Maybe the problem is that we aren’t really social enough yet. Is the pain point really there yet?

If I feel like checking some interesting links, I go to Delicious (although Twitter is actually dimisihing my use of Delicious…but that’s for another post). Friend updates? I’m off to Facebook. Linkedin for professional contact information, Flickr for photos… The list goes on.

As soon as I try to put everything in one place, I get information overload. And I’ve yet to really get my head around sorting my ‘friends’ into groups on FriendFeed.

Jeremiah Owyang speaks of the future when we will have social elements everywhere. Just thinking about this gives me a bit of a headache to be honest, but maybe then there will be a greater need for some sort of ‘social dashboard’ and maybe FF will fill the gap.

Until then, I’ll keep an eye on it, but I don’t think I’ll become a 24/7 convert anytime soon. Or am I just not doing it properly? (You can subscribe to me on FF here!)

picture credit

Reading through the latest, revamped issue of Marketing Week (which looks great btw), I was puzzled and slightly distracted by the constant quoting of “your comments from marketingweek.co.uk”.

My question is this:

Is there a place for reader comments in print publications that were originally made somewhere specific online?

To be fair, it’s not just Marketing Week that does this. And they certainly aren’t the first. But it still does strike me as rather odd.

Is it just lazy journalism? Don’t we lack the context? Isn’t the whole point about the comments to engage and create discussion?

So I wonder why publications do it. Is it to try and increase traffic to the website and encourage readers to go online? Is the aim to give additional ‘reader views’ on the topics being discussed?

I imagine the truth is probably somewhere between the two. But to me it just demonstrates the problems that print publications currently face. I’m all for user generated content, but isn’t this just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?

We’ve always had reader letters, but even these now seem out of place with the immediacy of the internet. The most frustrating thing is that, if one of the ‘comments from the website’ makes you want to add your own thoughts, you are then forced to go and dig out the original article or post on the site (which is probably now pretty old due to print deadlines etc.) and then add your 2p-worth.

Am I being unfair? Or is this just another nail in the coffin for printed media?

picture credit

Related Posts with Thumbnails