Google+ musings; great product, three years too late?

I’ve been having a play with Google+, the new social network that launched this week.

And, to be honest, there is a lot to like! It’s a really well put together app and, while many of the features and functionality are very similar to those found on Facebook (and Twitter to a lesser extent), they are still executed very well and, in many cases, in a better way than on already existing platforms.

My main issue with Google+ in terms of whether it can succeed, is whether the USP is strong enough. Are there enough plus points to encourage people to move from Facebook and/or Twitter to use Google+ as their main social network? I’m not sure there is.

The only other possibility is that people will use Google+ alongside existing networks but, for me, there seems to be too much overlap to make this likely.

Here are the pros and cons of Google+ as I see it at this (albeit very early) stage:

Strong UI

Google has revamped its entire look and feel this week to coincide with the Google+ launch. This in itself demonstrates the importance the web giant is placing on this new service.  It’s very clean, modern and slick with a lot of HTML5 tricks to simplify the user interface.

It’s also very intuitive. Part of this might be down to the fact it takes much of its functioanlity from existing networks that we are already familiar with, but even so, it is executed very impressively.

The (integrated) power of Google

While Facebook clearly has the user numbers already and Google+ doesn’t, it would be wrong to underestimate the potential power Google has. It is still by far the most dominant force on the web today with the majority of people still starting any browsing session.

If Google+ is pimped out far and wide across the Google network (which I have no doubt it will) then awareness levels could rise pretty quickly.

If Facebook was built today, it would look like this

The concept of ‘circles’ is very, very strong. To my mind, this is social 2.0 in action. The online social framework we have at the moment in networks like Twitter and Facebook is unnatural. Lumping all our friends, contacts etc. doesn’t sit well with how we interact offline.

In ‘real life’, we all have different social circles that we mix in and we behave in different ways with each. We share different information, gossip, thoughts etc. Google+ brings this natural sophistication online in a very clever way.

The key question is whether this USP is enough…

The Facebook (and Twitter) problem

And the reason this might not be enough is that Facebook and Twitter are so much further down the line, it’s going to be difficult for Google to catch up.

Facebook has already hinted at backlash moves to come next week and, with Google+ so heavily based on the Facebook model, it surely won’t be too difficult for Zuckerberg to match anything Google+ throws into the mix.

Venture Beat hints that, because of this, Google’s real target with all this is Twitter, but I’m yet to be convinced.

If only Google had launched this three years ago. What might have been…

Facebook to become the platform from which we run our (online) lives

I’m seeing an increasing amount of noise at the moment discussing the extent to which brands should have a presence on Facebook.

Sysomos had an interesting post recently arguing why websites shouldn’t be replaced by Facebook Pages and on NMA today, Reputation Online Editor Vikki Chowney discusses why brands should take a slightly different viewpoint and see Facebook as more than just an outpost for campaign led activity.

Brands flocking to Facebook

I can see why this is a topical discussion as it seems every day another company is announcing a new Facebook presence, a campaign page or even a whole ecommerce entity on the social network.

We’ve even seen Warner Brothers revealing it is set to offer movies for purchase or rent through its Facebook page.

Increasingly it seems brands are flocking to Facebook and, for me, the reasons are fairly obvious; it’s where the audience is!

Facebook engagement levels are pretty impressive with nearly 30 million users in the UK alone, representing around 46% of the entire population. In addition, 27% of these UK users are in that all important 24 to 35 age bracket.

Facebook as a platform

And so increasingly, I’m beginning to see Facebook more as a platform in itself.  It’s somewhere where you can (or will soon be able to) go to play games, shop, watch films, use IM and check email.

One of the big arguments against this for brands is the ‘loss of control’ element but, as Vikki says: “Yes, you don’t have complete control of your data or your connections on the site (or most other social networks, for that matter), but that’s a reflection of what marketing and PR has evolved to become. A brand no longer holds all the keys or makes all the decisions.”

And, at the end of the day, if the marketing and conversion all happens on Facebook, it that really a massive problem or is it more a vanity thing?

For ASOS, is the fact that it’s target audience are going to be on Facebook a lot more than they are going to be on the ASOS website a problem or an opportunity? I’d suggest the latter.

The key for success for all

As I’ve argued before, Facebook is realising it needs brands as much as they need it in order to extract value out of the network.  So I’d expect more moves by the company itself to encourage brands to increase their use of the site to create more engaging experiences for users.

The talk always focuses on how Google plans to ‘run’ the web with it’s Google OS, but could Facebook soon be the platform on which all web services exist?

picture credit

Changes to Pages signal yet another change in Facebook’s attitude to brands

I’ve blogged before about the differences between Twitter and Facebook.

The former is a very open platform where everyone is encouraged to see everything. Twitter is a blank canvas where individuals and brands (and fictional characters, animals etc. etc.) can decide how they want to use the tool (and the user generated creation of things like RTs, hashtags and even follow Fridays demonstrates this nicely).

Facebook on the other hand has, from the start, approached things from the opposite direction. Everything is more closed and individuals are encouraged to be themselves and only interact with those they know.

Are brands welcome on social networks?

There is a clear and understandable reason for this. Facebook, as anyone that has seen The Social Network will know, was created as a ‘private networking club’. A place where individuals can meet and engage with friends. The purest form of social networking.

But Twitter changed all of this. It welcomed (and encouraged) brands and they flocked to it in their millions.

For some time then, Facebook has been introducing more openness and, crucially, has been embracing the inclusion of brands.

Money, money, money

There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is clear: money! Facebook and Twitter’s monetisation strategies depend on brands using the networks and using them to generate revenue from the user base.

The recent changes to Facebook Pages demonstrates the biggest move Facebook has taken towards bringing brands more fully into the site.

The inclusion of features like “Use Facebook as a Page” and the ability to “Like” other Pages is the clearest sign yet that Facebook is allowing companies to operate more like individuals on the site.

Personalising brands

Clearly there are still barriers to what can be done. Pages cannot ‘Like’ individuals or comment on their wall, for example. But, surely it is possible to see this as a potential next step.

Marketers will welcome this move, though as figures from Econsultancy show, brands still have work to do to convince users of the site to “Like” and interact with them.

picture credit

Shut up about Quora already!

I had a bit of a rant on Twitter this morning.

It was prompted by a big multi-page feature in the lastest issue of PR Week on Quora. The headline asked whether this new network could become the “new Twitter” and included a range of comments from the great and the good of the online PR industry giving their thoughts on what it means for brands and PR strategies.

All well and good; Quora’s been getting a lot of attention recently.

It’s all just hot air

But, if we step back a bit and think about this objectively, it all suddenly becomes rather absurd.

Quora, despite having launched about a year ago, has only really been on most people’s radars for a few weeks maximum. And when I say “most people”, I mean the techy, social mediaites on Twitter. In terms of user numbers and general awareness, it is nowhere.

There is a real danger in the social media echo chamber in which many of us live our lives, that we gravitate towards the new and sparkly just because someone posts a blog post saying it might be a good thing.

As Vivek Wadhwa says:

“Silicon Valley is again drinking its own Kool-Aid; it is looking at the world through its own prism. This is a common problem here, where we jump from one fad to another; where venture capitalists start investing in similar technologies and drive company valuations through the roof; where TechCrunch hypes the technology du jour and causes entrepreneurs all over the world to drop what they are doing in favor of building copycat technologies.”

Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at new things, play with them or keep half an eye on them. Of course, we should. I’m also not saying that Quora won’t be successful (though I do have reservations and agree with much of what is said in this New York Times review).

Second guessing the next big thing!

But, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon, we need carefully assess the service it in a responsible, considered way. It’s pretty telling that the most popular topic on Quora right now is social media! Go figure…

I think Adam Timworth gets it spot on when he says: “…my gut feeling…is that the Next Big Thing, whatever it turns out to be, won’t be this hyped. And Quora is really hyped right now. Every previous Next Big Thing, from blogging, through Flickr, Twitter, Facebook and more has gone through an extended period of quiet use by a small, but steadily growing pool of users and evangelists, before the real mainstream growth kicks in. I’ve never seen a major Next Big Thing on the web go from zero to hero in about 10 days.”

Most of the ‘big things’ in tech at the moment were game changers and I don’t think Quora is different enough from what has come before to allow it to have massive mainstream adoption.

So while I wish Quora well, I think those of us that are already dreaming up PR strategies around how it should/could be used need to give it time.

Jon Collins kindly emailed me with some of his thoughts:

“From a PR perspective, what’s needed more than an understanding of the latest, greatest thing, is a model/mechanism which can quickly evaluate the potential of all such tools. If Quora shines like a star for a week before it’s gone, for example, then the smart PR executive may be able to make the most of it. That is a very different mindset than, say, thinking ’do we need a Quora strategy’.”

Give it time

My advice to PRs looking at Quora? By all means look at it, play with it (as you should with all the new shiny tools that come alone), but don’t waste your or your clients time just yet time trying to work out how it might or might not influence what we do in the near or even distant future.

picture credit

Why paper.li and automated curation are doomed to fail

If you’ve been active on Twitter recently, you will have no doubt come across paper.li. You know, those autotweets that crop up from time to time encouraging you to click through and read xx’s ‘Daily’.

Essentially, paper.li takes your most recent tweets and puts them (and the sources they link to) in a supposedly easy to read, newspaper-style format. A daily round-up of the things you find interesting. As the creators themselves say:

“paper.li organizes links shared on Twitter into an easy to read newspaper-style format. Newspapers can be created for any Twitter user, list or #tag.A great way to stay on top of all that is shared by the people you follow – even if you are not connected 24/7 !”

Bridging the gap

It certainly sounds an interesting concept. Microblogging has always been a fantastic route for those that didn’t want to commit to a full-blown blog, but still wanted to share interesting links and thoughts with a wider audience. The problem arises that when you start following multiple people on Twitter; the information overload issue comes to the fore. Paper.li attempts to solve this by giving a round-up of what you and your followers have said and shared so far. And, if the number of automated tweets are anything to go by, the service is increasingly popular.

Where’s the value?

But I wonder if anyone is actually consuming this content. The autotweets themselves (I’ve blogged before on my feelings towards autotweets, so no need to dwell too much on the issue here) give very little indication of the content that lies beyond. For this reason, I’m usually inclined to ignore them. I’ve seen others also tweeting about their increasing frustration too.

Another reason is that, when I do click through, there seems to be very little added value. You get a list of links and snippets of articles. One or two might be of interest, a couple you’ve probably already seen (no doubt one or two from Mashable!) and some just won’t be of interest.

There’s no personal insight.

A lazy way to spew out more content?

We know the perceived wisdom that ‘content is king’ online, but it seems to me that content only really works when it is interesting and compelling. I think the ‘information overload’ issue is a really interesting one. We’ve moved away from the forced curation of content that we had in the past with newspaper editors and the traditional offline media dictating what we should and shouldn’t read and think (and I know this is still very powerful even today). But we’ve haven’t quite found a way to replace this and ‘manage’ the massive amounts of data that are bombarded in front of us on a daily basis.

For me there is an opportunity out there for a forward looking startup. Tweetdeck and the like may still be the way forward – I’m increasingly using lists in Hootsuite to segment tweeters – and the content they tweet – that I really want to keep an eye on. This is personalised curation and is surely the way forward. I’m just not sure whether the automated curation that we see with paper.li will ever gain much real traction apart from with those that are too lazy to add value and curate for themselves.

Social media: no old media mindsets need apply

I wrote a rather ranty blog post the other day following an opinion piece on NMA suggesting that social media wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

The whole incident got me thinking about the reasons why some people, brands, agencies, marketers etc. find social media so difficult to understand and get to grips with. Afterall, it’s not rocket science and the vast majority of us use it in our personal (and often professional) lives on a daily basis.

I’m more and more convinced that the real reason for misunderstanding social media is that, more often than not, it is approached with an old media/marketing mindset.

Because that is the key challenge for brands. It’s why so many marketing industries have struggled to get to grips with social media. PR runs scared because it diminishes the role of media relations. Advertising is scared because it doesn’t let you buy your way into people’s living rooms. SEO is scared because it is reducing the power of natural search (just ask Google). Direct marketing is scared because it challenges the role of email (and offline).

These however are all worries that can be overcome. PR has a fantastic opportunity to use its traditional skill-set to engage directly with end users. Advertising doesn’t need to worry about a lack of paid-for opportunities on social networks. SEO can add social media into it’s toolbox and influence SERPs in new ways. And even DM or email can link up with social media to reenergize and increase the effectiveness of campaigns.

Social media is just another channel and whether your background is earned or paid media, there are opportunities. But the old techniques and tactics just won’t work. We all need to adapt and learn new ways of using this new channel.

Often however, to get the most out of social media, it needs to be integrated with other marketing forms. This isn’t a new approach. Very few brands do PR or advertising in isolation. Marketing departments exist to ensure that all marketing activity across all channels is unified an integrated to a certain extent (or at least they should). And social media is no different.

So, investing in social media is important and requires new skills and approaches. But, just because of this, don’t silo it, integrate it into the rest of your marketing activities to get the best returns.

picture credit

Is social media overhyped?

Sometimes you read something that makes you sit up and look quizzically into the distance. This happened today when I read this article by a certain Nigel Walley (it doesn’t say where he is from, so I’m assuming he is the ad-man, Managing Director of Decipher Concept).

I’m sure Mr Walley is merely trying to play devil’s advocate or ‘put the cat amongst the pigeons’, but the scalawag has riled me a little bit with his mis-informed piece, so I felt urged to pen a few words to set the record straight.

The social media opportunity

He kicks of with a slam-dunk, wind-up merchant question: “Is it okay to think that Facebook is a bit crap?” Well, of course it is Nigel, but just exactly what is your point?

Well, his main beef centres around three points: firstly, that “our industry” (not exactly certain which industry he means) is ‘apparently’ banging on about the fact that brands “must” do social media. Secondly, that “our industry” doesn’t seem to know what it’s doing when it comes to social media and is merely picking on the social-network-du-jour (he names Bebo, Myspace and Second Life as examples) and lastly he seems a bit upset that some people (I suspect they are again in “our industry”, though maybe not and maybe that it the problem!) are making money from social media.

So, leaving aside the last point, let’s investigate this in more detail.

First, the ‘why do social media’ question. Surely we are beyond this? The ‘maybe brands should just stay away’ argument is naive! Walley brazenly proclaims: “Could Facebook not just be a globally successful communications medium that doesn’t need brands, like the telephone?” As a consumer, I’m damn sure I want brands to be accessible on the telephone and, increasingly, I want them to be accessible on social media too!

The amount of people now using social media alone suggests there is a fantastic opportunity for brands. The relationships that brands can develop through social have also been proven to be more powerful and lasting than other forms of marketing. For many brands, embracing social media is not a choice anymore, it’s an imperative. For many, their customers are there in their millions talking about them, criticising them and praising them. Try telling these brands that they should stay away.

The social media bandwagon

However, his complaint that brands are being ‘forced’ to do social media (not quite sure who is saying they ‘must’ do it, but I’m assume he means agencies), then he is right to say this is an error (I’m not in a position to say whether agencies are saying this btw).

Fact: social media isn’t right for every company. It’s why I still advocate an audience-focused approach: identify who you are targeting, with what message and then choose the right channel to reach this audience. This could be social media, but it might not be.

He suggests that the phrase du jour of social media experts is that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers through social media”. A more appropriate phrase is perhaps that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers if they are going to use social media as a marketing channel”.

The social media challenge

Because the fact is, if you do decide to go down the social media route, learning about the ‘engagement’ bit is a challenge. Most companies need to refocus or realign themselves to deal with it. Brands that are used to whacking out their billboard ads or popping a press release to a journalist will have a shock when they find users responding to a tweet or commenting on a blog post. Learning to deal with this isn’t rocket science, but does take careful consideration.

When it comes to the ‘doing’ there is still, of course, much to learn. Social media is a growing, developing medium, so there will be the Myspaces, Bebos and Second Lifes of this world that will not survive. However, although NIgel Walley might think Facebook is ‘crap’, he would be foolish to suggest it won’t survive. 400 million people worldwide (and counting) disagree with him.

We are all learning. We will all get things wrong. Some of us might even push some boundaries. Again, it’s not rocket science, but it’s only by ‘doing’ that we will get better and be able to give better advice to the clients or brands that we work for.

If you are coming from an advertising, media buying or push marketing background, then I can see exactly why you would want to belittle the potential and effect of social media. But, if you are more used to managing reputations, raising profiles and building influence, then social media not only makes sense, but, in many cases, is a fantastic opportunity.

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

picture credit

Is customer service via social media really the answer?

My new iPhone 4 arrived on Friday; I was very excited. But alas, my experience in trying to get it activated and in getting my old number ported across has been less than satisfactory. My dealings with Vodafone as a new customer have hardly turned me into a customer advocate (give it time, I guess) and, whilst I won’t bore you with the various trials and tribulations (you can get an idea from my Twitter feed), the various phone calls and tweets I have exchanged with the company over the last couple of days have made me think about the role that social media can play in customer service.

The first thing I will say is that, despite the problems they’ve had in the past, the @vodafoneuk Twitter account is impressive. They answer tweets in good time and are always helpful and friendly. They also work long hours and are available throughout the weekend as well, unlike certain other telecoms companies (yes O2, I’m looking at you!).

But, having said that, when I came to actually trying to get things done, it was only through a call to the contact centre that things were accomplished (albeit slowly and painfully, but that is another post for another time).

So the question is, can customer service via social media ever really be effective in getting problems solved, or will it always just exist more as an advanced information distribution service? When the Twitter rep did want to try and check the status of my activation, I was forced to use good old email to get in touch (an email that received no response I hasten to add), so back to the same old problems.

So how did my experience via social media make me feel as a customer? On the one hand, I was impressed by their speedy responses and genuine desire to help. But once I had got over that surprise, all I really wanted at the end of the day was a resolution to my problem and this they couldn’t help with.

I appreciate this is early days for companies like Vodafone and that many are still feeling their way, but I can’t help but think that brands might be setting themselves up for a fall. After all, Vodafone are able to manage the relatively small number of enquiries they receive through Twitter at present, but what happens when or if numbers start to skyrocket. In terms of the investment, is this a drain on resource for Vodafone or are they seeing reduced call volumes as a result? Customer service is always a big resource hog for businesses and I wonder whether social media helps or hinders that?

The fact is that the ‘customer service through social media’ issues aren’t ones that brands can easily ignore. If you have a presence on social media as a business then your customers or clients will get in touch with you to discuss customer-service-type enquiries whether you like it or not. Is there a way to do this effectively or are we all just delaying the inevitable call?

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

Newsjacking in a social media world

The PR industry is used to the term of newsjacking – the idea of taking something that is on the national news agenda (e.g. the budget, new legislation or even a event like the World Cup) and using it to get coverage or mentions for a brand. It’s a tried and tested tactic and can get good, short-term, results.

Newsjacking is equally effective in a social media world however and with the luxury of not being dependent on third parties (e.g. journalists), it means that brands (or anyone in fact) can be a little bit more creative.

The strategy is the same. Take an event, issue, news agenda item that is gripping the socialmediasphere, add in some creativity, seed it effectively and you have a recipe for creating the next viral hit.

It’s actually interesting that brands aren’t jumping on the social media newsjacking bandwagon more frequently. There was a good article recently on this by James Whately. When the ITV HD TV channel accidentally switched to an advert during England’s World Cup game, viewers missed a crucial goal. James suggested that this was a fantastic opportunity for Hyundai - the brand whose advert was shown – to create some buzz around the unfortunate incident. I mentioned in the comments that this was in fact similar to a viral video released by Tic Tac following a similar incident earlier last year.

Of course there is a reputation issue here too. It’s not only brands that can newsjack in a social media world. Anyone can create entertaining or thought-provoking content and sometimes this can cause a brand reputation issue. But it can also provide a potential opportunity for brand as well, with grassroots content generation.

I was lucky enough to be at Wimbledon on Thursday and witnessed the end of the marathon Isner/Mahut match out on court 18. I was therefore intrigued to see today a video of the match which has been edited to show a box of Weetabix in Isner’s bag at the end. Whether by the brand or not, it’s quick, entertaining example of digital newsjacking.

So what are the things brands (or non-brands) need to consider when newsjacking on social media:

  1. Be quick – as with all newsjacking, time is of the essence
  2. Be creative – as with all content designed for social media success, the more creative, the better
  3. Seed effectively – seeding content is also important – remember that the majority of information that is shared on social networks actually originates from traditional media sources
  4. Monitor – keep an eye on where the content is being shared, talked about and maybe even reworked
  5. Consider a follow-up – often the problem with newsjacking campaigns is that they are short-lived. Consider ways to lengthen the effect of any activity

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

About

This is my story. I've always been fascinated by the internet. My first passion was music and I studied a music degree at Birmingham University. But once graduated I quickly went back to the web working as a digital marketer. I also ran a web startup for a few years. In the need of a new challenge, I turned to the world of PR and now work as an Account Director at EML Wildfire. My interest is primarily looking at how PR professionals can make the most of the web and digital marketing. This blog contains my thoughts and things I find inspirational.

© 2012 Danny Whatmough - Made by me