PR Week has today revealed comments from the Daily Telegraph’s assistant editor Neil Midgley who warned journalists and PRs that Facebook shouldn’t be used for work:
‘It’s my network. I won’t post details of my sex life on it, but I can post status updates on there that I wouldn’t post on Twitter. Don’t talk to me about work on it’
These are comments that I’m sure many PRs and journalists – indeed most people – would agree with. I certainly use Facebook very much from a personal standpoint.
But, as you have possibly seen me ranting talkingabout recently, I think Facebook is changing. And I wonder whether these changes will alter the way we all use the service.
“Now I am also adding a Facebook Page that will feature everything that’s posted here plus exclusive content for those of you who opt in and become a fan. It’s very similar to how I approach Twitter – which also features links that I don’t always share elsewhere. The difference is that the new Facebook Page will sit in between what I do here and Twitter and hopefully spark a rich discussion from a broader group of people who don’t necessarily read blogs or use Twitter.”
So is this possibly the way we – as individuals and also possibly as brands – should be going? Are Facebook pages the new ‘public Facebook’?
Facebook pages don’t have the same ‘conversational’ element that Twitter has, but could be an effective way to have a publicly available presence on Facebook that doesn’t encroach on your personal space.
A report today in TechCrunch reveals that the Associated Press is using their Twitter account to push followers to their Facebook page. Rather than linking directly to news pages on their website, they are linking to pages on their Facebook profile which also features the news.
Techcrunch critises this move: “maybe they think that by hosting the content on Facebook, they’re being impartial with the tweets. But again, why not just use their own site?”
But, I think Techcrunch misses the point here. This isn’t about impartiality. It’s about building communities and it’s a smart move. I’ve writtenrecently about the war that is brewing between Facebook and Google as both networks seek to become the social media (and email/messaging) dashboard.
Facebook is moving from the ‘walled garden’ network to the more open, ‘first port of call’ that, in many ways, Google has been to date. And with its user base soaring, it is perfectly poised to capitalise.
Facebook is also envious of the success that Twitter has had by embracing businesses and news outlets and has taken big steps recently to mirror this. It is a move that seems to be working, with recent research showing that Facebook is becoming a major driver to news networks. Outlets like the NYT has realised this and AP seems to be catching up on the action now too.
AP should be able to make the most of this, open digital world that media organisations now find themselves in. They are all about content. Monetising this content is a challenge. But embracing and building communities and new distribution networks is vital. By distributing their content directly to an engaged user base on Facebook (and Twitter), AP has much more control of how it uses this audience.
The traditional ‘website as a destination’ is beginning to decline. Fast forward to the ’site-less’ web where rather than engaging with audiences on a corporate site, media outlets (and indeed brands) need to go to where the audience is. This is a big challenge for Murdoch et al but is already happening and is happening big-style.
As Steve Rubel says: “The AP is now changing the game for news by not only going where attention spirals are taking us but by also using their content to curate a conversation there and – above all build relationships.”
Monetisation is certainly an issue, but if AP can build up a significant user base on Facebook, the money will come.
As the power of Google News dimishes, can Facebook take over as the web’s news curator? AP seems to think it can…
I wrote last week about the battle between Google and Facebook. Now there is more interesting research out which adds yet another subplot: according to Compete, Facebook has passed Google to become the top source for traffic to major portals like Yahoo and MSN, and is amongst the leaders for other types of sites too.
Whilst for many businesses, Twitter is seen as the social network to use, it would be foolish to ignore the power of Facebook.
This preference towards Twitter was well founded. Twitter has a very open doors policy to brands, unlike Facebook – at least in the early days – when the emphasis was social networking between friends that you actually know.
This ‘walled garden’ was a scary place for brands (and the media) that didn’t want to experience a backlash from consumers.
But it is perhaps exactly this walled garden approach that makes Facebook such a hotbed of social media (and traditional media) sharing. Facebook networks are tighter, more controlled than the often sprawling connections that are made on Twitter.
Sharing on Facebook is perhaps less frequent than retweets on Twitter, but when it does happen, the effect can be significant, allowing brands to reach targeted and carefully curated networks of like-minded individuals.
And it’s not the no-go area for B2B companies that it was in the past. To my mind, social media blurs the boundaries between work and home, between professional and personal.
With 400m users worldwide, ignoring something this powerful is ludicrous.
There’s been a mad rush in the last 24 hours to blog and tweet about the latest social media craze – Google Buzz. It’s rarely possible to objectively comment on something this new until you’ve tried it and lived with a for a bit, but such is the pace of social media…!
I always try and take a step back and avoid the urge to blog immediately but, as the day has gone on and as I have read more and more about it, there are a few initial thoughts that spring to mind that I thought I’d jot down.
A few caveats. Firstly, I haven’t really tried Google Buzz in anger yet. I use Google Apps for my personal email and it hasn’t been switch on there yet. Secondly, I reserve the right to change all of these views and opinions in the future!
Aggregation, location/mobile, social search – these are the three elements of social media that will be big this year. And to a certain extent, Google has made a start to confront each one. Google Buzz is yet another step in this direction, but they aren’t the only ones. Facebook in particular is also making big strides
This is not a Buzz v. Twitter debate – I see Twitter much more as a data store rather than a destination. This is enforced by Twitter’s willingness to encourage API usage etc. Twitter.com as a destination is likely to become even less important, it’s the tweets that matter. Therefore Twitter and Google could happily co-exist
It’s Facebook v. Google for social dominance - Facebook and Google have their sights on the big prize: they both want to become social media dashboards or the destination for all our online social (and even non social) activities. Facebook took a big step with the acquisition of Friendfeed and Google has moved into this domain today. Facebook’s announcement this week about it’s new email platform also adds fuel to the fire. It’ll also be interesting to see how software like Tweetdeck and Seesmic responds to this move
But what if I don’t use Gmail? – this could be a big issue for Buzz. I can understand why they wanted to integrate Buzz into the Gmail interface rather than create yet another destination, but what about those of us that don’t use Gmail regularly? It makes more sense for Facebook to bring an email client to its 400m users than for Google to bring Buzz to its 140m users
It’s more proof of the power of social – most of us now appreciate social media is here to stay, but this brings further confirmation from the biggest online player. Brin was on stage at the Buzz announcement which I think is a telling sign that Google has big plans for this in the future
What does this mean for Google Wave? - we all got very excited about Wave when it launched last year, but this has fizzled out to some extent. I just wonder if Google sees Buzz as some sort of link between Gmail and Wave. I still think Wave is potentially very interesting, but it is a big jump for most. Buzz is more palatable and could just possibly bring a middle solution
I started the day quite enthusiastic about Buzz but, having used it a few times I’ve become less convinced. I can see that it would be great for those that spend a lot of time in Gmail and use their Google address book etc., but that’s not me. Buzz is definitely one to watch, it has to be. But, I hope for Google’s sake, there is more to come…
Facebook’s new privacy policy has been met with a fair degree of hostility, and rightly so. The changes are clearly designed to encourage users to open up more of their updates to the wider world.
So why the change?
Simple. Facebook is worried. It’s worried about the rise of Twitter and, in particular, it is worried about the impact that the recent addition of real-time results to Google searches.
As I’ve said already, the Google changes have the potential to have a big impact on the popularity of Twitter as Twitter updates are put front of mind for the general internet public in millions of searches.
This is a problem for Facebook, because by default, activity by their users is private and shielded from the search engines.
The dangers for Facebook
But the one thing that is worrying for Facebook is the thing that it’s users like and enjoy about the service. It’s the reason why so many of them prefer Facebook to Twitter, or at least use it in very different ways.
I use both services, but I wouldn’t share or reveal the sorts of things I reveal on Facebook on Twitter. I like that and it allows me to use the services in specific ways for certain audiences.
Facebook’s move potentially changes this and I wonder if it is in danger of diluting the key foundations of what it stands for and what it’s users want.
Yes, I know this has been all over the web in the last 24 hours, but I wanted to mention it here too as I think it’s a brilliant campaign:
If you haven’t come across it, IKEA in Sweden have launched a competition on Facebook. They set up an account for one of their senior employees and posted up some of the displays from their new Malmo store.
They then asked ‘friends’ to tag the furniture in the images, with the first person to tag an item winning it!
It looks as though Twitter will soon announce plans to charge businesses and power-users for additional features. Twitter’s rise in the US and UK has been incredible over the last few months. For me the main marker has been the celebrity influx – seeing Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross catching up with Jason Calacanis and Robert Scoble demonstrates how the user base is evolving.
I’m actually quite surprised that Twitter is making this step already. This surprise is perhaps due to the way other social networks have dragged their feet in the past, relying on VC money to consolidate a user base before experimenting with monetisation. Facebook has perhaps proved that this is a bad strategy. But it was in no way certain that Twitter would buck the trend. It has enough in the coffers to continue growing its legion of fans for some time.
So Twitter’s move is a bold one. The new ‘definition box’ at the top left seems to suggest that some sort of advertising is on its way – even if only experimental. And advertising does seem to be an obvious step at least in some form.
But these latest rumours are for me the most interesting development. I think its a potentially winning formula for a few reasons:
Additive rather than subtractive
What Twitter has done so far is to build a highly simple, but effective network. When something works so well, the obvious next step is to add more and more functionality. Twitter has stuck to simplicity. The other common trend is to bring in ‘premium’ layers that restrict certain existing functionality behind a pay-wall. Restricting what users currently get for free is a very dangerous approach. It is good to see that Twitter seems to be planning to offer additional business-focused features at a price on top of existing functionality. This will improve experience for these users rather than restrict it for all.
Reduced reliance on advertising
We all know that advertising is suffering and online ad spend, whilst continuing to rise, will reach saturation soon. As advertising pounds are stretched further and further it will become more important for sites like Twitter and Facebook (and news portals) to find other options. Twitter’s reluctance to merely slap advertising all over the site is, in my mind, refreshing.
Adds value to Twitter.com
One of Twitter’s key strengths is its API. By allowing other platforms, software and devices to access its, the popularity of Twitter has grown. This is again in opposition to Facebook’s closed approach. However, the API does reduce the importance of Twitter.com as a destination. And this reduces the effect of on-site advertising too, although including adverts in the API would be an option (with a potential for revenue sharing with application developers), but one that would significantly impact user experience. By adding more value to Twitter.com (i.e. the new features) you give power-users a reason to return to the site.
It will be interesting to see further details when these are made available, but in theory, this is a bold step that has the potential to be very successful. It also seems to give a degree of credibility to the use of Twitter as a promotional/marketing channel (if this were needed).
