Social is not defensible

This brings me to the social aspect of my core idea; social is not defensible.

Friendster thought it had it in the bag with social. Then MySpace thought it had in the bag with social. Now Facebook thinks that it has it in the bag with social (and a few other tricks up its sleeve).

At each point the three previously mentioned social networking companies had critical mass, reached a tipping point and grew exponentially. Two of the three were, in the eyes of the public that matter, were virtually wiped off the face of the Internet by the next big social thing. (To be fair, Friendster has over 100m registered users and is now a gaming site and MySpace was recently bought by some people including Justin Timberlake who want to do some things with it, or something).

Google+ has reared it’s behemoth head recently and become the fastest growing social network in the history of the Internet. That’s quite impressive.

If social is inherent and everyone has it, then what is defensible?

I think Facebook has two key things that make its business defensible: An overwhelming number of active users and an ecosystem.

There is a sense of chance that one gets from the success of Facebook and Twitter, an element of serendipity if you will. Right place, right time, right mix of things. Once that was in place then the market took off and grew Facebook and Twitter’s defensibility.

Now I am definitely oversimplifying (before I get roasted in the comments) and I am aware of the immense volume of cash injected into both Facebook and Twitter, but lets be honest, MySpace had NewsCorp behind it and it tanked. Anything is possible.

The point of this particular article is to emphasize that if you are building a business, a technology, a campaign or anything else for that matter, saying that you are “social” does not set you apart, it puts you firmly in the category of appropriately average.


Nicholas Haralambous
By  | http://memeburn.com/


The concept of being social is inherent and should be a part of everything that a company does, in any industry.Social is just the nature of things and people. When you’re in the grocery store and you bump in to someone you know, that’s social. When you ask for directions: social. When you talk to a petrol attendant: social. When you get advice from a friend on a dinner venue: social.

Everything is social.

Therefore nothing that claims to be social as a unique selling proposition is defensible or, in fact, unique.

What do I mean by defensible? It’s quite simple. As a startup in the technology space (in any industry really) you need to be able to defend your business. You need it to be defensible against competitors. A simple test of this is as follows: If someone had US$20-million of investment and wanted to do what you do, could they easily be better than you at it and take you out of the market? Could they take contracts and staff away from you and crush your business? If your answer is “Yes”. Then your company, idea, brand, or niche is not very defensible. Leer más “Social is not defensible”

¿Quién es más popular en Google +?

H&M es la marca con mayor número de seguidores en la red social de Google, con420.000 personas en sus círculos (una cifra que casi dobla al total de los seguidores que tenían el centenar de marcas top a finales de diciembre), según publicaTechCrunch. La segunda es una compañía tecnológica, Samsung, que se posiciona muy cerca con 372.000 seguidores. Pepsi adelanta a Coca-Cola y son tercera y cuarta respectivamente, con 350.000 y 336.000 nombres en sus círculos.

Starbucks, que es ya una de las más populares marcas en Facebook, es también una de las mejor situadas en Google +, situándose en quinta posición. Le siguen Sony, Intel, eBay, Google y Amazon.

El hecho de que Google ya no sea la marca más popular en Google + podría ser un signo de mejoría en el éxito de público de la red social demostrando que Google + ha dejado de ser sólo un producto de techies (como demostraban los estudios de mercado hasta ahora) para dar el salto al público ‘común’ que Facebook ha conseguido dominar.


TICbeat

http://www.ticbeat.com
google-plus

A pesar de que Google + no ha conseguido todavía hacer sombra a Facebook por volumen de usuarios, las marcas empiezan a contar ya con un interesante número de seguidores en la red social del buscador. Desde diciembre hasta ahora, los seguidores que las principales 100 firmas tienen en sus círculos ha crecido un 1.400%, según un estudio de BrightEdge. Las 220.000 personas que seguían a estas 100 marcas top en el último mes de 2011 se han convertido en 3,1 millones.

H&M es la marca con mayor número de seguidores en la red social de Google, con420.000 personas en sus círculos (una cifra que casi dobla al total de los seguidores que tenían el centenar de marcas top a finales de diciembre), según publicaTechCrunch. La segunda es una compañía tecnológica, Samsung, que se posiciona muy cerca con 372.000 seguidores. Pepsi adelanta a Coca-Cola y son tercera y cuarta respectivamente, con 350.000 y 336.000 nombres en sus círculos… Leer más “¿Quién es más popular en Google +?”

How To Social Proof Your Google Adwords Campaigns

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when advertisers could operate search engine marketing campaigns using misleading or false claims. You could promise “24/7 customer service,” “amazing views,” “customer recommended” or whatever you could think of to sell a product, and there were few ways for consumers to truly vet your claims – until it was too late!

Those days are ending, if they aren’t already completely over. Today, an advertiser with great marketing but a terrible product or customer service may be outright banned from most advertising channels, and will have a hard time profiting from the remaining few that allow him access. Mistreat your customers and you can get banned from Google AdWords, eBay, Amazon, and comparison shopping engines, not to mention getting slaughtered by bad reviews on Yelp and massively viral outrage via social media.


 

http://blog.kissmetrics.com
 -.-

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when advertisers could operate search engine marketing campaigns using misleading or false claims. You could promise “24/7 customer service,” “amazing views,” “customer recommended” or whatever you could think of to sell a product, and there were few ways for consumers to truly vet your claims – until it was too late!

Google 的貼牌冰箱(Google refrigerator)

Those days are ending, if they aren’t already completely over. Today, an advertiser with great marketing but a terrible product or customer service may be outright banned from most advertising channels, and will have a hard time profiting from the remaining few that allow him access. Mistreat your customers and you can get banned from Google AdWords, eBay, Amazon, and comparison shopping engines, not to mention getting slaughtered by bad reviews on Yelp and massively viral outrage via social media.

Introducing A New Social Component: Google Plus Leer más “How To Social Proof Your Google Adwords Campaigns”

Cómo sobreviviríamos un día sin Internet

Supongamos que ese día limpie la casa y acomode sus discos; cambie una lamparita y anote varias ideas para no perderlas; hasta lea un libro, cocine y algunas cosas más. ¿Así sería un día sin Internet? Tal vez. Pero otra versión menos doméstica indica que personas, empresas, instituciones y gobiernos quedarían paralizadas. Podría causar trastornos de ansiedad, incomunicación, impactar en la economía mundial y, porque no, otorgar algo de paz a los adictos a la Red de Redes.

Y todo esto podría ocurrir este miércoles.

La amenaza de Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter, Wikipedia, Amazon, Mozilla, AOL, eBay, PayPal, IAC, Linkedin, OpenDNS y Zynga de suspender sus servicios por 24 horas frente al debate en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos de la ley antipiratería digital conocida como Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), que restringiría a la posibilidad de compartir contenidos, abrió un interrogante: ¿qué pasaría si ése u otro día cualquiera, Internet, algo que hoy se considera tan “natural” como la luz eléctrica o el agua corriente, ya no estuviera ahí disponible?

Para tener una idea del impacto bastan algunos datos. En un día, en la Web se registran más de 100.800 dominios, se mandan 250.000 millones de mails, se suben 864.000 videos a YouTube, se escriben más de 936.000.000 comentarios en Facebook y se emiten 102.600.000 tweets .

Eso no es todo. En Google se realizan 1000 millones de búsquedas, se escriben 2.160.000 actualizaciones de blogs , se producen 532.800.000 llamadas por Skype y se descargan en iPhones 18.720.000 aplicaciones.


Tecnología / La protesta digital contra una ley antipirateria

Este miércoles, los gigantes de la Red, como Google y Facebook, podrían suspender sus servicios; ¿el mundo está preparado para ello?

Por Franco Varise  | LA NACION  

Supongamos que ese día limpie la casa y acomode sus discos; cambie una lamparita y anote varias ideas para no perderlas; hasta lea un libro, cocine y algunas cosas más. ¿Así sería un día sin Internet? Tal vez. Pero otra versión menos doméstica indica que personas, empresas, instituciones y gobiernos quedarían paralizadas. Podría causar trastornos de ansiedad, incomunicación, impactar en la economía mundial y, porque no, otorgar algo de paz a los adictos a la Red de Redes.

Y todo esto podría ocurrir este miércoles.

La amenaza de Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter, Wikipedia, Amazon, Mozilla, AOL, eBay, PayPal, IAC, Linkedin, OpenDNS y Zynga de suspender sus servicios por 24 horas frente al debate en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos de la ley antipiratería digital conocida como Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), que restringiría a la posibilidad de compartir contenidos, abrió un interrogante: ¿qué pasaría si ése u otro día cualquiera, Internet, algo que hoy se considera tan “natural” como la luz eléctrica o el agua corriente, ya no estuviera ahí disponible?

Para tener una idea del impacto bastan algunos datos. En un día, en la Web se registran más de 100.800 dominios, se mandan 250.000 millones de mails, se suben 864.000 videos a YouTube, se escriben más de 936.000.000 comentarios en Facebook y se emiten 102.600.000 tweets .

Eso no es todo. En Google se realizan 1000 millones de búsquedas, se escriben 2.160.000 actualizaciones de blogs , se producen 532.800.000 llamadas por Skype y se descargan en iPhones 18.720.000 aplicaciones.

Parece mentira, pero en veinte años Internet logró que casi toda actividad humana esté montada sobre ella de una manera difícil de imaginar. Y, aunque el mundo existió antes de Internet, de manera “analógica”, imaginarse qué sería de la humanidad sin la conectividad y ubicuidad de los dispositivos tecnológicos suena por lo menos raro. Leer más “Cómo sobreviviríamos un día sin Internet”

Is Too Much Plus a Minus for Google?

See also: ‘Dirty Little Secrets: The Trouble With Social Search‘ by Tim Carmody
They have a point. With SPYW, the search experience deeply becomes intertwined with Google’s social networking product. You see it in the search box, where the Google+ identity becomes the way to identify a person whose name is in a query. You see it in the search results, where Google+ content is overwhelmingly displayed compared to other social material from Google’s competitors. You see it in a “People and Pages” list — suggestions for connections on Google+ — that appears in the same column as Google’s ads.

In short, they say there’s too much Plus and not enough of Our World, which has oodles of content on other social networks.


On Tuesday, Google announced something called Search, plus Your World (SPYW). It marked a startling transformation of the company’s flagship product, Google Search, into an amplifier of social content. Google’s critics — as well as some folks generally well-intentioned towards Google — have complained that the social content it amplifies is primarily Google’s own product, Google+.

They have a point. With SPYW, the search experience deeply becomes intertwined with Google’s social networking product. You see it in the search box, where the Google+ identity becomes the way to identify a person whose name is in a query. You see it in the search results, where Google+ content is overwhelmingly displayed compared to other social material from Google’s competitors. You see it in a “People and Pages” list — suggestions for connections on Google+ — that appears in the same column as Google’s ads.

In short, they say there’s too much Plus and not enough of Our World, which has oodles of content on other social networks. Leer más “Is Too Much Plus a Minus for Google?”

Dirty Little Secrets: The Trouble With Social Search

For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet.

Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and tweets are often the most relevant results.


 

When Google launched Search plus Your World on Tuesday, we expected the Google+-aided personalized search engine to draw serious criticism on many fronts: privacy, security, antitrust concerns, the fate of Facebook and Google+, whether G+ results would steal traffic from news sites, and even whether it would strengthen the “filter bubble” or (by giving users the choice to opt out of personalized search) open the possibility of popping it.

We didn’t guess Search Plus would be swiftly, categorically and publicly denounced by a former Google partner now turned social media and social news competitor: Twitter.

Twitter’s statement on Search Plus, e-mailed to news outlets Tuesday afternoon, is a bit longer than a tweet but just as direct:

For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet.

Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and tweets are often the most relevant results.

We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users. Leer más “Dirty Little Secrets: The Trouble With Social Search”

New Test Results: Google Rewires Search with Personal Touches

For some, it is a question about whether Google serves “the same Web” for the millions of users who rely on Google as their principal portal. For others, it is a matter of relevance, and whether the infusion of data gleaned from the personal interests of one’s friends impedes the visibility of material those friends might never have seen. At any rate, Google’s swift response this week to negative reviews of its first trials of personally adjusted search results, including Jon Mitchell’s fiery indictment, clearly demonstrate that it’s at least as sensitive as its own users.

It’s now extremely easy for any Google+ user to turn on and off personalized search results (called “Search + Your World”) at will, with a toggle switch in the upper right corner – part of Google’s rollout of changes today. Now, as a follow-up to our first tests of personalized search prior to the rollout, RWW looks into whether leaving the feature turns on necessarily improves the relevance of search results in various categories. At issue: Does Google elevate links to discussions about what you’re looking for on its own services, above what you’re looking for?


For some, it is a question about whether Google serves “the same Web” for the millions of users who rely on Google as their principal portal. For others, it is a matter of relevance, and whether the infusion of data gleaned from the personal interests of one’s friends impedes the visibility of material those friends might never have seen. At any rate, Google’s swift response this week to negative reviews of its first trials of personally adjusted search results, including Jon Mitchell’s fiery indictment, clearly demonstrate that it’s at least as sensitive as its own users.

It’s now extremely easy for any Google+ user to turn on and off personalized search results (called “Search + Your World”) at will, with a toggle switch in the upper right corner – part of Google’s rollout of changes today. Now, as a follow-up to our first tests of personalized search prior to the rollout, RWW looks into whether leaving the feature turns on necessarily improves the relevance of search results in various categories. At issue: Does Google elevate links to discussions about what you’re looking for on its own services, above what you’re looking for? Leer más “New Test Results: Google Rewires Search with Personal Touches”