Archive for ‘networks’

December 27th, 2011

Twitterstories and memory

by Laurent François

Yesterday, I browsed 2011 year in tweets thanks to Twitterstories. Some conclusions:

  • I had already forgotten 70% of what’s happened according to this tool; how will historians do to include our social statements in 50 years?
  • US and French version are exactly the same: what does it mean in terms of diplomacy? Is it the end of local stories, is it the beginning of a “global” (thus not universal) history?

Anyway, we can be optimistic: history and curation are finally at stake; data become information. You can read more on memory @  Olivier’s.

 

December 26th, 2011

Declining vs ignoring in professional social networks

by Laurent François

Funny world: whereas we’re all pushed to connect, within 5 or 6 degrees of separation, saying “no I don’t want” does not seem to be natural at all.

I’ve said “I decline” for the 4th time on Viadeo to a Yes Man-guy, named David L. He should know, if he reads me, that we have nothing to share.

So what? Viadeo allows users to say No, whereas LinkedIn is more into “Ignoring“.

It’s not innocent: accepting the idea to refuse a contact, (and notify him), is highly different from looking down and keep walking. It’s a society issue!

Where’s the relationship if it’s only Yes-Based?

July 18th, 2011

Google + is creating the future of drag & drop shopping

by Laurent François

Citizens!

Comments have been massively done on Google +. In France, the first users were geeks or marketers and it gave a pretty disappointing user experience. Basically because the 1st stage of Google + propagation was done on a very “old” trick: static address books. If it worked well for MySpace or Facebook ages ago (“log and see”), Google + has a very different target group: people with huge social networks’ experience, and worldwide.

Google lacks this dynamic strategy to acquire new publics: one of the easy bets is that all the next big Social Media successes will be based out of a simple “emails propagation” but through true missions or “call to actions” towards targeted audiences. FourSquare’s a good example: the first promise is to unlock badges, after registering.

The only true revolution when it comes to Google + is all about the “drag and drop” dimension: a more intuitive web, focusing on a more human interaction. Pearltrees made it right, focusing first on dynamic affinities, using only THEN other social networks. My circles are today based on “real” friends and I’m added by a large amount of people through my blog or twitter. But I don’t care who these guys are as they don’t enter through my interests and I don’t have time to map them all!

In Pearltrees mechanisms, it’s the straight opposite value proposal: I feed my own interests, then I can grab others’ values, and only after that will I try to know who theses guys are.

The true revolution for Google + lies in non “user-centric” stuff but on “site-centrics” ones. It is now still very hard to see a true brand’s “web based” coherence. In Europe, when you enter a shop, it’s not yet “diving” into a 360° brand site, but still “brick&mortar”. But the last forecasts demonstrate that all the streets, all the shops will get some screens, that you can touch or not. The “drag and drop” logics that is tested by Google + will be the bone of contention to drive consumers to “purchasing” or spending more time with the brand. To make them come back, to use them as marketing trojans, to better understand them. Google + will be the “consumers’ front-office” of all the core competences of Google: suggesting consumers’ journey, tailoring keywords and intents. Not recommending but suggesting. Quiet a different business.

 

Google + is not a Facebook killer. It’s probably an intent to shape what will be the “brand-sites’ marketing” in the last 5 years. Shall we make a bet?

 

April 28th, 2011

Why Social Media ideas are still complicated to widespread in Europe

by Laurent François

We had a great conversation 2 days ago @ ESCP Europe with some students, who wanted to know if it was more relevant to implement their start-ups in France, or more generally in Europe, or to directly move to the US.

Some constraints are obvious in Europe, and the main difficulty is…leveraging critical mass:

  • you have more than 20 languages in the European Union stricto sensu
    – it means that if there’s one EU citizenship, you have hundreds of local cultures you need to handle as an entrepreneur
    – you not only need to translate your solution but also understand the local expectations
    – people can’t easily share ideas and games through conversations, as they don’t speak all English, for instance
  • there’s already a wide diversity of start-ups: how to be original?
  • there are legal constraints, thus

But hey, socializers, come on! 3 arguments to answer:

  • if it was all about getting enough people to be reached, just go in advertising, not marketing: many products are good for very few people: the critical mass to achieve can be a very low number, depending on your business
  • think “business”, not “social”: what do you want to sell, and to whom?
  • the local differences are also business opportunities: not many people know how to manage different groups of people, even in plain English: it’s time to grow it

Remember: Social Media is a practice; what are your core competences? who are the public you want to reach? What’s the value proposition?

 

Once you’ve solved that, you don’t care where you are: there are still people talking to other people. Be pervasive; and creative

 

March 28th, 2011

Digitally influenced: “50% of Tweets Consumed Are Created by 20K Elite”

by Laurent François

Citizens!

A strong study by Yahoo! on contents produced & consumed on twitter.

Researchers at Yahoo! say that 50% of the tweets we read are produced by just 20 000 users wordlwide.

  • only 15% of tweets that ordinary users get are directly from the professional media, whereas they’re the most active content-producers
    –  it’s not a fail but a normal rate: a generalist media talk about a wide diversity of topics, and not 100% topics interest a wide diversity of people. Hubs of conversation can happen in a second life, through search engines
    – if 100% of contents that are produced were RT by billions of people, there’ll be a kind of psychiatric traffic jam. It’s a good news that people keep on filtering
  • 20K users (or 0.05% of all Twitter users) attract 50% of the attention. Among them: bloggers, celebrities. A new influential loop: you can interact on diverse interests with diverse hubs, it’s no longer fully segmenter. Sharing and opinions can arise, where you don’t really expect them
  • Conversations are unequal, asymetrical and scandalously one way: you only follow back 20% of people who follow you

To conclude, it’s pretty funny that twitter success is more on what you listen (so the quality of contents producers) than what you discuss. If I’m so demanding on good media, it’s also a way to create information dependency. Who said that verticality was dead? A star-blogger, maybe.