The Praized Blog

Remember my Twitter is the new “Facebook” post from last March where I posited Twitter was going to be the next darling in terms of social tools? It seems my gut feeling was right on that front as shown by Compete’s report on Twitter’s traffic and online attention growth in the last 3 months.

Highlights:

• “In terms of U.S. visitors, Compete has seen Twitter traffic nearly double from February to April, currently attracting nearly 1.2 million people per month.
• In terms of time spent on site as a share of all time spent online, Twitter has grown dramatically - more than quadrupling over the period.
• Twitter is a weekday event – (…) On any typical weekday, Twitter is receiving more than twice the attention as a weekend day.
• Nearly one quarter of all twitter visitors to the site are heavy users (6+ visits/month)
• Splitting age demographics based on usage intensity shows that heavy users tend to skew older than visitors who only hit the site once a month. This could indicate that while the younger segments are more exploratory, the 25-44 year old segments have found more value in Twitter and started to ramp up usage.”

What it means: based on Rogers’ innovation adoption curve, I think we’ve seen the arrival of early adopters on Twitter. The first wave, innovators, had joined the service at SXSW 2007. The weekday usage and the older demographics make me think there’s a lot of work-based usage and that most people in the Weberati have discovered Twitter’s value.

In light of the latest Kelsey Conference in Seattle last week whose theme was “vertical marketplaces”, I read with great interest this eMarketer article about online communities. Analyzing a portion of the “2008 Digital Future Project“(.pdf) report produced by the USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future, eMarketer reports that “nearly half of US Internet users (…) said they belonged to a hobby-oriented online community, a full 41% of respondents belonged to an online social community, and one-third belonged to an online professional community.”

The following graph shows the types of communities users belong to:

eMarketer also quotes a recent The Economist article that said “… that the future of social networking will not be one big social graph but instead myriad small communities on the internet to replicate the millions that exist offline. No single company, therefore, can capture the social graph. Ning, a fast-growing company with offices directly across the street from Facebook in Palo Alto, is built around this idea. It lets users build their own social networks for each circle of friends.”

What it means: I’ve often mentioned how much I like this Wired article about meganiches. I’ve often said that I’m a strong proponent of media “verticalization”. I therefore believe Ning is onto something really big as the social Web becomes more distributed.

Remember my January blog post where I came to the conclusion that Facebook was just a big game? It has been officially confirmed by a report from Flowing Data.

According to Techcrunch, “About half of the 23, 160 applications on Facebook fall into the “Just for Fun” or “Gaming” categories. “Dating” and “Chat” are also high up the list.”

(found on remarkk! blog )

Bell Canada Associate Director of Media Relations Jason Laszlo made a real boner move, boasting on Facebook of his ability to snow journalists with his network management bafflegab, referring to journalists as “lemmings” in a recent status update. Clearly a super-fun guy in real life (note colourful hat and armband tattoo), he further demonstrated the Bell Media Relations department’s apparent unfamiliarity with modern web tools by leaving his Facebook profile wide-open to the public to see. Oops. (…)

What it means: In another unfortunate situation where the assumption was that “what happens in Facebook (or other social networks) stays in Facebook”, Laszlo clearly assumed he was writing to his Facebook friends and not broadcasting to the world. Clearly, it was not the case and his message ended up reaching people outside his inner circle of friends. This should definitely be lesson for anyone working in the public eye (especially in public relations). After all, we are all becoming media through those new social media tools.

Was reading this morning a great analysis by Mathew Ingram about a New York Times article describing the way “young people” get/read their political news. It’s clearly more and more about word of mouth and your social graph.

As Mathew says: “It’s not that there is anything earth-shatteringly new in the piece, mind you. But I think it does a great job of describing how digital “word of mouth” — in other words, social networking of all kinds including Twitter, IM, Facebook and so on — has become a dominant means of news delivery for young people in a way that I’m not sure old geezers like myself quite grasp, no matter how often people describe it”

The Times sums it up: “In essence, they are replacing the professional filter — reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com — with a social one. (…) In one sense, this social filter is simply a technological version of the oldest tool in politics: word of mouth.”

What it means: I remember when I joined Yellow Pages Group in 1999 (called Bell ActiMedia at the time), old-timers used to tell me that the biggest “competitor” to directory publishers wasn’t other directory publishers (or Google or other online directories), it was word of mouth. People have always asked their friends for recommendations and it has always represented a large volume of local search “queries”.

Admittedly, news and local search are not totally the same. Local search information is usually more of a pull (i.e. someone looking for a product/service) than a push (i.e. someone broadcasting information about a new merchant they found). It’s also more “evergreen” than news, i.e. unless you’re a total local merchant junkie, you don’t need to learn in a timely fashion about a new restaurant opening in your neighborhood. But there’s the seed out there of future consumer behavior which could create a great disruption effect on local search. Who knows? It might become valuable to broadcast information about your favorite local merchants. As I estimated in this blog post, there’s potentially 7 more times online local conversations than online directories searches currently. Anyone who successfully harness these conversations will create very valuable local search inventory.

Saturday, I was reading an article in Montreal’s La Presse regarding McDonald’s entry into specialty coffee shops and how it’s a direct attack on Starbucks. I was especially intrigued by comments from Bryant Simon, a teacher at Temple University in Philadelphia. As a history teacher, he’s interested in the social phenomenon that leads us to pay a premium to belong to the Starbucks community.

Quoted in the New York Times in 2004, he said: “Starbucks has become the corner bar of the 21st century. (…) It symbolizes the hunger for community in today’s atomized world. Starbucks has tapped into people’s desire to be with other people. It’s become a new public space where people can go to be with other people. That’s the genius of the place. That’s why I resist the demonization of Starbucks. Who else is building these community spaces in America today?”

As we know, since then, Starbucks has lost its cool factor, and many of its early enthusiasts are now drinking better coffee at local places, behaving almost like wine connoisseurs. It made me thing about my “Twitter is The New Facebook” blog post, about the reasons why innovators/early adopters are very fickle and the increasing speed at which they switch brands.

(chart found here)

I believe the introduction of social tools on the web gives early adopters access to better information than they used to have before. It’s easier to find out if your peer “tribe” is adopting new products & services. And if they are, you trust that your tribe is right, you pick up your friends and you just leave (what I call “Brand Nomadism”). Combined with low switching costs online (the next site is only a click away), it creates a situation where we see the rise of many new “next-big-thing” Web properties (Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, SocialThing, etc.).

I was first exposed to that phenomenon when I saw a presentation by Bill Tancer from Hitwise at the Web 2.0 Expo last year. He showed the attendees the YouTube early adopter adoption curve. In it, you clearly see that it took only 4 months for YouTube to really explode on the scene.

As for Starbucks, I think they lost a lot by standardizing their product offer through the introduction of automatic coffee machines. By becoming a “middle-of-the-road” brand, they’ve basically positioned themselves in the no-man’s land between big brands like McDonalds (or Tim Hortons) and small local coffee shops, effectively being attractive to no one in particular. I believe this innovator/early adopter curve is critical to the future success of a new venture and I think that, if you want to build a sustainable long-term business, you’ll want to remember who put you in the driver seat. Make sure there’s always a place for your first customers in your strategic plan.

Great use of social media (YouTube in this case) to reply in context to a newscast (posted on YouTube as well) that portrayed Southwest Airlines as bad guys in a possible case of unruly passenger behavior.

Best quote from one of the passengers in the newscast: “I think they were just discriminating against us because we were young decent-looking girls. I mean, nobody else really on the plane looked like us except us”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA2r_uCJUc0)

Best quote from SouthWest’s spokesperson (in the reply): “I just want to assure you that we welcome pretty people on-board our flights, we just ask that you leave your bad behavior at home”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPdSs3AiRhA)

You can’t invent these things!

(via Stuart Macdonald’s Twitter feed)

Nice additional information to complement my “Digg is an Oligarchy” post from a month ago. Based on data culled from the first Digg Townhall, the folks at CenterNetworks made a quick calculation.

On an average weekday, you have a 150 in 10,000 chance that your submission will hit the frontpage. However we need to remove a piece of your chance because we know that some sites (in Tech for example: Gizmodo, Engadget, NYT, Techcrunch, Lifehacker, Ars Technica) will get more than one a day on average. (…) I peg these special sites at 25% of the daily average which leaves the rest of us with the balance 112 out of 10,000 chance.

CenterNetworks posits that if things don’t improve, the average site or user might not continue to see a benefit in submitting something to Digg.com. Given that there are now two other valuable social news sites out there (Reddit and Mixx), it might be more appropriate to spend energy there instead. They do have a solution for Digg though: “create separate verticals which would allow 150 stories in each category to hit the frontpage of that vertical each day. ” i.e. increase real estate by “verticalizing” the site.

What it means: I totally agrees with CenterNetworks’ proposed solution. I believe the Web is continuing to become more and more vertical and successful “destination” sites that target everything/everyone risk being desintermediated by vertical sites doing a better job than them. We’re seeing the same phenomenon in social networks right now.

Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to moderate a social media panel at the Infopresse conference on social networking. Sitting on my panel was Guillaume Bouchard from NVI, a Montreal-based SEO/SMO firm. He explained to the crowd of more than 280 people how, by using social media tools, he manages to generate brand awareness and increase the online street cred of Canpages, a Canadian directory company competing against Yellow Pages Group in Canada.

It starts with the creation of original and quirky content in the Canpages blog. His team then seeds that content in the various social news sites like Digg and Reddit. Working with a large network of friends and contacts, he’s able to catch the eye of online influencers who might (or might not) promote that piece of original content.

His best success so far with Canpages has been this blog post about “Weird Canadian Restaurants”. It was submitted to Digg and generated 676 diggs and 101 comments. It was promoted to the first page of the site and generated good traffic (he did not disclose how much) for the Canpages blog. It was also favorited by people in StumbleUpon, another social tool that has the reputation of driving a lot of traffic. The post was well enough crafted to be picked up by Dan Mitchell from the New York Times, which generated some more traffic to the Canpages blog.

What it means: a great use (and a great understanding) of social media tools and sites to build a new directory brand and make it more exciting for “cool kids”. This is also a great strategy to build new incoming links to your domain, thereby increasing your page rank in Google. You’ve got to wonder though if there are long-lasting positive effects from both a brand equity and online directory site usage but I don’t think it hurts given the runner-up position they occupy in the market.

“Microsoft to Pay $31 Per Share for Yahoo, Totaling $44.6 Billion in Cash and Stock. Microsoft said it sees at least $1 billion cost savings generated by the merger, and intends to offer significant retention packages to Yahoo engineers, key leaders and employees. The software giant said it believes the takeover would receive regulatory clearance and close in the second half of 2008.”

(via Yahoo Finance)

Update: just listened to the conference call. Clearly, vertical search and social media is high on the Microsoft priorities and buying Yahoo! gives them precious assets there. From a local search perspective, mobile was mentioned many times.

What it means: that rumor had been circulating for a long while now. This has the potential to create a powerhouse in local and social. More details during the conference call.