Updates from March, 2009 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dbinkowski 3:06 pm on March 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply  

    What the Twitterfication of Facebook Means 

    Facebook unveiled their new home page Wednesday and I have to say – it’s awfully Twitteresque. The center well, or “stream”, of content on the page is now an ajaxy, auto-updating time line of your network’s status updates. The language at the top has changed as well, from “David Binkowski is” to “What’s on your mind?”. (Twitter’s call to action has always been “What are you doing?”)

    I think this signals a “game over” for Twitter for several reasons. I’m not saying they’re going under, but the site will never achieve the sort of growth MySpace or Facebook have, and without a suitor it’s unlikely they’ll ever become profitable or sustainable. Aside from “No reason to join Twitter now”, let’s get to 5 reasons why I feel this way:

    1. Usability

    Twitter’s site has never changed. It’s a linear, hard to follow, gigantic message board thread. Sure, they acquired Summize to provide a basic search, and there are tons of third party apps like TweetDeck that may help you get a little organized, but I’ll ask you this: What’s the first thing people say when you tell them what Twitter is?

    “I don’t get it.”

    And therein lies the problem. If I describe a message board (“A place where people with common interests gather to discuss that interest”), a blog (“A publishing tool with an author or author’s point of view on topics where you can comment”) or social network (“A virtual place for your real life friends to stay in touch”) they all make sense. When people explain Twitter (“What you’re doing in 140 characters or less”) the first response is “Why would anyone care what I’m doing?”. Even more poignant is “Why would complete strangers care what I’m doing?”

    On top of the “Who cares?” question, the best solution for categorizing topics and information is through the use of hashtags. Ma Bell would be proud.

    2. Friends vs. Followers

    I have friends. You have friends. I have readers. You have blogs you like to read. And then there’s Followers. I’m not saying that I haven’t met my Followers in real life, but of the roughly 1,300 Followers I have on Twitter I’ve maybe met 100 in person. And of those 100 most of us are friends on Facebook. Real friends, mind you. I’m not discounting that people think I’m funny or interesting or look like a good candidate to start a MLM business or need a life coach, but the reality is that there’s a mutually beneficial relationship, much like in business, for following and return following people on Twitter. Which brings me to my next point:

    3. Facebook isn’t about self-promotion

    Check out the bio of the folks you follow on Twitter. I’d wager dollars to donuts that they have a URL they’re promoting somewhere in there, whether it’s their blog, their company or their MySpace music page. Look at their tweets and you’ll probably find links to their posts and press releases. Hell, there are even companies that will help you monetize the truncated URLs you’re sending around. And while we’re at it, there are also services that will help you gain 10,000 followers overnight. Talk about authentic.

    Facebook, unlike MySpace or Twitter, isn’t about a self-promotional game or race to the most followers. It’s about hanging out with co-workers outside of the office. Or connecting with childhood friends. Or college classmates. Or people who live down the street. You typically wouldn’t add someone as a friend on Facebook you didn’t know, well, because that’s where your private life is kept. Sure, there are privacy features to limit your profile, but aside from awkward employer/employee, ex-boyfriend/husband/wife/girlfriend and parents “friendings” the content is your private information that you choose to share with people you know vs. broadcast to the world.

    4. Spam

    We’re all familiar with the Twitter cast of cartoon characters, in particular the Fail Whale and 404 upside down bird. Recently Twitter’s had to add a more ominous friend to the tribe that I call the Spam Owl. The Spam Owl is what appears when a Twitter account becomes suspended due to “suspicious activity”. I’m not sure why they don’t just say “We caught the spammer!” and instead present it like there’s an FBI investigation for money laundering or a TSA security breach like a forgotten backpack in an airport crowd, but I digress.

    Spam has become so prevalent on Twitter that several A-list bloggers have quit using Twitter or reverted to dropping everyone on their “friend” list and only adding the people they know in real life. (The other reason is that they found it impossible to “follow” tens of thousands of people and conversations, which speaks to the lack of usability and impersonalization of the tool). And much like email spam, there’s no way outside of a CAPTCHA to stop it. Even with the best intentions, a n00b might not know this unspoken “Twettique” that says you shouldn’t add a ton of people and let your following grow organically.

    Facebook has had its share of virus attacks, but nowhere near the volume of spam that one gets on Twitter on a daily basis.

    5. Revenue

    Argh, this pesky one keeps coming up, doesn’t it? Just over a year ago Jason Calacanis gave Twitter three ways of monetizing the service, none of which have come to fruition. Twitter hired a biz dev guy back in December to look at monetization of the tool, and one rumor has it that businesses would have to pay for corporate accounts. As I tweeted, I’m not sold on that idea unless they provide metrics and better functionality.

    On top of this problem, the company has been funded handsomely but is bleeding so badly that they shut off outbound messaging in the UK.

    Facebook, in comparison, had an estimated revenue of $300MM and is innovating new platforms for brand engagement, including live streaming (Obama, NBA All-Star game) and targeted ads. They built mass, allow you to keep your network small, and offer brands the opportunity to engage through earned and paid methods. All they need to add is an e-commerce platform and they could literally become your own private internet.

    But, what about all that press?

    Techcrunch recently was startled at all of the press Twitter gets. I’m not. The boys at Twitter do a remarkable job of pimping their service to the media and did a phenomenal job of getting influencers and early adopters on board. But let’s call it what it is – an RSS feed with a personality. Remember, this is a microblog, and while people want to call it several things nothing more, nothing less. It’s possibly including a loose, self-promotional social network (although I think it’s really a lame message board via SMS and third party apps – except on message boards it’s easier to find useful information because q&a is longer than 140 characters) and or “the next Google” (that is an utter joke, btw – Google makes money)..

    Twitter wanted press and that is exactly what it got. The site is now filled with marketers, promoters, PR people, brands, journalists, publishers and programmers. As a PR tool it’s wonderful, as Frank can attest to. And as a cable news channel, it makes you feel you’re more relevant.

    Before you jump into the comments and start bashing because TechCrunch covers it every other blog post (ok, not every other, but come on), let’s put all of this hype into perspective outside of the echo chamber. Here’s a breakdown of unique visitors to Facebook and Twitter via Compete:

    Like it or not, Facebook is still eating everyone’s lunch. And by changing the status updates to become a more usable, functional, dynamic, personal version of Twitter they’re likely to have everyone’s dinner too.

    3/25/2009 Update: This video from Current captures Twitter perfectly:

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/What_the_Twitterfication_of_Facebook_Means’;

    Advertisements
     
    • InspiredWriting on twitter 9:53 pm on March 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Sorry, hate facebook,love twitter! So no contest for me! But great in-depth post …and each to their own of course! I’m one of those who loathes having to drag over to Facebook and log in … and I’m interested in fast sharing of ideas/theories etc not party pics! I actually dont care if someone has a url 2 share – if it is fresh and intelligent-looking I will click on it – good for them I say! I do the same! (Looked at 2 random twitter urls 2day a)I found out u could post poems on Assoc. Content and b) this one! (a recommendation) I also have 4 notifications from Fbook to check on….but I cant be bothered 2 get over theere and trawl through all that stuff! Horses for Courses? Thanks for the post.

    • Anonymous 4:22 am on March 15, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Twitter is so easy. Plus it’s open and very fast. Facebook is getting better and better, but it is complicated and very hard to navigate. If you stay in your own little world, Facebook is ok. Twitter is just wide open. I don’t “get” what people don’t get about twitter.

    • Anonymous 9:57 pm on March 17, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      I have been on Facebook for a year and a half now. I joined Twitter 2 months ago – and just can’t get into it. You are right a lot of folks do not know what it is, especially the more “mature” crowd,- who by the way is quite present on Facebook.

      I for one like seeing the pics, and reading longer notes on Facebook.
      On Twitter I cannot believe the amount of nothing-ness that gets sent to me – really – who cares? Think I will shut down my Twitter account. oh, and I do “get it”, I just don;t care to “get it”!

    • Lauren Brander 2:25 am on April 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Ironically, I found your blog through Twitter. This argument is definitely an interesting one, and one that is not often argued this well, by someone so familiar with both Web sites. I feel that if Twitter commits itself to improvement (as in virus prevention and better hyperlink capabilities- I’m tired of shortening everything) than it can be competitive with Facebook. As of now, I use Twitter far more often than Facebook, and it’s because it’s easy, streamlined and I don’t get nearly as distracted.

    • David Binkowski 2:44 am on April 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      @inspiredWriting the down side to Facebook is the monetization aspect, for sure. the Apps craze is over but other companies have repositioned how they use Apps (e.g. Zombies vs. Top 5) to fit into a user’s life.

      @Anonymous i disagree. it’s easy to join but it’s definitely not intuitive. i think Twitter fills a void for parents or adults without social networks because they can connect with each other.

      @Anonymous2 exactly. people shouting hoping someone listens most of the time. Heh. 😛

      @LaurenBrander i’d argue you found my blog through today’s intern challenge but it’s neither here nor there. my Twitter stream is full of nonsensical garbage that my friends and clients find entertaining. when they want my opinion they call, IM, email or meet with me — or, if it’s a larger issue, i’l blog it for everyone to read.

      i also have 0 confidence that Twitter will change since their model is to be simple, open up the API and let 3rd parties create apps and usable tools. if Google et al buys them it’s only because they think they can monetize it by incorporating the content into search, not because they’re looking to increase the service’s up time or add enhancements (check out Jaiku).

  • dbinkowski 1:40 pm on May 29, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Webkinz re-introducing banner ads 

    Parents, lock up your (kids) privacy – Webkinz is reintroducing banner ads back into their site. If you recall back in December, the kids plush-toy-based-social network tried pushing banners for Jerry Seinfeld’s Bee Movie and saw considerable backlash from parents. What’s different this time? Akin to Facebook’s privacy settings, Webkinz has added/changed the “My Pets” tab to “Me & My Pets”, which now contains a section where you can temporarily opt out of having banners displayed. A security question is required, as shown here:

    I mentioned above that the opt out is temporary and expires after 30 days. This may or may not have been a part of the recently updated Webkinz privacy policy, which reads about 20,000 words long. It’s a slippery slope for Ganz, who’s already makes between $12-20 on every plush toy bought, to start having it both ways. There are already sites out there, like NeoPets, with a similar online ad and retail revenue model.

    The question for parents is: Will the addition of ads affect your or your child’s online habits? Is there another web property without ads, like Disney’s Club Penguin, that you’ll consider switching over to?

     
  • dbinkowski 1:40 pm on May 29, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Webkinz re-introducing banner ads 

    Parents, lock up your (kids) privacy – Webkinz is reintroducing banner ads back into their site. If you recall back in December, the kids plush-toy-based-social network tried pushing banners for Jerry Seinfeld’s Bee Movie and saw considerable backlash from parents. What’s different this time? Akin to Facebook’s privacy settings, Webkinz has added/changed the “My Pets” tab to “Me & My Pets”, which now contains a section where you can temporarily opt out of having banners displayed. A security question is required, as shown here:

    I mentioned above that the opt out is temporary and expires after 30 days. This may or may not have been a part of the recently updated Webkinz privacy policy, which reads about 20,000 words long. It’s a slippery slope for Ganz, who’s already makes between $12-20 on every plush toy bought, to start having it both ways. There are already sites out there, like NeoPets, with a similar online ad and retail revenue model.

    The question for parents is: Will the addition of ads affect your or your child’s online habits? Is there another web property without ads, like Disney’s Club Penguin, that you’ll consider switching over to?

     
  • dbinkowski 2:50 pm on January 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Top Digg Users: "It’s really not about the community" 

    The NY Times has a great article on a battle raging over on Digg between the site operators and some “Power Users” on the site. Digg, for those unfamiliar, is a social news site. What does that mean? Basically, people find stuff from around the web, including news stories, blog posts, photos and video, submit it to Digg and the community deems whether or not it’s worth viewing. There’s a bit of controversy as to what stories are dug(g) and which are “buried”, meaning deemed irrelevant or not important by the community. For example, this post by Neil Patel documents stories about certain web sites or submitted by certain people are being buried by Digg employees. The Power Users are claiming “censorship”, but much like the Google PageRank/PayPerPost story, once you mess with a company’s business model, or in this case algorithm, they have every right to correct it. The Power Users are planning to boycott the site and not submit new stories.

    So what’s the story with the Digg power users? Like most communities, there are folks who invest a lot of time, effort and energy to help make the site what it is. Without their submissions and social network, stories wouldn’t make the home page. Those who’ve had stories on the home page have seen traffic spikes, also known as the Digg effect, and some argue there’s any monetary value of making the home page. That being said, the argument could be made that the site’s content and popularity has been driven by these power users, which was enabled by Digg’s algorithm.

    So why the uproar? Well, Digg decided to re-tool its algorithm so the greater community could decide which stories work. In theory, broadening the number of people whose votes count should increase the number of users on the site, since, much like the lottery, there’s an equal chance of winning; in this case it’s making the home page because the general populous of Digg deems it worthy. This logic was also employed on the redesigned Netscape home page and failed miserably. Valleywag calls this the Jason Calacanis effect.

    Digg has the right to change its algorithm. However, the power users have a right to leave. Will this kill the site? Probably not — others will rise to the top and determine which stories are home page worthy.

    Three key learnings are:

    1. The few rule the many in communities. Call it the “Lord of the Flies effect” — and predictably, those in power are going to be upset when their authority and the playing field has been leveled.
    2. Don’t screw with success. I understand the intention of trying to get more people involved in the site, but expanding the site to include more topics would have been an easier way than pissing off the power user base.
    3. As Phil Gomes pointed out on Twitter, No one wins. One side just loses more slowly. — Prez, from HBO’s “The Wire”. Both sides are wrong, and ultimately the users of Digg will lose. The algorithm change should have been communicated better to users. The users should understand that the business has to evolve. In the end, asking the community for ideas isn’t a bad thing, but pissing them off is.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_Digg_Users_It_s_really_not_about_the_community’;

     
  • dbinkowski 2:50 pm on January 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Top Digg Users: “It’s really not about the community” 

    The NY Times has a great article on a battle raging over on Digg between the site operators and some “Power Users” on the site. Digg, for those unfamiliar, is a social news site. What does that mean? Basically, people find stuff from around the web, including news stories, blog posts, photos and video, submit it to Digg and the community deems whether or not it’s worth viewing. There’s a bit of controversy as to what stories are dug(g) and which are “buried”, meaning deemed irrelevant or not important by the community. For example, this post by Neil Patel documents stories about certain web sites or submitted by certain people are being buried by Digg employees. The Power Users are claiming “censorship”, but much like the Google PageRank/PayPerPost story, once you mess with a company’s business model, or in this case algorithm, they have every right to correct it. The Power Users are planning to boycott the site and not submit new stories.

    So what’s the story with the Digg power users? Like most communities, there are folks who invest a lot of time, effort and energy to help make the site what it is. Without their submissions and social network, stories wouldn’t make the home page. Those who’ve had stories on the home page have seen traffic spikes, also known as the Digg effect, and some argue there’s any monetary value of making the home page. That being said, the argument could be made that the site’s content and popularity has been driven by these power users, which was enabled by Digg’s algorithm.

    So why the uproar? Well, Digg decided to re-tool its algorithm so the greater community could decide which stories work. In theory, broadening the number of people whose votes count should increase the number of users on the site, since, much like the lottery, there’s an equal chance of winning; in this case it’s making the home page because the general populous of Digg deems it worthy. This logic was also employed on the redesigned Netscape home page and failed miserably. Valleywag calls this the Jason Calacanis effect.

    Digg has the right to change its algorithm. However, the power users have a right to leave. Will this kill the site? Probably not — others will rise to the top and determine which stories are home page worthy.

    Three key learnings are:

    1. The few rule the many in communities. Call it the “Lord of the Flies effect” — and predictably, those in power are going to be upset when their authority and the playing field has been leveled.
    2. Don’t screw with success. I understand the intention of trying to get more people involved in the site, but expanding the site to include more topics would have been an easier way than pissing off the power user base.
    3. As Phil Gomes pointed out on Twitter, No one wins. One side just loses more slowly. — Prez, from HBO’s “The Wire”. Both sides are wrong, and ultimately the users of Digg will lose. The algorithm change should have been communicated better to users. The users should understand that the business has to evolve. In the end, asking the community for ideas isn’t a bad thing, but pissing them off is.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_Digg_Users_It_s_really_not_about_the_community’;

     
  • dbinkowski 4:25 pm on January 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Ethics, Social Networks and Make up 

    After watching Loren Feldman’s live show tonight, I’ve decided that I don’t want to bother discussing the Facebook/Robert Scoble incident. There’s nothing more to say than this – the site has terms of service and if you break them you can get your account deleted. Or in this case suspended and then reinstated. And Plaxo looks really really unethical and dishonest for asking bloggers to scrape data from Facebook on their behalf. Good luck with that auction, maybe the future users of Plaxo won’t mind turning over all of their information to skeezers.

    But I digress. This post isn’t about about public social networks like Facebook or MySpace. I was following, and later joining, a conversation between Chris Brogan and Christine Lu on Twitter about closed social networks. I think they’re the future now – engaging enthusiasts in a closed community makes a hell of a lot more sense, and is a lot more economical, than spamming around on MySpace or Facebook looking for “friends”.

    That’s what Benefit Cosmetics did. They asked people to join a private enthusiasts club to receive “special benefits”. No, this isn’t like the Sears thing; more like a BzzAgent thing, but on a micro level. And it was, by all accounts, a success: apply to be in the club, spread the word, get free makeup. One of the “Benefit Beauty Squad” tasks was to post videos to YouTube. Here, watch one.

    The title of the video is Benefit Beauty Squad (BBS). Fair enough. I get that you’re part of some group associated with Benefit cosmetics. I’ll give you a C for disclosure.

    What I don’t approve of, however, is this email that went out to the Squad:

    We know you love Benefit, now it’s time to spread the word. Your Benefit Beauty Squad project for December is to write Benefit product reviews and post comments about Benefit on as many blogs, makeup web sites, beauty forums, etc… as you can.

    Please note there wasn’t any mention of disclosure or respect for the communities in which Benefit asked people to essentially spam. Also attached to the directions was a list of web sites (boards, blogs, etc) where they would like to see them post. So, for all of the webmasters, bloggers and readers of the following sites — if you saw hype about Benefit cosmetics last month, you were duped:

    TotalBeauty.com
    Makeup Alley
    BellaSugar
    We Love Beauty
    BeautifulMakeupSearch.com
    Beauty and the Dirt
    Beauty Addict
    Beauty Blogging Junkie
    SheKnows.com
    MakeUp and Beauty Blog
    You Blog Like A Girl
    Deesse Magazine
    Her Fab Life
    Beauty Maverick
    SheFinds
    Hello Doll Face
    Girl Paints
    Glam.com
    Glam Blush
    Sephora
    Daily Beauty
    Makeup Bag.net
    Face Candy
    LA Story
    Beauty Maven Blog
    Product Girl
    Fashionista
    Raging Rouge
    Style Goodies

    Ethics? Who cares… as long as you look fabulous!

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Ethics_Social_Networks_and_Make_Up’;

     
    • LA Story 2:32 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting that you should post this. I will have to check my blog if I wrote anything about Benefit. I don’t remember. I am not part of the BBS (benefit beauty squad) . In fact, as a known member of the press/journalist/print&online beauty writer who has covered Benefit for years– they stopped even sending me product samples and have been asking me to write about stuff without me even being able to try it.
      Some things I know will be great — but not everything from every company is going to be hot.. and this is a case of not fair to those of us who aren’t part of BBS and also those of us who are legit journos of fluff (beauty & fashion). I can’t get a sample to save my life– yet the BBS can hit everyone’s site and do this?
      hmmmmmmmmm
      Stevie

    • LA Story 2:36 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      ps.. I am the LA-Story.com..
      just so you get the name connected to the correct blog. They asked me to write about something that I had seen and thought would be a great gift.. but when I asked for a sample, they ignored me.
      Do you think that makes me LIKE Benefit much?
      Do you think that I LIKE that you haven’t fact checked all of the sites you have listed as to whether they are part of the BBS or whether they have been spammed?
      Did you check with each site to ask if the people posting had gotten free makeup ? Did you ask if they were just contributors or legit writers (like online for a long time and/or in print?)

      That’s sort of important before you implicate my blog in some sort of plot
      Stevie

    • David Binkowski 2:42 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Stevie,
      I was in no way implying that you wrote about Benefit Products without disclosing. What I am saying is that if your blog was commented on by BBS members in December that the odds are most of them were spam comments, directed by Benefit Cosmetics to their BBS members.

      Dave

    • Stevie 2:52 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Nope. No comments from anyone on the Benefit Cosmetics line. I watch my comments and the ones that get them are the odd ones- not the typical stuff — unless it’s smoking hot.
      I have found that Benefit has been very quick at sending emails and asking for posts.. but not so quick on providing product to TRY. While I have had a great relationship with them in the past, I don’t want them spamming or using my blog for their purposes when they counter what is journalistically fair. Not everyone’s blog is a journalistic effort. However mine is and they know that.

      thanks for the 411 though. It’s given me something to think about
      Stevie

    • David Binkowski 3:10 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I appreciate the return visit and info on Benefit. We should connect via email outside of the blog!

    • Chris Brogan 2:10 am on January 28, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      My thought here is that our trust levels are what are at stake. It’s not that social networks will go private, but that we’ll close down the trust networks long before we actually start sliding behind new ice walls.

      Interesting post, and I applaud your information here. : )

    • Shannon Nelson 5:50 pm on January 31, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      I was on the receiving end of those overly enthusiastic praiseworthy comments by the BBS (otherwise known as Beauty BullShit…can I say that here? Oops I just did.) Anyway, what brands like Benefit don’t understand is that bloggers talk–to each other. We are all part of some sort of network be it Total Beauty, Glam, The Beauty Blog Network, etc. and we have internal message boards. When something doesn’t seem right, we ask each other about it and I remember when the question came out “Anyone else getting bombarded with positive comments for Benefit?” And the overwhelming answer was yes. It left a bad taste in our mouthes and I didn’t want to work with Benefit for a very long time because of that.

      If your product is good people will say so…no need to “hire” people to do that for you. Any brand that thinks of doing this, should be aware that there is always talk going on behind the scenes and bloggers are definitely watching what is going on. Don’t underestimate us.

  • dbinkowski 3:27 am on July 14, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    MySpace copies Facebook; I say to CMOs:" "Don’t be ‘that guy’" 

    Trying to reverse the trend in membership, MySpace has added a new box to display members’ “status” and “mood”. Um, like, when did the 100MM social networking site become the “me too” of social networking sites? Oh, that’s right — when News Corp bought it.

    It’s so bad that people that’ve left MySpace for Facebook are now complaining about the bombardment of companies trying to infiltrate their world there. If you’re a marketer looking to do something with Facebook, my advice is tread lightly or come strong with good ideas. Don’t have a weak version of your site or app on Facebook that reproduces your app. It’s pointless. Offer me something I can’t get on your site.

    Twitter has an app that shows what I just posted on their site, which is quite possibly the second most useless thing I’ve seen in the past 30 days. The first, of course, being Twitter. If I wanted to tell you what I’m doing then you’d either a) be here or b) because we’re really friends I’d know because you told me directly, not me and your 3,000,000 “friends”. Twitter is a supplement for real life conversations, very few of which are responded to or matter. Do you really give a shit what I did last night? If you did, then other than geography, you’d be here. Sure, it’s great for voyeurs, ex-girlfriends and stalkers but as a tool it’s mildly useless.

    Let’s be honest here — because of marketer’s actions and trying to beat the Street, the future of social networks is the fragmentation of social networks, which really sucks for large media buying companies and agencies that don’t understand how this whole thing works.

    To relate it to high school, marketers are the assholes from the cross-town rival school, barging in to the chill party, forcing their bad jokes and obnoxious persona on the community that just wants to have a good time. See, when the big sites “sell out” the cool kids will find another place to hang. It’s inevitable, and unless you get it you’re going to be chasing the cool kids from party to party, telling the same bad jokes, hoping they’ll accept you. BTW — They won’t, and the band geeks kids won’t respect you because you chased the cool kids so hard. Sure, you might get a few to bite and will report back huge impressions, but the reality is that you’re damaging the brand long-term. Don’t be that generational brand. Relating it to music, don’t be NKOTB or Limp Bizkit.

    Bottom line: Don’t F the community for the short term glory and the sake of telling your boss or client that you get it too — because you don’t.

    So I’m going to ask you, Mr. or Mrs. CMO, who’s on a short leash – to not be “that guy”. You know, the one Droz rips for wearing the shirt of the band you’re going to see. You’ve become the scapegoat, with recent reports showing your lifespan’s been shrunk down to 23 months. I understand that you want to make your mark, but the reality is that increasing the bottom line with insights, strategy and smart tactics are what works – not what makes headlines for right now… of course with no offense to those who’ve suckered sold and reported on all of those wonderful Second Life initiatives.

    Trust me, your career and brand will thank you for it.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/MySpace_copies_Facebook_I_say_to_CMOs_Don_t_be_that_guy’;

     
  • dbinkowski 3:27 am on July 14, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    MySpace copies Facebook; I say to CMOs:” “Don’t be ‘that guy'” 

    Trying to reverse the trend in membership, MySpace has added a new box to display members’ “status” and “mood”. Um, like, when did the 100MM social networking site become the “me too” of social networking sites? Oh, that’s right — when News Corp bought it.

    It’s so bad that people that’ve left MySpace for Facebook are now complaining about the bombardment of companies trying to infiltrate their world there. If you’re a marketer looking to do something with Facebook, my advice is tread lightly or come strong with good ideas. Don’t have a weak version of your site or app on Facebook that reproduces your app. It’s pointless. Offer me something I can’t get on your site.

    Twitter has an app that shows what I just posted on their site, which is quite possibly the second most useless thing I’ve seen in the past 30 days. The first, of course, being Twitter. If I wanted to tell you what I’m doing then you’d either a) be here or b) because we’re really friends I’d know because you told me directly, not me and your 3,000,000 “friends”. Twitter is a supplement for real life conversations, very few of which are responded to or matter. Do you really give a shit what I did last night? If you did, then other than geography, you’d be here. Sure, it’s great for voyeurs, ex-girlfriends and stalkers but as a tool it’s mildly useless.

    Let’s be honest here — because of marketer’s actions and trying to beat the Street, the future of social networks is the fragmentation of social networks, which really sucks for large media buying companies and agencies that don’t understand how this whole thing works.

    To relate it to high school, marketers are the assholes from the cross-town rival school, barging in to the chill party, forcing their bad jokes and obnoxious persona on the community that just wants to have a good time. See, when the big sites “sell out” the cool kids will find another place to hang. It’s inevitable, and unless you get it you’re going to be chasing the cool kids from party to party, telling the same bad jokes, hoping they’ll accept you. BTW — They won’t, and the band geeks kids won’t respect you because you chased the cool kids so hard. Sure, you might get a few to bite and will report back huge impressions, but the reality is that you’re damaging the brand long-term. Don’t be that generational brand. Relating it to music, don’t be NKOTB or Limp Bizkit.

    Bottom line: Don’t F the community for the short term glory and the sake of telling your boss or client that you get it too — because you don’t.

    So I’m going to ask you, Mr. or Mrs. CMO, who’s on a short leash – to not be “that guy”. You know, the one Droz rips for wearing the shirt of the band you’re going to see. You’ve become the scapegoat, with recent reports showing your lifespan’s been shrunk down to 23 months. I understand that you want to make your mark, but the reality is that increasing the bottom line with insights, strategy and smart tactics are what works – not what makes headlines for right now… of course with no offense to those who’ve suckered sold and reported on all of those wonderful Second Life initiatives.

    Trust me, your career and brand will thank you for it.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/MySpace_copies_Facebook_I_say_to_CMOs_Don_t_be_that_guy’;

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel