Posts filed under ‘Products’
New Find A Doctor Website
Friday night, we at Tufts Health Plan released a major upgrade to our Find A Doctor website. We’ve been working on this project for a while, and I’m really excited about this launch:
- Clean and simple user interface
- Clear plan selections to help members identify which doctors are in their plan. Even simpler, members can use their member portal login to automatically select their plan.
- In-depth comparisons
- Broad array of criteria for members to narrow search results to those doctors who best fit their personal needs
- Directories which can be emailed or faxed
Many of the upgraded features reflect how our products have evolved in recent years; specifically the wide variety we offer and the membership growth of deductible plans and tiered plans, where members’ cost-share can differ by doctor. It was important to provide more robust features to help members best use their plans.
We partnered with Prism Services Group to develop the website, and we could not be more happy with them. Their team was thoughtful and creative every step of the way, and I think it’s reflected in a great website.
From a personal standpoint, I learned a lot during this project and that will be the subject of another post. (One side effect of this project has been a paucity of posts here) For now, any feedback you have about our new Find A Doctor website would be highly appreciated. If you can take a minute or two, visit http://tuftshealthplan.prismisp.com and shoot me a note at grossad (at) yahoo (dot) com or post a comment below or on Twitter to @AdamGross.
On Your Mark … Get Set … GooglePlus
We’re off! Yes, we’re all on GooglePlus, poking and prodding. For me, it solves one of my pet peeves with Facebook: it’s easy to publish posts only to certain people with Circles. There is stuff I want to share with my adult friends, but not my teenage nieces.
Another advantage according to a photography buff friend is that photos are much better.
I would like to connect the items I share via Google Reader with Google Plus. If I could stream my shares into consummable posts like Twitter, I might not need Twitter. I love connecting with new people on Twitter, something I would never do on Facebook. However, I may do that on GooglePlus because of Circles.
But do connections want every type of content from all of their “friends”? Circles should work in reverse, too: I may want text posts from my co-workers, but not their personal posts. Likewise, I like hearing from my nieces, but don’t need the latest YouTube videos of cats, Bieber, or cats dancing to Bieber. (One of my nieces, however, just quoted Rush on Facebook and I am so proud.)
Life is never as orderly as we like, but increasing signal-to-noice reduces the chaos.
Foursquare just checked in @ Big Threat 4sq.com/What2Do?
Since Facebook launched Places, its geolocation check-in feature, I’ve gone back and forth whether Facebook’s 
massive network means that independent check-in services such as Foursquare and Gowalla are toast. Yelp should also be considered among the threatened independent services. Ultimately, I believe they can survive by adapting their engagement model, although as I commit my prediction to paper web, I also find it easy to poke holes in my argument.
First, let’s review why they may be toast. As Michael Ansaldo neatly summarized in PC World:
Once Facebook Places incorporates enough Foursquare-like features — and it will — Foursquare users will start abandoning the service in droves to take advantage of the expansive network they’ve already built on Facebook
The heart of the problem Foursquare and Gowalla face is that neither their social networks nor their business programs have any unique value yet. Both services are only good for keeping track of check-ins and statuses and broadcasting them on Facebook and Twitter. Though David Berkowitz argues that there’s value broadcasting only to your Foursquare network to avoid over-sharing, Facebook could also launch a feature allowing members to check-in, collect points, but not broadcast to their network. So what does being friends with someone on Foursquare’s social network get me? Nothing unique. And users can not yet redeem the points they’ve earned for their check-ins for significant real-world rewards. Facebook is more likely to establish a vibrant rewards programs than small start-ups like Foursquare and Gowalla, thanks to its scale and resources.
This reminds me of Citrix and Microsoft in the mid-’90s. At the time, Citrix was a start-up with a very cool remote access product called WinFrame. The product’s existence, and therefore Citrix’s, was made possible only by Windows. This was when Microsoft was the biggest, baddest 500 pound gorilla around. And sure enough, Microsoft was on the verge of building its own remote access directly into Windows. Citrix, of course, is still around today and quite successful. They survived by cutting a deal with Microsoft allowing them to power Window’s remote access features, but limiting other products they Citrix could sell. Not only did they survive, but Citrix has innovated, diversified, and grown.
Perhaps Facebook will build certain features, but partner with the independents to round-out a more robust experience. Indeed, Facebook launched a Places API and announced Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp were “launch partners”.
It’s also instructive to examine threats from emerging niche players. While Foursquare and Gowalla provide the same experience no matter where you check-in, others are creating new engagement models. For example, SCVNGR has created a check-in game customized for particular locations. Other startups are trying to crack the entertainment check-in experience.
This where Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp may have opportunities. There are dimensions which could be added to the currently quite broad check-in experience:
- Do you need advice?
- Are you having a good experience?
- Do you need to find another store?
- Are you late or early and need to adjust your schedule and inform people of this change?
- Did you just arrive or are leaving?
- Are you actually going somewhere and want to let others know where you’ll be? You’ll confirm the check-in once you get there.
When you check-in, your app could ask you these and other questions. Then, it could offer you discussion opportunities and web content.
For example, let’s say I go to the Home Depot. As is often the case, I’m not exactly sure what I need, let alone how to use it. So, when I check-into Home Depot, it asks me what I’m looking for. I type in “porch screening” and returns links, including how-to discussions from across the web. It also finds a Facebook friend who checked into Home Depot recently who I might ask for a recommendation. At any time, I could opt to simply comment and submit. The app asks me whether I have been helped and, if not, whether it should send a tweet for help. It then calculates the distance between the Home Depot and my next location, which I’ve pre checked-into, and asks me if I want to inform anyone that I’ll be late. It also checks my Google Calendar, where subsequent appointments are recorded, and asks if I want to inform the friends on that appointment that I’m running late. It offers me to post a review directly to Yelp. And, of course, it offers me a coupon because I just seized the mayor badge from some other, less-hapless homeowner .
One area in which Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp may have an advantage over Facebook in creating new engagement models is agnosticism. For example, does Facebook really want to encourage discussions in other communities and not on Facebook? The flaw in this argument is the Places API they’ve already launched. But the purpose of the API may be more to demonstrate it can play nice for the time being.
The other advantage the independents may have is focus. Check-in usage remains relatively low compared to other social features, and, despite how innovative Facebook is, they may not want to invest as heavily in this area until the return is more clear. The independents will be forced to innovate as quickly as possible.
Trust is another bugaboo for Facebook, since they keep stumbling over privacy. Managing to whom your check-ins are visible will be complicated on Facebook, and that alone could scare off potential new users.
I use Foursquare, but am not a heavy user. I broadcast almost all check-ins to Facebook, but not to Twitter (see my earlier post about why I stopped broadcasting to Twitter). It’s simply a Facebook posting service for me, and if Facebook Places proves quicker, I will abandon Foursquare. This is why I rarely use Posterous anymore; I can quickly and easily post the same thoughts and photos to Facebook, a bigger network in which I’ve already invested my time. Hopefully, though, Foursquare and the others can innovate successfully and provide a unique service.
What do you think of their odds?
Superhero Apps Could Be Super Social
This week, I downloaded the Marvel app on an iPod Touch. Even on a smaller screen than the iPad, where it is 
earning rave reviews, the app impressively uses the medium. Dramatic touches are added by animated panel transitions. The ability to view either horizontally or vertically maximizes each panel, as does zooming.
DC, owned by Time Warner, released their version this week, which unsurprisingly does not differ much from the Marvel app because both were built by Comixology (it keeps crashing, so I have not used it much). Marvel is owned by Disney.
Non-publishers such as Comixology and Panelfly had launched their online comic book shops before Marvel and DC introduced these apps. But the publishers have actually been trying to make a digital business for some time now. For example, there was a Marvel section in the old AOL walled garden as far back as 1995. Dial-in speeds, alas, did not make for pleasant viewing. Now, with always-on fast connections and superior consumption devices, the market is ripe.
Both follow the itunes ecommerce model. Download the app for free, and pay for each comic (which are less expensive than the paper versions). A selection of comics is offered for free, and is regularly updated. The publishers seem to have struck a balance between the online and offline channels. Marvel is reporting that the app is driving offline as well as online sales.
Social components are still missing, though. Panelfly does have Twitter and Facebook posting capabilities integrated, but that is the tip of the iceberg:
- Integrated Facebook like buttons on issues and other components, too, such as characters
- Discussions, which fit the nature of long-running and intertwining stories. Even driving Twitter discussions – much like Lost – would be valuable. This could also help newer readers catch up on history – further engaging them in the comics universe. Links to other stories within a story would help in this regard, too.
- Share specific panels with friends, with likes and favorites
- Reading lists, which could organically lead to wishlists and gifting capabilities
- Online readers’ catalogs to allow fans to show off their collections. Integrate with Google Goggles to more quickly enable people to catalog their physical collections, which would enhance the sharing, enhancing, and ecommerce capabilities. The Marvel and DC apps already have recommendation engines, which would be enhanced by social graphs.
- Multi-user “What If” scenario creations (comic teamups and alternate story lines are the forefathers of mashups and remixes)
- Geo-location identification of app users at, say, a movie or bookstore
This is just my quick list. There’s certainly more great ideas, some of which are probably already being developed.
What’s really intriguing is the extent to which community will drive growth. This is a market which has historically benefited from a dedicated community, but one that has been somewhat niche in nature. If community has enhanced the comic book experience for its traditional fans, wouldn’t the same be true for newer readers? The app may become a gateway for more casual readers to join a more dedicated community of heavier purchasers or form their own community. Or it may grow the existing dedicated community by making it quicker, easier, and less expensive to follow up on a recommendation or interest with a purchase. But the key, either way, is community. Social components will accelerate online sales and transform the industry.
Was It Something I Said?
This past weekend, I took my 6 year old son on a trip to our nation’s capital. It was one of those rewarding parenting moments where you introduce a child to something you find special, and you can see those feelings reciprocated. “Why don’t we move to Washington, D.C.?” he was asking by the end of the trip.
We visited the Air and Space Museum, the Natural History Museum, and the International Spy Museum. You might already know this if we were friends on Facebook or you followed me on Twitter, because I used Foursquare to check-in at these and other locations.
But I arrived home to an unpleasant surprise. No, not an imposing travel bill. Instead, Unfollowr informed me that 28 people stopped following me on Twitter Monday. That’s about 7% of my followers. What happened?
I didn’t announce any life changes over the weekend or post anything controversial. The frequency of my Twitter usage – moderately active – hasn’t changed. The only change I can point to is the aforementioned Foursquare postings.
"Having a great time ... wish you were here ... and still following me."
A little history: I did not start using Foursquare until recently, because I knew my activity would be minimal. With two young children and a light travel schedule, I will never become the mayor of anywhere interesting, unless you are enamored of my couch or office. Eventually, I succumbed out of curiosity and competitiveness. But, this weekend, I checked-in frequently for the very reason that I’m not usually spotted at too many hip establishments: I was stoked to be sharing these great places with my son.
Maybe something did change in my Twitter usage. After all, I tend to use Twitter for professional, not personal, reasons. So perhaps tweets that let everyone know how excited I was to visit the Air & Space Museum contrasted poorly with my previous tweets. Perhaps folks who happened to be pruning their accounts saw the preponderance of newer personal tweets and absence of recent professional tweets.
"I can't believe you posted that ... you are SO unfollowed!"
If this is true, the unsurprising lesson is Twitter efficiently rewards those who stay on message and punishes those who don’t. It implies a few interesting experiments with your personal / professional mix to see who follows and unfollows you ( I did gain a few followers over the weekend). It also implies that Foursquare should not introduce a feature that I had thought made sense: award more points to those who announce their check-ins on a wider range of networks. I don’t know if this was a consideration, but it seems like a tempting way to broaden their viral promotion.
Quite frankly, though, I don’t care about followers who are that uninterested in me as a person. Like many others, I have stopped being concerned my follower / following ratio, and this validates my decision.
Of course there are alternative explanations, too. I’d be interested in your thoughts on whether I’ve reached a knee-jerk conclusion.
So a great time was had by all … except for my followers. And Unfollowr’s profile picture turns out to be a bit ironic for me (below). Next time, I’ll make sure to check-in at Ford’s Theatre and show the big guy some love.
Why Twitter Should Re-Name the Re-Tweet
Why would Twitter tinker with arguably its most powerful feature?
Let’s face it, the name “re-tweet” is an idiosyncrasy – one of many on Twitter (ex: “hashtag”). Idiosyncrasies are hurdles to new users. And Twitter has an issue engaging new users. It needs to overcome these issues to ensure it remains as powerful a conversational medium as it is a broadcast medium.
So re-name “re-tweet” what it really is: “like”. The reason we re-tweet is because we read 
something we like. Instead of working hard to educate new users on a unique convention, let’s teach them to hit the “like” button. Easy.
There’s no harm following a popular convention, as YouTube recently demonstrated. And there’s no bigger rival to Facebook than Google, so if they can swallow their pride to adopt a convention that Facebook popularized, Twitter can as well. The change would initially create hassles for the Twitter community, but we’ve survived changes before. And it will be easier to manage sooner, rather than later.
This seems to be a relatively simple way to make Twitter easier to use and maintain the power of the re-tweet. And that will lead to an increase in engagement that will serve all of us better. “Re-tweet” needs to go.
Buzz Usage Demonstrates Social Media Saturation
Tamar Weinberg recently published an excellent post stating that the real social media innovators have moved on, and that its saturation has diluted creativity and increased push-style, mass communications. She posits that this may be due to a lack of time or attention for building relationships.
While I do not agree with everything in the post, PostRank released statistics last night which seem to support the arguments above. It turns out that the vast majority of activity on Google Buzz is re-posts from other social networks (approximately 90%). One wonders how much of remaining 10% is one-and-done trial, and how much originated from outside the echo chamber.
ReadWriteWeb also reported PostRank’s findings, and now it’s ricocheting through the Twitter-verse.
The conclusion: most have tried Buzz because it’s Google, many are using it as a push tool to try to expand their reaches, but it’s not being widely used to build relationships.
As with Wave before it, Buzz may not fill a market need yet. Certainly, it would be imprudent to label these innovative products as failures so soon, but it is safe to say that they are clearly not yet successes. It casts doubt whether a company with scale, like Google, can ever launch a new social media product. Not an individual feature or an acquisition, but a new product.
None of the most prominent social media products (e.g.: Facebook, Twitter and its ecosystem, MySpace, etc.) were launched by established companies. And none of the products launched by established companies have taken off (e.g. various Yahoo efforts, Google Wave and Buzz, Windows Live, etc.). Why? Two potential reasons:
1. Scale leads to over-exposure. So many trials are generated, that the networks get saturated with untargeted, low-value content.
Broadly, social networks allow us to reap two professional benefits:
- Gain Insight: by exploring and conversing with trusted sources, we expand our expertise
- Enhance Reputation: by becoming a trusted source, we influence the conversations and end up promoting ourselves
When a social network starts small and grows organically, the value of the existing members and of our subsequent participation is clear. Members sign up because they are truly interested. But when an organization with scale launches a network, the hordes rush in. And potential members can not sift through the content to find unique value or a true community.
2. Scale leads to distrust. Features, which are beneficial elsewhere, do not translate well to big social networks.
For example, when I enter a new contact into my Droid, Google Contacts automatically adds their email address (from its email application), and their picture and profile link from the Facebook application. Brilliant! When this same concept is applied to Buzz, mass hysteria reigns. Google Health, though not a social network, is another good example. A recent study (pdf link) found that “third-party” electronic PHRs such as Google and Microsoft HealthVault (i.e.: not medical providers, health plans, etc.) are among the least trusted for sharing medical data (i.e.: the networking part of the product).
Ultimately, Buzz and Wave will evolve and continue to be innovative. In my view, though, Google will cherry-pick the best features and absorb those elsewhere in its ecosystem. And we could be more creative and productive by being more deeply engaged with our existing targeted networks, rather than broader exposure in the widest possible array of networks.
Tamar Weinberg (http://www.techipedia.com/2010/social-media-boredom/ ) recently published an excellent post stating that the real social media innovators have moved on, and that its saturation has led to too much push-style, mass communications. She posits that this may be due to a lack of time or attention for building relationships. (this does not do justice to all of her keen observations)
While I do not agree with everything in the post, PostRank ( http://blog.postrank.com/2010/04/google-buzz-a-robot-party/) released statistics last night which seem to support the arguments above. It turns out that the vast majority of activity on Google Buzz (approximately 90%) is re-posts from other social networks. One wonders how much of remaining 10% is one-and-done trial, and one bets that even less of it originated from outside the echo chamber.
ReadWriteWeb (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/90_of_content_on_google_buzz_is_bots_report_finds.php ) also reported PostRank’s findings, and now it’s shooting through the Twitter-verse (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Google+Buzz )
The lesson: we’ve all at least tried Buzz because it’s Google, many are using it as a push tool to try to expand their reaches, but it’s not being widely used to build relationships.
As with Wave before it, Buzz may not fill a market need. Certainly, it would be imprudent to label these innovative products failures so soon, but it is safe to say that they are clearly not yet successes. It also casts doubt again whether a company with scale, like Google, can ever launch a new social media product. Not an individual feature or an acquisition, but a new product.
None of the most prominent social media products (e.g.: Facebook, Twitter and its ecosystem, MySpace, etc.) were launched by established companies. And none of the products launched by established companies have taken off (e.g. various Yahoo efforts, Google Wave and Buzz, Windows Live, etc.). Why? Two potential reasons:
1. Scale leads to over-exposure. So many trials are generated, that the networks get over-filled with untargeted, low-value content.
Broadly, social networks allow us to reap two professional benefits:
- Gain Insight: by exploring and conversing with trusted sources, we expand our expertise
- Enhance Reputation: by becoming a trusted source, we influence the conversations and end up promoting ourselves
When a social network starts small and grows organically, the value of the existing members and of our subsequent participation is clear. Members sign up because they are truly interested. But when an organization with scale launches a network, the hordes rush in. And potential members can not sift through the content to find unique value or a true community.
2. Scale leads to distrust. Features, which are beneficial elsewhere, do not translate well to big social networks.
For example, when I enter a new contact into my Droid, Google Contacts automatically adds their email address (from its email application), and their picture and profile link from the Facebook application. Brilliant! When this same concept is applied to Buzz, mass hysteria reigns. Google Health, though not a social network, demonstrates this as well. Pew recently found that “third-pary” websites such as Google and Micrsoft HealthVault are among the least trusted for sharing medical data (the networking part of the product). ( pdf link http://www.chcf.org/documents/healthit/ConsumersHealthInfoTechnologyNationalSurvey.pdf )
Ulimately, Buzz and Wave will evolve and continue to be innovative. In my view, though, Google, as with other products, will cherry-pick the best features and absorb those elsewhere in its ecosystem. We would be better served by deeper engagement with our existing networks, rather than broader exposure in the widest possible array of networks.
My name is Adam Gross. 
