Posts tagged ‘twitter’
Twitter Tip: Create Your Follow Friday During the Week
Follow Friday is one of the best ways to engage people on Twitter. Simply tweet a list of Twitter users that you recommend others follow on Fridays with the hashtag #FollowFriday or #FF.
Lately, I have been neglecting to do so because I have been spending less time on Twitter. So I wanted to find a simple way to get back into the practice. My solution was to create a draft on Monday, schedule it for Friday delivery, and then add users during the week who shared valuable links. (I use HootSuite, but many other tools, such as TweetDeck, allow you to schedule your tweets)
It was quick to edit the tweet during the week, and then I didn’t have any additional work on Friday. In fact, my Friday ended up busy and I would have missed the opportunity entirely.
Another time saver is forgetting about creating a new, unique list every week. Too much cranium time for what should be a time-effective task, and no one’s keeping track. If I end up repeating users often, it’s because I like their feeds that much.
Do you have any tips that help you stay engaged?
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.
Five Reasons Why Ad.ly Will Not Survive
The November 22 New York Times article on sponsored in-tweet advertising intensified the ongoing discussion of this new practice. Start-ups such as ad.ly and Izea will pay twitterers to insert ads into their tweets, acting as an ad exchange matching publishers and twiterrers.
Other good coverage has included Scoble (not in favor) duking it out with Chris Parillo (in favor) and a defense from Mark Suster, one of the VCs invested in ad.ly.
At the risk of trivializing these and other compelling discussions, there is a thread of “advertising is bad!”, “no, it’s not”, “it’ll ruin Twitter!” running through the discussions. This is the wrong question; the right question is how sustainable and effective it will be. Effective advertising survives. Gimmicky advertising dies.
Here are five reasons why sponsored in-tweet advertising is a gimmick that will not last.
- Push vs. pull. This is essentially classic push advertising. But social media is about pull. This tension will break down the logistics of “pushing” uninvited messages into personal streams. Are the advertisers able to prepare their twitterers to handle responses? (“@MyFriendJoe thx 4 telling me about phone promo. Tell me more… “ ) Are advertisers prepared to allow the audience to control the message at all? Can advertisers react quickly given both the speed of Twitter and a distributed set of twitterers, with who they may not have any direct contact? How will this shade other social media initiatives an advertiser is executing? Are the marketing and customer service departments sufficiently aligned?
- Short-term vs. long-term benefits. By acting as a mouthpiece for advertisers, twitterers use the platform they’ve built to earn cash. But they’re decrementing their valuable assets (reputation) for short-term money. It’s like a homeowner borrowing against their home equity to buy Christmas presents as opposed to, say, a new kitchen that will enhance the home’s value. This is antithetical to social media, which is built to allow us to borrow against our assets to build more long-term assets: every time we post a link or join a conversation, we are advocating where people who have some level of trust in us should spend their time. Effectively, we are borrowing against our goodwill asset to further enhance our reputation or perhaps gain deeper insight. These might quantify themselves in the future as job opportunities or new clients, all of which are worth more tomorrow than even a few thousand dollars today. Quite frankly, this is short money for the advertisers, too. Sponsored in-tweet advertising will not really build evangelists. It’s the same as a CPM buy. Okay, but social media holds much more promise. Seth Godin nicely articulates these points in Meatball Sundae.
- Targeting and timing won’t work. A few years ago when I worked at BuyDomains.com, we tested inserting ads from an ad exchange on some of our content pages. Unfortunately, most of the ads were irrelevant and we earned little to nothing. There just weren’t enough targeted ads for our somewhat arcane content. The fact is, matching advertisers to publishers is complicated. There’s approximately 25 mm monthly visiters to Twitter.com, and probably another 25 mm on apps. And every one of those has a completely customized experience. So delivering the right message to the right person is going to be like shooting a basketball while the basket is moving. Moreover, the basket is moving at the speed of light, which is roughly how quickly tweets fly in and we scroll through them.
- Too easy to ignore. Users learn to filter out all forms of advertising they want to ignore. This format in particular will be easy to catch and ignore, since the exchanges seem to be doing the right thing and promoting transparency. And what the eye won’t catch, new spam filters in your Twitter eventually will. Regardless of whether this is technically spam or not, filters became ubiquitous in email for a reason and they catch a substantial number of non-spam emails, too.
- More effective forms of monetizing Twitter will emerge. Sponsored in-tweet advertising is a quck and easy way to satisfy the desire to monetize Twitter today. It’s like the easy Sarah Palin joke a comedian tells to transition to more compelling material. I won’t attempt to capture all of the Twitter monetization ideas here, but, my god, every day, I log on and tell everyone exactly what interests me and what I’m hoping to learn more about. This data is so rich that a better mousetrap is bound to be invented that will render the gimmicks irrelevant.
I do concede that this may work with generic messages from celebrities, further separating the personal use of Twitter from the professional. And, if it’s an easy CPM buy, it could be easy for marketers to explan and get budget approval. But, check out the MLM twitterers who blasted away thanks to the Times article. What does that tell you?
By the way, did you catch the ad I inserted into this post? The link to Meatball Sundae is an Amazon affiliate link, so I will earn cash if you click and buy it. Do you care? Probably not, because I’m not inauthentically hawking the book. It’s just a good book from a well-known author. Am I willing to hawk the book so aggressively for a few cents that I eat away at the your trust? No, of course not. So why would I do so on Twitter?
My name is Adam Gross. 
Google +1 Takes on Like and Tweet
As with their other social initiatives, the introduction of Google’s +1 button has generated excitement mixed with head-scratching functionality questions. It’s another step in their ongoing quest to add the social graph to their ranking algorithms, originally based upon linking popularity, before Facebook can erode Google’s dominance by doing the reverse. I personally feel that Google has a more difficult task than Facebook. +1 does nothing to dissuade me.
+1 is a version both of Facebook’s Like and Twitter’s re-tweet: a way to share content you like. But at first glance, +1 falls short in two areas.
How to Use – Off the Website
Public / Private
Rewards for Using
Private
Public
Public
The first shortcoming is how to use it on Google itself. A search engine is by definition designed to help you find content and go. In order to click +1 on Google, you need to return to the search results and click +1. That’s unnatural. Especially when good sharing options are readily available on the content page itself (i.e. Like, Tweet, and every other social network under the sun). Adoption of +1 will depend on publishers adding +1 buttons to their content en masse, which they admittedly are inclined to do (after all, it won’t cost too much real estate, and the opportunity to influence Google search results is irresistible).
The second more serious shortcoming is defining exactly what rewards a user reaps by using +1. Sharing links on your Google profile page by itself certainly won’t float anyone’s boat. And, at this time, there’s no conversations or networking generated by +1. While there’s an obvious connection to Buzz that could be built, Buzz has its own issues.
So, Google remains as it was before: owning very nice discrete pieces, but without a clear compelling connection between them. The potential remains, though, and that will continue to get us excited for each announcement.
By the way, +1 has not been rolled out to everyone. You can to opt-in to use it at http://www.google.com/experimental/
Share this:
Like this:
April 2, 2011 at 6:03 pm Leave a comment