Is There Space for Myspace?

Myspace is probably the last social network anyone thinks of today, and that’s no big surprise since it is virtually dead. According to Sean Williams, these three things were what killed Myspace
http://on.msnbc.com/iDXkAM
.

1)Former owner News Corp did not understand Myspace’s user base: Rupert Murdoch and company may know a lot about running a newspaper or catering to a TV audience, but they sure didn’t know what to do with a social media site. It seems they were more concerned with revenue than listening to what users had to say. By the time they made an upgrade, it was too late.

2) Users had too much control: Unlike Facebook with its single platform/single page design model, Myspace gave its users access to extreme customization, which meant that each users’ page had a different design. This made the site hard to navigate and people lost interest. Giving users a few personalization options is ok, but giving them full control is going too far. When Myspace lost their cohesive image they also lost their cohesive identity.

3) Little or no barrier to entry: Myspace was quickly topped by other social media websites that arose. Part of the problem is that all it takes to own a social media website is starting capital. As the amount of social media sites exploded, Myspace became just another face in the crowd.

As of the past week, Andrew Khouri reports that Myspace has been sold to Specific Media’s Tim and Chris Vanderhook
http://lat.ms/qiZM22
. Internet banner selling sensations looking to grow their business into a digital media company producing web content and selling services to consumers, not just ads for businesses. Their goal is to revamp Myspace and turn it into a place to interact with celebrities and artists and view content produced exclusively for Myspace. Details are vague for now, with more information to come during a news conference later this summer. Although details are slim, one can speculate as to what it may resemble and look like. I see the new Myspace as one that is going back to its roots in a sense. Part of what drew a lot of traffic to Myspace was that it was a place for upcoming artists. I envision behind the scenes content, exclusive listening parties and perhaps exclusive recording sessions. Maybe even a release party. There are all kinds of ways they can capitalize on this type of model. Perhaps they will turn it into what Ping was never able to become. Ping was iTunes attempt at building a music-centered social media site within its own program. Its goal being that artists would join, fans would follow, and friends would buy music based on friend recommendations. Well, Ping didn’t have any zing and so it died.

Adam C. Engst discussed updates to iTunes back in September that aimed at making Ping more user-friendly while fixing bugs
http://bit.ly/o4EnlO
. However, a more recent article on July 14th about Apple’s iCloud talks about how Apple never understood how people interact on the web
http://bit.ly/nD7d3O
. Sounds familiar, kind of like News Corp. It goes on to state that after a lot of initial sign ups all Ping does is show what songs friends purchase, which is not exciting or interactive at all. So much for that idea. Whatever happens with Myspace, it can’t be as bad as Ping. The question is will it be something new and unique? Will it stand out? Will it be competitive with Google+, Twitter, and Facebook? Nobody has ever been able to resuscitate a dead website, but that is exactly what Specific Media’s Tim and Chris Vanderhook have set out to do. They even enlisted Justin Timberlake’s help. While I’m not sure if these efforts will be enough to save Myspace, there is definitely space for sites like this. Even the Vanderhook brothers see that digital networks are the next big thing. Hulu and YouTube’s increasing popularity are proof of this. Ultimately, there is space, but only time will tell if Myspace will be one of the sites to fill that space.

Foursquare: Another Social Network?

It seems that search engine giants, like Google, are not the only ones jumping into the social network arena. Foursquare, a location-based service, seems to be joining in the competition. First lets briefly define what categorizes something as a social networking website. Danah Boyd and Nicole Ellison define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to 1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and 3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others in the system”
http://bit.ly/e5MlA
. While this is by no means a complete definition it is a start. There are other features that commonly exist among social networking sites, thereby shaping the identity and definition of the term as well. Enough technical crap though, here are my thoughts and the signs I have seen that Foursquare is moving in this direction.

1) Perhaps the biggest indicator that Foursquare is becoming a social networking site is that it has given its iPhone app a newsfeed
http://on.mash.to/njBgV3
. The new ‘notification tray’ tracks more than your check-ins. It tracks comments on your check-ins, new comments on items you commented on, completion of your tips by friends and mayor status updates. Sound familiar? Facebook tracks comments on your status updates, sends you emails when others comment on statuses and photos you commented on, and displays game and status updates.

2)Foursquare is also now offering daily deals from sites like Groupon, Living Social, Gilt Groupe and others
http://on.mash.to/qfneWM
. Very similar to deals like those that are offered on Facebook and shared through Facebook and Twitter.

3)Foursquare is advancing into the realm of TV like Facebook and Twitter hashtags have before it. Take the recent Pepsi campaign for ‘Summer Time is Pepsi Time”
http://bit.ly/rkaLgm
. This commercial campaign that takes a jab at Coca-Cola also invites viewers to connect and interact by following Pepsi on Foursquare (a message displayed at the bottom of the screen during the commercial). This gets viewers involved in a game of check-ins at all of their summer fun destinations, earning them badges and, when they earn all three, entering them into a sweepstakes.

Based on these new additions, Foursquare is now a competitor. The question is, do Facebook, Twitter and Google+ have reason to fear? Well, take Google for example. At first its transformation into a social network was just a series of rumors. Critics had seen failed attempts from Google before and shrugged off any possibility of it ever becoming successful, much less competing with other social networks. As of July 11th, Google+ had 4.7 million users
http://bit.ly/n6q4cC
. Considering it launched on June 28th that’s a quick growth spurt that has undoubtedly increased a lot by now. I would not be so quick to shrug off Foursquare like people shrugged off Google. Foursquare may still be primarily a location service, but is increasingly moving towards becoming its own brand of social networking site. Whether others acknowledge that or not, Foursquare is showing it deserves some attention and that it may be a force to be reckoned with amongst the competition.

Social Media, Welcome to TV

Social media, in many forms, is now a part of TV and TV viewing. Recent examples from my own TV viewing experience include Twitter hashtags at the bottom of my favorite programs, for example #Glee. I’ve also noticed social media’s presence during a commercial that prompted me to interact by using the Shazam app when watching a singing or dance reality show. Another more recent example is when I had a Music Choice station on, where I was shown a QR code with the message to scan it to receive a free song from a certain artist. Basically no one can deny that social media is a part of TV viewing experience anymore, and its entanglement is ongoing. eMarketer specifically states that “live-tweeting supports live viewing” and that “Social Media Brings New Engagement to TV” now. All of these examples have that one thing in common, they encourage live viewing and discourage DVR. As a side note I am a big fan of DVR, but even I have been tempted by some of these live-viewing offers. While I do not think social media’s involvement will completely do away with DVR I do think it will encourage more live viewing. Let’s face it, DVR is a threat to TV. Today’s viewers live in a world that demands more of their time. In a world like that the obvious solution is to put off or cut out other things and that has led to DVR’s popularity. Before DVR it was recording shows on videotape. Some people act like DVR came out of nowhere as a new concept when really it was taking the prior concept of VCR recording and further integrating it with TV. With social media’s involvement, live-viewing is making a comeback. At the beginning of this week the Home Run Derby took advantage of this trend and had players and fans interacting on Twitter throughout the event
http://on.mash.to/pCuFJ7
. Another part of social media that is making its way to TV is video chat. Last week I wrote about Facebook vs. Google+ and it seems that the video chat technology launched by both social media platforms is a part of TV and will continue to expand into more areas of TV. One way in which it will work its way in is through TV interviews.

Phandroid has already figured out how to record Google+ hangout sessions and so it’s a given that someone will find a way to record Facebook video chats
http://bit.ly/oac4KK
. What does this mean for TV interviewers and entertainment show hosts? A convenient, money-saving way to interview people while looking tech-savvy. It also prompts engagement because interviews are then tied back to social media accounts like Facebook and Google+. While you can only video chat with friends via Facebook so far, not fans, there are ways around it. Interviewers can always have viewers post feedback in response to something with the promise to friend their favorites. This would allow them to video chat or leave a video message and that could appear on the air. Al Jazeera’s show “The Stream” frequently utilizes Skype for interviews so it can be done and it will be done more often. Video chat also allows news personalities to interact with viewers in new ways, such as hosting a chat before newscasts like KOMU-TV has done. There are those that speculate that social media TV platforms and apps will integrate video chat too and that it will become a normal part of TV viewing and interaction. Now that I have discussed what it will do for TV and TV viewers, here’s what it will do for the ad industry. One example is product placement in shows and movies shown on TV. Easily a place for hashtag insertion and if nothing else more people will be watching, because of increased live viewing, so those product placements will not go to waste. Another outcome could very likely be that commercials themselves have hashtags or QR codes that are only active while viewing the commercial. The QR code would open up the Facebook page or website of the brand to prompt further engagement, such as purchasing the product online, making it a direct viewing to sales link. There are so many options and so many wide-ranging effects of social media’s involvement in TV. TV needs social media and social media needs TV. It is a mutually beneficial relationship that has no limit to what it can become. The only limits are your own imagination.

Facebook vs. Google+

As soon as Google rolled out their Google+1 button the rumors started about Google forming its own social network. Although they denied it at the time they were doing just that. Google+1 is its name and it has been up and running for just a week. In that time it has 88% male users (10% women and 2% who did not identify themselves), it has a ‘circles of sharing’ feature, it’s one of the top ten sites referring traffic back to Tech Crunch’s website and it has a popular group video feature called ‘Google+ Hangout’
http://yhoo.it/nmTnrX
. The issues so far with Google are that its audience does not allow for a lot of connection. Right now it’s predominately a male tech lover’s domain. This dampens the features that might put it in contention with Facebook once Google+’s user base expands. Here I must mention that the ‘circles of sharing’ feature made me immediately think of Meet the Parents Jack Byrnes and his circle of trust. That aside, Google’s ‘circles of sharing’ is the answer to Facebook’s group feature except users manually manage who is in which circle. Those who are in someone’s circle do not know which circle they are in, or probably that they even are, and do not know who else is in the same circle. People seem to like this feature but how can that kind of secrecy connect people? Not quite sure this makes sense yet, it may need some more work. By far the most popular feature is the Google+ Hangouts, a group chat feature that allows users to stream multiple video feeds into a single chatroom space and even share videos there. While this may be its one redeeming feature thus far, it all comes back to who’s on Google+ and the answer so far is not many. Overall, how does this compare to Facebook? Facebook already has everyone there, making it easier to add on features and apps to further build relationships between users. This is obviously problematic for Google+ as they do not measure up in this category yet.

As for Google+’s ‘circles of sharing,’ Mark Zuckerberg claims that users do not want to manually manage their own friends
http://read.bi/qRVImL
. He goes on to add that his definition of groups is that everyone who is in a group knows that everyone else is in that group. As far as the Google+ Hangout goes, Facebook launched its own new chat features on Wednesday. Their new chat design, group chat, and 1 to 1 video chat features improve Facebook and enhance its ability to connect people
http://bit.ly/oPExLg
. The new chat design improves usability by making Chat a sidebar so users can more easily browse while they chat. Also, you can limit availability on chat, making you appear available only to a certain group of people whenever you choose. Secondly, users can add people to their 1 to 1 conversation to make it a group chat. If any information previously discussed should not be seen by those joining it’s not a problem because those who join see a clean slate. Conversation for them begins when they enter and does not appear as a continuation of chat. Then there is Facebook’s video chat option. Eventually they plan to partner with Skype for added paid services with more features. Perhaps they’ll even add a group chat to compete with Google+. For now a video chat increases the means of interaction available. Google+, for its part, plans to roll out non-user (read brand or company) pages later this year that link them to AdWords
http://selnd.com/nB8m25
. For now though, Facebook reigns supreme with its fully functioning company and brand pages. Overall, Facebook still has the edge. Mainly because it was there first and is in a later stage of development. The audience is already there and they are simply building upon their foundation now. Google+ has a lot of catching up to do if it is going to compete. Sure it has plans and Google+ Hangouts, but is that going to be enough to bring and keep users there? Facebook has the upper hand because social is the only thing that they do. Google is search, ads, etc. in addition to being social. That is a lot to juggle. Facebook sticks to social and it’s what they do well. Based on this, and my previous points, I see Facebook leading this competition for a long time to come.

Social Media in Progress

There are interesting strides being made with social media, as companies seek to shape their own direction as well as influencing the direction and decisions of their users. Take Foursquare, for example, and its recent partnership with American Express
http://nyti.ms/iC5wx3
. Users that link these accounts will receive special deals at shops and restaurants they check in at. There are some definite upsides of this partnership, American Express reaching a younger demographic (Foursquare reaches the 35 and under crowd), American Express users spending more, and more people signing up for American Express cards. For Foursquare, the ROI is that this opens the door for other similar partnerships. This partnership came about through a pilot of the program run at South by Southwest music and technology conference. The results? On average, users in the program (card holders linked to Foursquare) spent 20% more than users not in the program (card users not linked to Foursquare). This definitely indicates more engagement, but what does that really mean? 20% of users spent more money on average. On average means that the majority spent more money, but not all did because the total was averaged out. Also, this was a small demographic and fails to account for other variables. Other variables would be customers own thoughts and desires before receiving the deals, plus their rationality after receiving the deals. These are tough things to measure. While the effort shows promise and indicates some type of engagement, it is indicative of most social media efforts thus far. Moving in the right direction but not quite to the point of completing the equation when it comes to ROI. Farhad Manjoo examines this same topic in his article “Does Social Media Have A Return On Investment?” while looking at a couple of other scenarios. I love social media and see it as having great potential. What I am merely saying is that its measurement metrics are still a work in progress. They are great indicators of engagement but do not directly tie social media and sales together yet. Foursquare’s American Express partnership is an example of social media in progress because it’s a mutually beneficial partnership, but measurement metrics have not advanced enough to measure its full effect.

Something else about social media that needs work, and this is more in the minority than the majority, are websites that develop methods of shaping their direction by offering rewards that do not tie in well with their identity. American Express works for Foursquare because Foursquare is all about rewarding check-ins with deals and getting customers to spend money. If they are spending money on their American Express, and getting unique deals because of that, well then it’s that much better. Wikipedia’s effort to gain more editors and develop a more loving vibe on the website seems ill-matched. Ben Parr talks about how Wikipedia is adding a love button so users can spread the love to reward good edits and updates on the site
http://on.mash.to/ljX27o
. While this seems like a positive idea, it’s the way they go about it that cheapens the experience. When users click on the heart button on a user page it brings up a ‘WikiLove menu’ that enables users to send things like kittens and beer to other users. First of all this sounds like a direct rip off of Facebook and their free gifts (which eventually had to be paid for in order to send them). Wikipedia’s effort seems very juvenile, it’s unoriginal, and it does not seem like a system that would attract the type of editors needed to improve its content. I do agree with their graph analysis that indicates something must be done about the negativity, but I do not think this is the way to go about it. This is an example of social media in progress because some sites are still developing their own identity. Ok, I’ll admit it. The title for this entry is a double entendre. While I have been discussing how social media is making strides, at the same time I am indicating that it is still a developing medium. I think that is an acknowledged fact and I don’t believe that anyone would say social media has arrived and has all of the answers yet. In time, I believe it will improve and paint a more complete picture of the effect it has now and will have in the future. Social media can be a useful tool, and will only increase in the analysis and development of measuring its ROI.