Becoming a Retail Survivalist

It’s a common sight. Customers scanning items in stores to find the bigger, better deal. Especially now, it seems everyone’s looking to get quality items for the lowest price around. With smartphones being so ubiquitous, it’s almost like your business is flying out the door. It’s a jungle out there and it’s all about survival of the fittest. How do you turn the situation around? What’s going to keep business in your store? Let’s explore.

1) Challenge Showrooming: Chuck Martin refers to customers shopping, scanning and then ordering online or from lower-priced retailers as showrooming http://bit.ly/M444cR. There are two ways to tackle this. Counter-showrooming, or customer service, and reverse showrooming. Even before mobile phones, there were always situations where you had to regain control of the sale. It’s not much different now. Customer service, or paying attention to customers and going the extra mile, can diffuse a lot of difficult situations and keep money in your pocket. Reverse showrooming is like turning lemons into lemonade, as it turns scanning into money for your store. Basically reverse showrooming is using the showrooms of retailers to sell their products to people who aren’t there. Shop My Label, a consumer-to-consumer online shopping startup, aims to do just that. By partnering with stores, it allows customers to scan merchandise to put in their own virtual stores. Within those virtual stores customers can make outfits from the clothing of multiple retailers, and they receive up to 10% commission on anything they sell. Shop My Label is designed to drive full price sales and free shipping is a part of the deal. A startup like this is something that’d be especially popular with millennials, which is crucial as 75% of them always have their mobile while shopping and 73% of them already make transactions on their mobile http://bit.ly/Oz32CG.

2) Take Advantage of Indoor Mapping: IMS analyst Alex West notes that both Google and Microsoft are already mapping indoor spaces, and firms like Aisle 411, Micello and Point Inside are compiling databases of indoor maps http://bit.ly/PO016t. Shopping malls and complexes are not immune to this, but they have ways to take advantage of it. Much like reverse showrooming, malls could make use of interactive indoor maps and get customers using their stores’ apps. In fact, an interactive map should display app icons for any stores that have an app and clicking on those icons should connect customers to an immediate download. Having customers utilize apps is sure to drive more foot traffic and build more connections as convenience (ease of finding and purchasing items) would be significantly increased. Just look at Point Inside’s work with Meijer on a Find-It app, with couponing and item ordering features as well as in-store tools for finding items on certain shelves. The app even helps customers locate restrooms and the bottle return. With convenient features like these, interactive mapping and apps have the potential to revitalize and grow retail in a whole new way.

3) Utilize Facebook’s ‘Want’ Button: Recently, web developer Tom Waddington discovered a disabled ‘want’ button in Facebook’s Javascript SDK http://bit.ly/MjuYPS. When activated, the ‘want’ button will work with Open Graph projects with the tag ‘products’. Open Graph is a new class of apps allowing users to share what they’re doing, and invite others to join, without being overwhelming. It connects other users to the objects of other people’s actions. For example, if your friend were cooking with a new recipe from a website it would link you to that recipe. A ‘want’ button would thus connect other users to the same products that others want, allowing them to declare their want if they want that item too. This feature would give companies the ability to gauge interest in certain products as well as distinguish between likes and wants. It’s a big step that would bring about a whole new set of user data along with more accurately targeted ads. A win for consumer and retailer alike.

Well there you have it, three steps to success. In today’s environment you must have the edge. These up-and-coming tactics are designed to provide that edge and help you become a retail survivalist. Some you can put into effect now, and others you need to watch for and adapt to as they come. Knowing about tactics like these is half the battle, implementing them is the other half. Put both of these halves together and you are on your way to being invincible.

Trends and Tragedies of 2011

With the end of the year approaching I figure it’s time for an end of the year review of what went right and what went wrong in 2011. In fact, this will be the start of an annual review. Without further ado, here are my top two trends and top two tragedies.

Trends :

2) Groupon Epidemic: Perhaps the most interesting development of the year was the Groupon epidemic, as dozens of other daily deals sites quickly sprang up to compete. LivingSocial, Facebook Deals, Google Offers, and many more. Along with that has been the quest to turn their often one-time customers into repeat customers. My guess is that until there are memberships and membership rewards for sites like these that pattern will continue.

1) Google+: Marking the expansion of social media was the arrival of Google+ September 20th. Google+ went where Facebook had yet to go, the next plateau so to speak. Google+ offered users the ability to create social circles and chose what was shared with each group (or circle). Additionally, Google+ gained attention with its “Hangouts” video chat feature where you can chat with up to ten people at a time and share content while chatting. Meanwhile, MySpace tried to reinvent itself by focusing more on music. Haven’t heard how that worked out, so either MySpace is hanging out under the radar or it died for the second and final time.

Tragedies:

2) Lowe’s: Yes, the recent incident with Lowe’s makes my list for a few reasons. Not only was it the wrong move, it came at the worst possible time when all companies are under the microscope. The holiday season. Lowe’s pulled its advertising from TLC’s American Muslim based on a call to boycott by Florida Family Association. Then they tried to claim it was because the show sparked a lot of controversy and they wanted to opt out of that conversation. Basically it made them look racist. It was poorly timed and badly handled, need I say more?

1) Groupon: In this case a top trend was also a tragedy as demonstrated during this year’s Super Bowl. Something Groupon has in common with Lowe’s is that the Super Bowl is also a poor time to make a poor statement. However, it’s even worse when it’s your public debut as was the case here. Groupon’s first ad spot was a series of commercials that turned tragedies into punch lines to drive deal-seekers to its site. Most notable was the plight of Tibet being turned into an opportunity to try its food. Oppression, destruction of the rainforest and decreasing whale populations are hardly material for a joke, but that’s where Groupon went here. Although it did attempt to make amends, Groupon learned a valuable lesson. Think before you speak or insert foot in mouth here.

Well, there you have it, a few things that made positive and not so positive imprints on the year 2011. A lesson in what to do, and what never to do again. As companies and brands prepare to start the year with a clean slate, well some of them anyways, we look to 2012 and the possibilities it brings for advertising, marketing, social media and journalism. Possibilities for new things, and in some cases rebranding and retribution, but mostly new things. Until next year, this is me, signing off.

 

Ready for Social Display Ads?

Ready or not, here they come. Google+ has introduced a social layer to display ads on their Google Display Ad Network http://bit.ly/thvrHU. An extension of what started at the beginning of the year, Google+ has added a +1 button to its search ads. This move allows users to endorse those ads  by clicking the +1 button, displaying that endorsement and their profile picture to their connections. Images in Google search of connections who have +1′d an article or web page are common, now the same thing will apply to search. When the ad loads, images of connections who have “endorsed” the ad will be displayed along with a count of how many others have done the same. After 10 seconds it will fade away from the bottom of the ad. Google’s +1 display ads aren’t unlike Facebook turning ‘likes’ into social sponsorships that are displayed and known as “Sponsored Stories” within a user’s newsfeed. So, what effect do they have? For advertisers it’s a good thing, in the sense that it appears to show more interest and indicate which ads are more relevant to their target audience based on their clicks. Plus more click-throughs equal more money for agencies. However, as I have spoken about before, there is more to declaring interest than clicking on a button. When it comes down to the bottom line, and money is always the bottom line, actions are what translate into product sales. Just because a clicked button indicates interest and intent to purchase does not 100% of the time add up to definite and prolonged interest and engagement. Additionally, people may not fully understand that by clicking that ‘like’ or ‘+1′ button they are endorsing and/or sponsoring something.

Their true motivations for clicking it are to express to the brand that they support or like it. Whether they continue to isn’t often measured, because we often don’t follow-up beyond measuring overall clicks. I have yet to see a list of clicks broken down into clicks per specific users, probably because you can’t click twice on something to +1 or ‘like’ it. A major flaw of the system. Especially since 60% of agencies cite brand recall and intent to purchase as the most important measures of online success http://bit.ly/vDVBD5. Clicks and conversions are still key, but how do you measure ongoing engagement, brand recall, or an audience from that? The last part of that especially baffles me because clicks make it seem like your audience is growing but how do you know that even half of those people are still part of your audience? Another alarming component is that for 57% of agencies, the majority of their display objectives are building their brand while only 11% cite ad creative as critical to the campaign’s success http://bit.ly/vDVBD5. The way I see it, ad creative and display objectives aren’t two separate things. It takes ad creative to build a brand in the first place. People need to be interested in the brand to try it and they usually have to try it to like it. Where does that come from? Ad creativity. Is it any wonder that the best Superbowl ads are often aligned with the leading brands? All food for thought. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the bandwagon with social display ads. Like anything it is something to be entered into thoughtfully, and what I’m seeing is “let’s exploit word of mouth online to get more click-throughs.” Yet it’s not about click-throughs, it’s about consumers’ relationship with the brand right? If it really is about consumers’ relationship with the brand, we may need to reexamine this preoccupation with click-throughs. Are they good? Yes. Are they the best indicator of ongoing engagement? No. They are just one piece of the puzzle and need to be treated as such.

The New Face of Search

Search is changing the way we look up information, find information, and even share information. Recently, Google activated a new algorithm that delivers the latest and most relevant information for news stories, recent events and reviews http://tcrn.ch/t7u1sd. The new algorithm is the result of two updates, its “Caffeine” update last year helped Google index content faster and this year’s “Panda” update decreased content farm rankings. Thus, the most recent news results are being featured more prominently, and not as many low quality SEO-optimized ones are taking up space at the top. Search is also becoming more social as Bing has integrated Facebook and Twitter into its results http://bit.ly/vIW5ue. Friends’ ‘likes’ show up under search results, you can get friend recommendations while shopping, and Bing will notify friends in the area of your trip’s destination. LinkedIn now has LinkedIn Today, a feature that brings together the most-shared headlines related to multiple industries by members of the network http://bit.ly/vDzXOO. LinkedIn Today allows you to see what your connections are reading, tweet trending news, post it to your LinkedIn groups or email it to your connections, and even see the professional backgrounds of those sharing stories. All of these set the bar higher for search, what it can bring to those seeking information as well as the way search is utilized. Aside from its benefit to news, current events and recent reviews, it could even play a part in this upcoming holiday season.

Take Black Friday for instance. People looking up deals won’t have to type in Black Friday 2011, because Google will already know that’s what is meant. Then they can jump on Bing and see which deals their friends are tuned into, as well as learn about additional ones their friends are going for that may be of interest to them also. This can also turn into the organization of a group shopping trip. Marketers and advertisers can utilize this by posting frequent updates about deals, to make the best use of Google’s algorithm, and stores can keep customers informed as to what deal items are still in stock. A one-click buy button could even be added which takes you right to the checkout page to purchase the item while the deal is in effect. If it could do all this for Black Friday, just think about all of the opportunities during the rest of the Christmas shopping season. It’s a win-win, the customer is informed and can communicate with others all on the same device, and merchandise sells because more people are aware, informed, and enticed. How can you take advantage of this to benefit your holiday season? First, make sure to post frequently so that you keep customers in the loop and your search results at the top. If they see yours first it’s more likely to be the one they choose. Next, be sure that your Twitter and Facebook presence is as frequent as any posts on your website or other websites. A consistent and frequent presence ensures that you and your product are where your customers are searching, and allows for sharing to occur. After that, be vigilant and involved in the conversation. This is the time of year where great customer service matters even more. A great impression now could make you their go-to option the rest of the year too. The new face of search opens up a multitude of opportunities, this is only one of them, and they are ripe for the taking. The only question is, who will use it the best and come out on top? As to that, I say good luck and stay tuned.

The Rise of Hyperlocal

With the growing popularity of geolocation services like Gowalla and Foursquare, increasingly, a parallel can be drawn. There’s an increasing fascination with the concept of hyperlocal. Hyperlocal is on the rise and it’s pushed connectivity to a whole new level. But is there a saturation point? If so, are we about to or have we reached that saturation point? Have things become more relevant? Or too personal? To the first, my response is most likely, to the second not yet, to the third I’d say in some ways, and to the 4th at times yes. Here’s where hyperlocal gets it right, and where hyperlocal gets it wrong. First, how it gets it wrong.

1) When companies or brands get too personal. In July, WhitePages introduced its “Neighbors” feature, which allows users to see who their neighbors are and set up block parties with those neighbors http://bit.ly/qUw9WB. WhitePages needs to be careful with this feature. I would find it weird if one of my neighbors showed up with smartphone in hand, introducing themselves and stating they found me on WhitePages “Neighbors” feature. They really should allow people to opt out of being included in this. 

2) When companies or brands  go hypercasual. You’ve seen it, all the “lol” lexicon that came from instant messaging. Well, that and other too casual approaches are what make up hypercasual. Bobbie Johnson notes that there are strategic ways to be friendly and playful, like Flickr, and then there are others http://bit.ly/nJtwwS. If it’s unique, strategic, and appropriate to the company and to the brand, then its a smart move. When you relax your voice for social media and just say whatever comes to mind, share videos, etc. and customers leave? That is an example of being too friendly, and not being tapped into what your customers want from their relationship with you. Basically, think about what you say before you say it. 

Now where hyperlocal gets it right.

1) When companies or brands get competitive. WhitePages, in addition to its creepy “Neighbors” feature, also released a free mobile app called ”Localicious” http://bit.ly/qUw9WB. “Localicious” integrates tips, trends and reviews of places in over 80,000 neighborhoods across the country and offers a pre-checkin check-in setup. Basically, WhitePages is adding a social dimension to its one-dimensional outlook and purpose as a print directory. In that regard, I applaud them. This makes them multi-purpose and puts them on a competitive level with geolocation apps, a smart move.

2) When companies or brands expand upon their bottom line, becoming more multi-dimensional. Yes, they already have a revamped Google Places, a daily deals component, and have added a more social dimension to search. Now Google is going local with their recent purchase of Zagat, a high-end restaurant and shopping reviews publisher http://bit.ly/qFRpWk. This addition, combined with search, offers more access to local resources and more ad space. For Google, hyperlocal is the logical next piece of the puzzle in transforming themselves into a multi-dimensional company. Also, unlike WhitePages’ “Neighbors” feature, they are playing it smart.

To sum it up, hyperlocal can be good when it adds another dimension to your offerings and makes you more competitive. Where it goes wrong is when it gets too personal or hypercasual. There’s a fine line, some know how to walk it and some go too far. The ones that walk the line will have an edge, and the ones that go too far are potentially flirting with disaster. These examples serve as case studies for how to use hyperlocal to your advantage and avoid its pitfalls. Case studies can only do so much though, it’s what you do with them that matters and how you use them that directs your future.

Google+, Still Minus the Plus

Google+ may have a plus sign attached to its name but it’s still missing crucial features that hold it back from taking the lead. There are many opinions on what Google+ is lacking, and for these purposes I’m comparing two of them: Launch blog’s The Google+ Punch List (21 Items Google Must Add to Plus) and 7 Facebook Features Google Plus Still Lacks. The first goes into an account of not only what the author (whose name I did not see or he would be mentioned here) sees as missing but what actual Google+ users would like to see. Meanwhile, the other list, by David Cohen, is more direct and concise. While these lists differ, there are certain points they both agree must be present. Perhaps the most obvious thing that Google+ is missing is a search feature. It’s one of the main ways a user can discover content, opinions and even reviews. Basically, search is part of the glue that would connect this network’s users. Google being the search engine giant it is, can it really afford not to integrate search into Google+? Sending Google+ users to Google to find answers is ridiculous. Both of them also agree that an Application Programming Interface (or API) is essential, but for different reasons. Launch blog points out the threat of hackers, while Cohen focuses on Google+’s compatibility with other applications, such as Foursquare. The fact that there is more than one reason Google+ needs an API says it all.

‘A birthday widget,’ as Launch blog calls it, and ‘events and birthdays,’ as Cohen calls it, are also seen as a necessary add. What they forget to mention is that this is another feature Google has but chooses not to integrate. As a former member of a college group that used Google Calendar, I know it exists and that it allows people to plug their schedules in and share them with other people. This is where Google+ is making one of several big mistakes. Humans need reminders and a place to keep everything straight. Google Calendar is that feature and why it is not part of Google+ is a mystery to me. Brand pages are also a competitive feature Google+ still lacks. Google+ has a lot of unique opportunities for brands, but Facebook still leads because Google+’s brand pages are still in development. There is a place for brands on Google+ and the sooner they make space for them, and give them the kind of tools that Facebook does, the better. While they converge on these points, neither is a complete list of what Google+ is missing that Facebook already has and is doing better. Despite Google+’s lag, Facebook still feels the heat because it recently launched a small business service explaining how to utilize all of Facebook’s marketing tools (ads, deals, social plugins, sponsored stories, etc.) http://on.mash.to/pRXzDY. According to Digital Media’s Steven Musil, Facebook may not have much to fear after all, as they see Google+’s traffic dropping http://cnet.co/na6cnX. Perhaps this is just a lull, or perhaps it is indicative of Google+’s buzz leveling off for good. Whether Google+ could ever succeed in conquering Facebook, even with the additions mentioned above, remains to be seen. For now, Google+ might want to rethink that + at the end of its name.

For Twitter? A Slice of Facebook’s Pie

I have written about the competition between Google+ and Facebook, this is the next installment. Not only is Google+ going after Facebook but Twitter is too. You may remember that part of Facebook’s success that allowed it to beat out FriendFeed came from borrowing, more like appropriating, FriendFeed features. According to an older article by Steven Musil, Facebook made it so users could import YouTube, StumbleUpon, Pandora, Hula, Last.fm and Google Reader into the feed http://cnet.co/7xs38t. The article goes on to confirm that Facebook’s commenting system is similar to FriendFeed’s as well as the ‘Like’ button. Guess you really do have to trademark everything. It is not uncommon to hear of people copying features, it happens with or without patents and trademarks. It’s just online the rules seem a little more lax. Twitter is now coming for Facebook like Facebook came after FriendFeed. Perhaps not quite in the same manner, but their actions definitely speak for themselves. Facebook recently announced that it’s testing an update to its news feed to include space for third-party platform buttons http://cnet.co/pkxfzw. Here, gestures other than the ‘like’ button would allow users to more easily share information and content about products and services as well as see what their friends are commenting on and liking. This is an effort to draw more marketers and advertisers to the site. Facebook will have to be careful, because there is a line there to be crossed.  The same goes for Twitter who is launching a similar concept in its quest to best Facebook.

Twitter is also appealing to marketers and advertisers by tweaking its promoted tweets system to reach Twitter followers more directly http://dthin.gs/pXaxtd. However, their approach does not sound as intrusive as Facebook’s. Twitter has dubbed its new product ‘Promoted Tweets to Followers’ and its features involve brand ads in the form of promoted tweets showing up at the top of a user’s timeline the second they sign in to Twitter. Then they move down in the timeline like any other tweet, so as not to be a  permanent fixture.  This solves one of the old problems of promoted tweets because promoted tweets would happen and get buried without a lot of users seeing them. Twitter is also trying to one up Facebook by testing a new feature that operates a lot like a Facebook wall. Their version makes it easier to post on a Twitter user’s page, share content and chat http://lat.ms/rtCVO8 . Now both of these Twitter moves directly challenge Facebook. Not only is Twitter recreating a Facebook wall, it’s using promoted tweets in a new way to counter Facebook’s expansion of the ‘like’ button. You almost half expect Facebook to roll out promoted status updates, but that would be too obvious. The dynamic here is two social media giants battling it out for all the glory. A little competition can be healthy, a whole lot can be deadly. Hopefully neither of them will go the way of MySpace as this plays out.  Each has a solid platform so this shouldn’t be an issue. Whether one wins, continually proving its superior status to the other, or not, both will stick around and endure as an example. It’s a fact of life that sometimes it’s necessary to do what Twitter is doing in order to prove you’re the best. To take someone’s idea and execute it better and in a more meaningful and useful way is a very compelling strategy. However, they have a lot to compete with when it comes to Facebook. Facebook is not to be underestimated. When it comes down to it, this is a game of wits. It’s obvious what Twitter wants, a piece of Facebook’s pie. Whether they will get it, or just be seen as a second-rate copycat, remains to be seen.

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.

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.