jump to navigation

Google v. Facebook: Defining groups for social networks July 11, 2011

Posted by David Card in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,

At last week’s product announcement, CEO Mark Zuckerberg contrasted Facebook’s approach to creating “groups” with that of Google, saying, “The definition of groups is . . . everyone inside the group knows who else is in the group.” Pretty clearly, he was responding to the Circles feature in Google+ that’s been attracting rave reviews from early adopters. Groups are critical for unified communications, content sharing and filtering, application interaction and distribution and identity management. In time, they may become important for advertising and marketing.

Facebook and Google handle group management quite differently. Understanding their strategies will help competitors and partners gauge one another’s chances for success and identify opportunities for complementary products and services.

Differing approaches

Facebook refined Groups last October; its previous Lists approach suffered from a low 5 percent adoption. Facebook wanted Groups to facilitate focused sharing and communications, while Lists would remain as a news-feed filter for power users. Facebook made Groups a two-way membership dependent on invitations. Besides assuring common membership, that tactic was geared to jump-start adoption by harnessing behavior similar to photo tagging, where a minority of participants does all the work.

Google’s Circles is easier to use and better integrated than Facebook’s options, and it functions as both filters and focused sharing/messaging. Since Google is starting from scratch, it has the advantage of practically forcing users into setting up Circles upon sign-in. But Circles is not reciprocal: While a user can follow contacts à la Twitter without requiring a two-way relationship, there’s no easy mechanism for creating single groups with common membership.

Outlook for success, opportunities

In a survey of 451 GigaOM users, many respondents explicitly called out Circles as having a competitive advantage over Facebook, praising its real-world affinity and its granular control over content and privacy. Early adopters see high rates of sharing. Meanwhile, since October, over 50 percent of Facebook users have become members of Groups, according to the company, lending some validity to the “power-inviter” concept. But there’s no telling how representative those Groups are of real-life connections.

In the end, organizing the masses on social networks into relevant groups will probably take big-data analysis that produces auto-suggestions that users can apply. That kind of approach may be coming soon. Similar types of sorting for relevance are well under way, with Google an early innovator.

Google makes its living analyzing relevance and has proven its capabilities with search results. It’s starting to demonstrate expertise in social relevance via its Gmail priority inbox, though its social search efforts may be stymied by the expiration of its Twitter data licensing. And Facebook applies its own EdgeRank algorithm to sort users’ news feeds by relevance. Users’ results may vary. I’d bet on Google getting group relevance right, but then again, Facebook has a lot of social graph data and plenty of money to hire scientists.

I’m surprised Google+ doesn’t pre-populate Circles already, although perhaps Google fears that that would creep people out. It could test reactions by offering the feature to existing priority inbox users. Likewise, Facebook automatically suggests adding members to Lists, but, oddly, not to Groups.

What kind of opportunities does that leave for third parties? Consider the following:

As noted, Google has advantages in defining groups, due to its existing expertise and the fact that it doesn’t have to retrofit a solution. But there’s already a hack to “Circle-ize” Facebook Groups. If either approach gains momentum, the other will no doubt copy it. Let the games begin.

Question of the week

Who will win in social network groups?

Predicting Twitter’s Best Business Opportunities April 5, 2011

Posted by David Card in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Last week, Twitter’s original CEO, Jack Dorsey, confirmed he was re-joining the company to head up product development. Dorsey returns to Twitter to correct some mistakes and address backlash from vocal digerati and, more importantly, from members of the Twitter ecosystem. Blogger complaints killed Twitter’s QuickBar, an iPhone app feature with a badly executed advertisement. Soothing the companies trying to build businesses around Twitter APIs will be more difficult. Twitter partners and competitors alike want to see how Dorsey will align Twitter products with its best business opportunities.

Dorsey laid out some of his early thinking at a Columbia University appearance. He conceded Twitter needs to be clear about its platform and product direction, and advised third-party Twitter developers to stay away from mainstream client apps. Rather, they should focus on integrating technologies like geolocation, recommendations, filters and mobile sensors. Actually, Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter client maker TweetDeck was great for a minority of high-value Twitter power users. Twitter itself, he said, should focus on attracting and serving more mainstream users — the ones that are consumers of Twitter content rather than creators.

Serving Mass-Market Consumers

Developing for the masses will help Twitter continue its evolution from an incestuous microblogging tool for techies, journalists and social media professionals into something a lot like a broadcast medium. ComScore tracks about 20 million U.S. monthly users of the Twitter site (undercounting mobile and client access, perhaps by 20 percent). One API watcher says the vast majority of Twitter accounts follow fewer than 10 others. Twitter must fix that if it’s going to bring value to mainstream content consumers.

Twitter’s history leads it to focus too much on connecting users to other users, rather than users to topics. Its first-screen promotions to “see who’s here” and view “Top Tweets” link to people or brands, or to individual tweets. Popular “Trends” displayed through a local filter on a user’s personal page is more topical, and more in line with mainstream online media approaches, where current headlines, “most popular” and local news/weather/events lead. Mass sites tell me “most popular” is far more effective in generating clicks than “related items.” Dorsey should prioritize collaborative filtering over complicated content management taxonomies.

But Twitter should also collect channels of topics to help unsophisticated users follow more relevant feeds. Twitter already partners with Sulia to deliver curated topic channels to other media companies based on Sulia’s editorial and algorithmic analysis of expert content. It should use those topic and time-driven channels itself. Twitter could promote recommendations with a smarter version of Twitscoop’s real-time topic cloud.

What About Advertising?

Though its ad platform is a product, Dorsey didn’t say much about revenue generation at Columbia. He admitted it was a challenge for marketers to tie together Twitter’s three current ad formats: Promoted Trends, Promoted Accounts and Promoted Tweets. Lately, Twitter has been telling advertisers to concentrate on Promoted Accounts and Promoted Trends at the expense of Promoted Tweets that run in a user’s feed.

In theory, the site takeover approach of a Trend could mimic timely, mass-reach advertising used by portals like Yahoo and AOL to great success for movie studios and holiday-themed sales. But a Promoted Trend now is a barely highlighted little text unit. Twitter’s attempt to feature it on the QuickBar attracted derision from digerati, who complained of its lack of relevance (and who probably use TweetDeck on their desktops, anyway). A smarter play would be a flashier ad unit on the Twitter.com site, where mainstream users congregate.

Better contextual targeting could alleviate some of the complaints about relevance. (Promoted Tweets show up as a result of Twitter searches.) If Twitter doesn’t want to manage a targeted ad marketplace, it could draw on the expertise of OneRiot, a company that’s trying to build a real-time ad network for other Twitter clients.

Question of the week

How should Twitter prioritize product development?