Posts Tagged ‘social networking’

  • 2010 Prediction: Many people will continue to not get it

    Julia Neuberger’s silly piece about social networking vs real life in the Guardian yesterday was a timely reminder that whatever else happens in 2010, old media commentators will continue to talk a great deal of sh*t. Probably for the whole decade.

    Julia doesn’t shilly shally – she comes straight to the point:

    Optimistic.

    Hmm. Punchy. Why?

    Her argument is simple. Using social networking sites [for example...], “MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn et al”, leads to social isolation because they all replace real-life social interaction, and because:

    Does Mrs Neuberger really believe this stuff? Does anyone believe that Mrs Neuberger has ever used even the three sites she has mentioned? Even for ten minutes?  (I have btw searched for Julia Neuberger on “MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn et al” – hoping to connect. Please note: I am not “looking for a partner”)

    And by the way, “MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn et al” is a very weird list… Do you even know what LinkedIn is Julia?

    Yes, we left it some time ago.

    And as we head into the next decade bouyed up with a million and one social media predictions, let us not forget the many who may never understand. Bless ‘em. This must be some of that high-quality journalism stuff they always talk about. Keep up the good work!

  • Apps for Telly

    Last week, the BBC Trust gingerly announced provisional approval of the BBC’s Project Canvas. 1245229063bbc_logo

    The aim of Project Canvas is to define a set of standards for set-top boxes that will allow integration of web and TV. Although, it isn’t clear exactly what the standards will consist of and what Project Canvas’ vision of IPTV really is.

    Set-top box manufacturers such as ThomsonHumax and Cisco are involved and have committed to share intellectual property relating to Canvas with the rest of their industry. Content providers such as ITV, Channel 4 and 5 are enrolled within the organisational structure of Canvas itself, as are broadband providers such as BT, TalkTalk and Carphone Warehouse. Google has also voiced clear support during public consultation. One organisation we wont see supporting the project is BSkyB who claim the proposal is anti-competitive and not within the remit of the BBC.

    Canvas won’t create, aggregate or sell content or act as an ISP. It’s merely acting to convene disparate industries and organisations to create a set of standards for Internet-enabled TV.

    But who really wants Internet-enabled TV?

    Read full post

  • Why you should pay attention to your friends of friends (and their friends)…

    How people affect and influence each other via networks is a very popular topic these days.

    Stumbled on on this very interesting article titled “Is Happiness catching?” in The New York Times published the day after my write up on John Cacioppo’s talk at the RSA on how loneliness is contagious.

    Read full post

  • The IPA Free Event

    I was pleasantly surprised when I heard that in keeping with the spirit of Chris Anderson’s Free, which was the inspiration for the evening, the IPA had chosen to make its latest event free to attend – something that I don’t think they are accustomed to. In return, attendees had to blog, tweet, take photos or videos of the event and help publicize it. So here I am, doing my duty.

    Ian Clark of thelondonpaper spoke about how they use free as an advertising model. I wasn’t quite convinced by what he had to say (“free liberates thelondonpaper to reflect on the priorities of the reader”), but was interested to hear about their Generation Free conference recently which documented what people had to say about the paper. You can see the output from their focus groups, as well as a couple of interesting presentations from the day, here. Ian also played a brilliant clip from the Conan O’Brien show that had him interviewing Louis CK who gave some killer one-liners, the best being “we have some of the most amazing technology in the world but it’s being wasted on the crappiest idiots”, with reference to people who didn’t appreciate technology for how amazing it is. Unfortunately, it’s no longer available on YouTube due to claims of copyright violation by NBC Universal, and unless you’re in the US, you can’t access it at all, even on their site. If you are in the US though, here you go:

    So much for free – NBC Universal, you suck (believe me, the clip is EXTREMELY entertaining and deserves way more coverage globally than it probably is getting).

    Clive Dickens from Absolute Radio spoke about their acquisition of Virgin Radio in their quest to become a bigger brand and of their initiatives to make money out of free in the music business, such as the Absolute iAMP for the iPhone app, investing in radio programmes that depend more on content via RJ’s rather than music since most music has a rights issue, and streaming footage of live concerts free online for a limited period like they did the Blur in Hyde Park concert recently. I thought Absolute would actually make an excellent ‘how to make money out of radio via free’ case study and kudos to them for sharing their lessons.

    Marc Allera spoke about mobile phone company 3’s experience with free via Skype, and using it as a hook to win over customers who use social networking profusely – he showed how average usage has gone up over the last few months as a result. Again, a good example, I thought.

    Finally, Matt Knight, Technical Creative Director at Wieden + Kennedy spoke about free in a completely different, and refreshing sense: he took us through the genesis of the Disposable Memory Project that he started and curates,and the stories he hopes will be told. Matt left a couple of cameras to make their way around the world at the end of the talk. I’m glad to say I managed to lay my hands on one, which I promptly went and dropped off in Dublin last weekend as I was on a holiday there, to play my part in the project.

    The IPA has put up most of the presentations on Slideshare, again very proactive of them. I must say that they are quickly going up in my eyes following their not too ancient debacle at their January event

    Update: The IPA got in touch with me on Twitter to let me know that Ian Clark’s presentation was on Vimeo, so here it is (and it has the Louis CK video – watch it!!)

    IPA Strategy Group ‘Free’ Presentation 14th July 09 from The IPA on Vimeo.

  • Is your attention worth more than mine?

    Today, most advertisers pay the same amount to serve 1,000 ads to a hyper-connected super-influencer as they do to my granny (granny only rarely uses the Web and has relatively few followers on Twitter). The CPM, or ‘cost per mille’, is undifferentiated from user to user – despite the fact that some users are very much more influential than others: the value is crudely determined by the advertiser, the site and the quality of your sales team.

    It’s true that there are snazzy behavioural targeting technologies that allow site owners to gain a higher degree of individual insight – for example, by tracking which sites and what type of content they have been visiting and consuming before arriving at yours – but the basic, flat-rate same-CPM-for-everyone is still the prevailing model for monetising online visits in the UK and US.

    One of the most interesting ideas discussed at last week’s SxSW was the idea of ‘Personal CPM’. The idea was mooted in Charlene Li’s talk on The Future of Social Networks as a natural consequence of:

    “Social networks becoming like air – not as in ’sites’ like MySpace and Facebook, but in terms of relationships and connections being available anywhere and everywhere”.

    The trend towards greater interoperability and technologies that allow us to port and share our online identities and social graph in more sophisticated ways across any and all of the digital services we use mean that it is only a matter of time before a site we visit knows how influential we are as individuals.

    How? By understanding a very great deal more about us as individuals from our social behaviours: namely, our social identities, contacts/network and activities. From this, as Charlene says below in an earlier video interview about the social algorithm, machines will be able to understand who’s important to us, what’s important, when and where and serve up more relevant and interesting recommendations.

    Of course, this will rely upon us opting in to share a whole lot more of our data, but there are huge incentives to do this. In a few years social technologies will be baked into everything around us and a social algorithm for sharing our data with this dynamic, smart-cloud will be like an invisible passport to access content and services wherever we are. Can you imagine stopping to log in to each individual service when *everything* is connected? And how many of us are already treading a dangerous and slightly chaotic line between public and private on Facebook, Twitter and other services? We certainly need help managing all this stuff, and it seems likely that we’d swap a key to our personal social algorithm for convenience and access. Of course, we’re not about to hand the keys to anyone, we’ll need trusted brokers. Charlene thinks Google is uniquely trustworthy and well-placed to be one of these brokers.

    Screenshot of a slide from Charlene Li’s Future of Social Networks presentation at SxSW09 on Slideshare

    One of the most interesting possibilities of a ‘personal social algorithm’ like this would be the ability of participating sites to analyse the value of your personal network on the fly. Advertisers would get charged more if you were particularly influential and less if you weren’t. Sites would also be able to serve more tailored and personalised ads, and also to show you what people in your network think of the content, services and products you’re looking at. As TV, Web and mobile converge this kind of personal CPM would become quite powerful, with the most connected and influential people generating significantly greater value than others. In this scenario, wouldn’t it be fair for the most connected and influential people to receive a share of the revenue?

Our latest tweets

Categories

Archives

Find us on the web