Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Daily Links for 08.06.2010

A cross platform ad solution can definitely help to utilize scale in development, but encoding Adobe Flash into HTML 5 (to make it Apple palatable), probably won't sit well with Cupertino. Interactive ads (including iAds) are utilizing HTML 5 in a way that shouldn't allow for an outright and quick ban of this workaround, but I wouldn't be surprised if something happened along those lines in the future.
Reconciling how advertising placement is classified and measured relative to online & application channels should make for an interesting time as iPad ownership continues to grow
I've loved this campaign since I saw it in Clapham North Tube station last week. AMV captures the spirit of intellectual debate by juxtaposing two sides of an arguement on alternate OOH posters, showing the way that a similarly intellectual publication can interrogate an issue.
Socialized shopping through Facebook & Twitter seems to have more impact than just enhancing the brand experience. Interesting figures on how tangible spend can come from social media interaction.

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Why Online Buzz Shouldn't Equate to TV Ratings....

   An article in last weekend's 'New York Times' posed the opinion that 'Online Buzz Doesn't equate to Ratings', which is something I completely agree with, but for different reasons. The NYT's piece compares an index of social media conversation volumes to Nielsen viewer data to illustrate that of the Top 10 most discussed shows, only 4 are in the top 10 by US viewership. Though the comparison starts to illustrate the nuances of online conversation analysis, I think that it also touches on a relatively global & basic idea about networking & human conversation.

   As shown previously in the analysis of Twitter conversation about the Superbowl & the FA Cup Final, events are normally a safe bet to drive conversation volumes online. I use 'normally' because not every large event targets the majority of the heavy online demographic or cohesively calls to action users in a way that generates a noticeable conversation mass. However, generally we prefer to share our thoughts and experiences around a singular event with others and this leads to a relatively easy to track message/activity volume (Eurovision final, I'm shamefully looking at you).


   Extrapolating online tracking into television, I can see where the NYT article gets its premise and its contradictory tone. The Top 10 US television series are highly anticipated and, in their own way, weekly broadcasting events. Logic would dictate that such shows drive conversation for an activate audience which would generate a cohesive and noticeable mass of conversational activity through sharing the viewing event. The contradictory discrepancy in top online and viewership shows illustrates that not every top viewership show activates an on-line audience.

The lack of support for my #bumbum hashtag is listed as the primary reason that the show was canceled....

    Though the promotional purpose of combining TV viewership with online activity is to share the viewing experience and promote content, after the fact analysis is different. While large events like the Lost finale or an American Idol episode generate something to rapidly discuss (all the while interacting with a viewership that is relatively digitally savvy), I imagine less marquee events such as CSI, NCIS or a really good Law & Order (possibly a personal bias) won't galvanize action in the same volume or time frame, skewing the relationship between ratings and conversation volume.

    Alternatively, the nature of online networks means that conversation volume can spike for TV events which lack overall popularity. Due to the propagation of online viewing 'sub-cultures', its feasible to say that activity spikes for the season finale or prominent episode of a low/mid rated show could mimic the online activity of larger mainstays. Online 'sub-cultures' can drive their specific viewing tastes away from the mainstream, supporting viewing events with such interaction that they mimic the volume of conversation for large, mainstream events.

   So between the activity and content biases towards discussing certain shows online, is there a place for networks such as Twitter to predict viewership? I say there is still a large role for online messaging analysis in predicting/monitoring show performance, but not from overall message volumes. If we, as marketers & analysts, move more towards analyzing the volume of conversation in segments or over time, as opposed to relative to other shows or in general, we can begin to gather insight into content effectiveness.Even with a specific focus though, frequency analysis seems better suited for online PR analysis or advertising effectiveness, than viewership analysis.

Safe....for now...

   More effectively, the real worth of online TV content analysis comes from 'what' users are saying, not the frequency of it being said. While message frequency can begin to illustrate quick reactions to events, it doesn't posess the power to predict larger events that would equate to rating a viewing session. If we analyze what users are saying, we can begin to form a general opinion on how a user reacts to content (not just if and when) and whether they would return to share such an event again. While analysis of such content isn't currently quick or easy, it represents the true value of online conversation analysis.

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

Daily Links: (02.06.2010)

The death of IE6 can only breathe more functionality into every user's internet experience. Developing web content for a browser which managed to break almost every standard of design was horrible on its own, but the staying power of IE6 over the last 8-10 years has done massive damage to where Internet usability could be. The browser, mostly propped up by corporate usage over the last few years, has seen its time pass well by. Now, if we could only get Firefox's browser share above one of the other IE versions.
Its amazing to see traditionally huge retailers, which are used to crushing the competition with scale and large locations, considering the idea of 'right sizing' retail formats.The approach that grocers like Tesco & Sainsbury in the UK have used, seems to be catching on. Trading just large locations for a mix of corner store/local to hypermarket mixes seems to be the way forward. Its become true that not everything has to be a big box destination location and consumers will trade selection for convenience in some circumstances.
Really straightfoward yet informative look at what makes up the 'semantic' web everyone is talking about. Semantic & Web 3.0 get banded around alot, but I think this video starts to break down what it might be about and the different ways to get there.
Its interesting that Loopt has 3.4 million users to Foursquare's 1.4 million, as it seems that Foursquare has captured the geo-located zeitgeist in a more pronounced way. The advent of Loopt Star (the integrated gaming/retail incentive) element for the network should increase attractiveness (and the facebook integration is a plus), but I'll be intrigued to see if they can do anything that hasn't already been done. I don't want to be the mayor and the boss of my favourite pub, I just want to know where my friends are around it and maybe get a free round. It seems like this market will contract before/during its rise in popularity.

AppleInsider | iPhone OS 4 beta 4 Places geotagging feature now works
So first everyone is talking about possible Facebook integration into the iPhone/iPod OS and now these pictures arrive from the OS 4 Beta. Between integrated geotagging of pictures and the 'places'/'event's headers, it seems like the next offering is moving towards a heavily unified content sharing platform.
The 'internet of things' seems to still be a rather unclear concept, but as our devices become more and more connected, the reality of it is becoming more and more tangible. I love the juxtaposition that more data can generate greater insights, but also requires much more complex ideas and techniques.

Sunday, 30 May 2010

London Advertising Agencies on Foursquare (28.05.2010) [Infographic]

   
 So given that the last London Foursquare Agency graphic was a bit more graphic than info, I decided to add a little bit on the current version. I've posted the current infographic in both .pdf and .png formats. Also, thanks to Sinead Doyle for publicising the last Foursquare ranking post on her blog. 
 
Click for Larger Version....
 
 As always, if you think that I've missed an agency or location to add to the search list, just email/DM or comment.

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Daily Links: (26.05.2010)

The fake BP twitter page @BPGlobalPR is showing, once again, how users can hijack a brand presence on a network. I'd like to say that BP's Official brand presence could do something to prevent this, but given the circumstances, there isn't much that can be done. It seems like BP is just going to have to sit back and take the PR damage from this angle as well.
With Spotify doing social listening & iPlayer doing social watching, it has really come a time where content is better enjoyed with others. I like the idea that the BBC is making it to where their shows aren't just finite episodes, but objects to be passed on.
With Fast food restaurants offering more upmarket menu items, its great to see somewhere bring out an upmarket/unusual experience (if in a mostly novel/tongue & cheek manner) to promote a normal product. It seems like this should be a nice promo for hardcore brand fans and the sporadic Chick-fil-a customer.

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Daily Links: (25.05.2010)

I can't wait to see how the logistics of this work out on a National level. Checking in to get rewards (free pizza for mayor, free sides for check-in) should get people using Foursquare for the incentives, but the policing of how its implemented will be the really interesting point. Check-in fraud and tying purchase to check-in should be key to getting this working successfully.
After yesterday's announcement that 3rd party advertising networks won't get access to the network, Twitter's latest move, claiming a share of ad revenue from gadgets & viz using network data, isn't that surprising. They have managed to quickly lock down access to their greatest asset, user generated data, and the moved on to taking a share of the derivative product. These moves should definitely silence some of the lingering doubts about the network's profitability, but I can't imagine some developers are happy about the pace of it (at least those that are still developing after the company turned their sites on traditionally 3rd party functionality).
Posted: 24 May 2010 11:11 AM PDT
This might be the best example of illustrating the power of a sale sign ever created outside of a social psych lab. Best Buy apparently took a regularly priced item, raised the price and then advertised it as on sale 'as advertised'. While its not the most effective use of 'premium comparison pricing', it does highlight the power that information asymmetry & visual cues have on purchase decisions. Logically it seems like some stocking/coordination error, but interesting implications.
Interesting that while the UK General Election wasn't the digital PR fest that some predicted, the channel was rather effective at changing intentions in some target segments. I'm intrigued that only 5% of respondents said they engaged with political content on Twitter, but This may stem from possible biases towards Facebook/other more established platforms and those with a greater depth of presented content. Facebook tends to present a greater amount of content that exists within the perceived page, while Twitter's external linking may mean respondents believed in a disparity between the political content & the network.

Regardless of details within the digital channel, data like this shows that the next election could possibly be much more digital in its comms.

How Powerful Are Virtual Incentives and Why are They Always Badges?

The introduction of Facebook's new badge for accomplishments system & website like 'Get Glue' (a recommendation engine using badges to encourage sharing) show that incentivizing on-line behavior through virtual badges is on the rise. While 'token economies' are nothing new and virtual incentives have been shaping behaviour for years (recent examples can be found in about any Facebook app), the manifestation of badges as a reward is quite interesting.



In a previous article about the psychology of Foursquare, we noted that Foursquare's badge system works to economize offline activity through online rewards. Check-in at a number of Starbucks and you get a 'Barista' badge, visit 20 pizza parlors and get the 'Piazzolo' badge. Working in concert with other operant rewards (items on Gowalla, titles on sites like Qype/Yelp, rewards/points in virtual games, etc.), these virtual items have some real behavioural change power. However, what are limits of operant behavioural conditioning through virtual badges and more importantly, WHY a badge?



To start considering the choice of badges as popular virtual rewards touches on the heart of what virtual items can be effective. Badges represent a perfect example of efficient signalers as rewards. Badges in the real world, just as in the virtual, are highly visible. They communicate an important quality or accomplishment to others in a succinct yet understandable way. Their public, yet simple nature gains its power by being understood across an audience respected by the wearer. Therefore, one can assume that the effectiveness of a reward badge is measured by how visible the item is to an audience, how communicative it is to the audience about the importance of the act and how much that audience is respected by the wearer. 


Boy scout merit badges are a good example of this. Though I only attended one scouts meeting (an introductory session which caused me to decide that not wearing a uniform and camping sounded much more fun), I and others can understand the system of how members earn badges for accomplishments (such as fishing or first aid) from popular culture.This means that the badges, which are recognizable by a large portion of a population (from either respected group members or secondary cultural members) can easily convey prowess at an activity to a large group from their highly visible position on the member's uniform.


Virtual badges on sites such as Foursquare utilize this same mechanic. The badges stay on the user's profile page, where they are instantly visible to a respected audience (other users within the wearer's network) and simply convey the accomplishment of an act.

Through these criteria, the examples of the Facebook badge system & 'Get Glue's' seem to have serious challenges, but for different reasons. The Facebook badge system, which unlocks badges based on various network accomplishments (ranging from having 'x' number of friends to opening 'x' number of groups) will instantly get adoption, due to the large number of Facebook users. The audience, combined with the ability to place it directly on the profile page/news stream, makes the reward highly visible. In addition, the audience that the badges speak to have a minimum of respect with the wearer, as they happen to be the user's peers. However, despite these strengths, most of the listed accomplishments that the badges reward for are rather pedestrian.Where is the respect for getting a moderate number of friends or starting a few groups, when any user could do it relatively easily. In this sense, Facebook faces the challenge of getting users to care about the acts the badges represent, facilitating the items to communicate a respected act easily.
Alternatively, sites like 'Get Glue' face different challenges in implementing effective online badges. The site's badges (or 'stickers' as they are called) revolve around recommending various items to others, an act integral to building the attractiveness of the network. While Facebook's 'like' feature and open graph may quickly render the site's premise obsolete, the challenge amounts are large enough that other users on the network could respect the accomplishment. The badges are highly visible on the user's page, which leads to an ease of signaling about the accomplishment. However, the small size of the site's current audience relative to other related networks (Del.icio.us, Facebook. Mr. Wong, Stumbleupon), diminishes the power of the respected audience. A smaller possible audience to notice a badge requires a fervent/insular user base to maintain the same effect, placing great pressure on the site to attract repeat users and foster frequent activity.

In both examples, as well as other rewards online, the challenge generally falls within one of our three reward criteria. However, even through considering all three factors, user behaviour is highly unpredictable. Only through understanding the overall user experience for a website or network can we attempt to predict behaviour and only then can an effective reward economy be created.