social networks

Case In Point: It is Better to be Better

Gmail versus Hotmail

gmail-vs-hotmail

Retailmenot.com versus Dealcatcher.com

retailmenot-vs-dealcatcher

Flickr vs ofoto, snapfish, kodakgallery

flickr-vs-photo-sharing

Facebook vs social networks like Myspace and Friendster

facebook-vs-social-networks

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Cybercrooks Target Social Networks

Source: http://feeds.marketingcharts.com/~r/marketingcharts/~3/16mASWhC9kU/

Cybercriminals are turning their attention to users of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, according to a new report [pdf] from IT security and data protection firm Sophos.

Spam, Malware Attacks on the Rise Sophos’ Security Threat Report: 2010 indicates criminals have increasingly focused attacks on social networking users in the past 12 months, with a [...]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/marketingcharts/~4/16mASWhC9kU" height="1" width="1"/>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 5th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Top Posts for Week Ending July 26th

  • Notes from the front lines: Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
  • crispin porter bogusky’s beta site
  • The Perfect Babe – Megan Fox (pics)
  • The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 …
  • marketing misconceptions, advertising misconceptions, social media misconceptions
  • What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
  • Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!
  • Smaller social networks are losing even the few users they have…
  • Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and other Harry Potter Movies
  • Branding is still a useful activity? Reach and frequency is still a useful metric?
  • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Monday, July 27th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

    Top Posts Week Ending July 17, 2009

  • Notes from the front lines: Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
  • crispin porter bogusky’s beta site
  • The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 …
  • The Perfect Babe – Megan Fox (pics)
  • marketing misconceptions, advertising misconceptions, social media misconceptions
  • Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!
  • Smaller social networks are losing even the few users they have…
  • Branding is still a useful activity? Reach and frequency is still a useful metric?
  • What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
  • Merovingian Knot (video)
  • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

    Smaller social networks are losing even the few users they have…

    …to larger social networks like facebook where more of the users’ friends actually are.

    Hi5, Bebo, and even Ning — the social network predicted to “host some 4 million social networks serving up billions of page views daily” by Gina Bianchini (FastCompany: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/nings-infinite-ambition.html) — are losing traction.

    hi5-bebo-ning-unique-visitors

    Related:  ”If you’re just a feature, someone else will just add you and your raison d’être vanishes (you “tweet” your status in Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc.)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Thursday, July 9th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

    What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0

    2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0

    2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0 – Presentation Transcript

    1. What is Web 3.0? Dr. Augustine Fou June 16, 2009. June 16, 2009.
    2. Evolution of the Internet microprocessor 40 yrs 10 yrs 20 yrs 5 yrs present web internet 2.5 yrs social networks e-commerce 1.5 yrs Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Web 3.0? June 16, 2009.
    3. Evolution of the “Web” content commerce search social networks social content social search social commerce As each stage reaches critical mass, the next stage is tipped into present June 16, 2009.
    4. Key Characteristics present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • Speedy
      • more timely information and more efficient tools to find information
      • Collaborative
      • actions of users amass, police, and prioritize content
      • Trust-worthy
      • users establish trust networks and hone trust radars
      • Content
      • content destination sites and personal portals
      • Search
      • critical mass of content drives need for search engines
      • Commerce
      • commerce goes mainstream; digital goods rise
      • Ubiquitous
      • available at any time, anywhere, through any channel or device
      • Individualized
      • filtered and shared by friends or trust networks
      • Efficient
      • relevant and contextual information findable instantly

    June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – retail/shopping present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • what friends bought or want to buy
      • drag-to-share items which friends know friends are looking for
      • item collections
      • value in the aggregation

    overstock.com amazon.com FB app: MyFaveThings

      • contextual reviews
      • reviews of reviews
      • what others bought
      • individualized recommendations

    June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – social networks present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • aggregates all your online identities
      • syndicates all your updates to all social networks
      • social actions visible to friends
      • trust networks across geography, time, and interests
      • collection of personal homepages

    geocities.com facebook.com peoplebrowsr.com June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – restaurant reviews present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • Yelp content vetted through a user’s trust network and individual recommendations made based on situation and need, in real-time
      • user submitted reviews
      • related items based on similarity of user preferences
      • infrequent publication
      • centralized editorial control

    zagat‘s yelp need reco for great Italian + GPS + Yelp 5-star Babbo, been there, love it June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – photos present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • real-time, contextual “do you like this knit shirt?”
      • friends give immediate feedback
      • share photos with friends and strangers
      • enable visitors to tag and comment
      • individual albums

    kodakgallery.com flickr.com ? June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – real estate present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • information vetted by fellow users, recommended directly an in context
      • listings plus relevant information like school zones, comparable sales, alerts
      • listings based on parameters

    corcoran.com streeteasy.com trulia iphone app June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – encyclopedia present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • content is ubiquitous and available through any channel or device
      • trust network proactively forwards relevant info to user who needs it
      • created, updated, and edited (policed) by user actions
      • digitized version of printed encyclopedia

    britannica.com wikipedia.com chacha.com June 16, 2009.

    1. Illustrative Examples – online coupons present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
      • coupons delivered contextually and proactively when user needs it (without the user even asking for it)
      • instant feedback
      • community action makes it more accurate and useful for others
      • collection of online coupons – value in the aggregation

    dealcatcher.com retailmenot.com June 16, 2009.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    MySpace, Facebook, Twitter

    Updated:  7/9/09

    myspace-facebook-twitter-visitor-stats

    MySpace is half of Facebook now and Twitter is catching up quickly

    myspace

    facebook

    twitter

    all-3

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

    Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

    Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks

    Summary

    Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)

    Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)

    Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)

    Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.


    As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps  that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.

    I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.

    http://apps.facebook.com/netflixr/

    - visual discovery, share, and queue management interface for Netflix

    http://apps.facebook.com/musicsamplr/

    - visual discovery and sampling interface for music (Amazon backend)

    http://apps.facebook.com/phreetings/

    - create and send photo or video e-cards by drag and drop (Flickr and YouTube backend)

    http://apps.facebook.com/visualfriends/

    - visual display of your friends (closest ones have the most recent status updates)

    http://apps.facebook.com/myfavethings/

    - social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want

    But what I found was eye-opening to say the least. Despite the potential of social ads where the social actions of your circle of friends could make the ads more targeted, none of the anticipated positive effects were observed. Despite the promise of mass reach, there was not the corresponding attention or clicks. And despite the use of demographics-based targeting, there was no statistically significant difference between different targets nor the control sample, running during the same time period.

    What we saw were click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% — and the 0.01% often seemed like rounding because they did not report more than 2 decimal places. As a result of these click rates the effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 and average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25. I’ve been running these Facebook ads for more than 12 months; and millions of impresisons later, there is no observable improvements to CTRs and thus CPMs and CPCs. But since I set up the campaigns to only pay when there is a click (CPC basis), I can let these run indefinitely because I am getting so few clicks, it’s not even making a dent on my credit card (which I use to pay for the ads).


    Ideas for Facebook

    In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.

    1. reduce the number of ads per page to 1 – displaying multiple ads artificially depresses click-through rates because users can only click on 1 thing at a time, even if they liked more than one of them. Displaying 3 on a page simply increases the denominator while the numerator does not increase — in the click-through rate equation: clicks / impressions.

    2. make ads sharable – in the rare instance a user views an ad, it may or may not be relevant to her, but she may know that it is relevant and timely for a friend. By making ads sharable, she can click and send to a friend, who is very likely to find it useful and valuable, especially having been sent by a friend.

    3. let users opt-in to ads in specific topic categories - when users are in the market for specific things, they are more likely to subscribe to pertinent news feeds, offers, etc. related to that topic or category. By giving users more power over what they want to see, it will also give advertisers more targeted and engaged prospects to target.

    4. expand search-based advertising – when users search they are looking for something and are open to discovering something they didn’t know to ask for. So ads served up in response to a search is usually a lot more effective than ads served up simply when a page is loaded (display advertising). Facebook can serve display ads based on pertinent search queries.

    Earth to Facebook…  anyone listening?

    By Dr. Augustine Fou. Dr. Fou is Group Chief Digital Officer at Healthcare Consultancy Group a group of agencies within the Omnicom family specializing in pharma and healthcare.  He helps clients develop digital marketing programs or improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness existing campaigns via advanced analytics, social marketing, and digital strategy. You can read more of his writing on digital marketing on this blog and follow him on twitter @acfou.

    Revision 6/30/2009: Facebook Click Fraud

    Excerpt from TechCrunch: “Click fraud is serious business on the big search engine advertising networks because the bad guys can make serious money. Sign up for an Adsense account and put those ads on parked domain names or wherever. Then all you have to do is start clicking those ads like crazy, using bots or cheap labor.” On Facebook, “advertisers are clicking on competitor ads to drive up their costs and drive down their ROI.”

    “So the bad guys just create thousands of fake Facebook accounts with a wide variety of demographic information. This sounds like a lot of work, but it’s highly automated. the going rate was just $10 per 100 accounts if you supply the unique email accounts. Once the accounts are created, they use software to fill out the varied demographic information, and that software also manages all these accounts. The fraudster then logs in to Facebook via these accounts and views the ads that are displayed. The right competitive ads come up and Bingo, the software then clicks them. Facebook rules allow an account to click any advertisement up to six times in a 24 hour period, and all those clicks are charged. All you need is a few accounts to view the ads and then click to the max.”

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/facebook-click-fraud-101/

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/21/facebook-admit-click-fraud-problem-says-fix-coming-today/

    Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?

    Others have found similarly dismal click through rates from Facebook advertising

    Source: http://www.friendswithbenefitsbook.com/2008/04/07/facebook-ad-click-through-rates-are-really-pitiful/

    Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful

    April 7, 2008 – 5:03 pm

    Quite by coincidence, I’ve encountered a few statistics on Facebook’s advertising platform. I thought I’d post links to the results I’ve uncovered, in case anybody is wondering about average CTR rates for Facebook.

    First up, Rod Boothby got a click-through rate of 0.01%:

    This week, I ran $105 worth of Facebook Fliers. That bought me 52,500 impressions. It looks like the flier bought me about an extra 500 site visits. That’s about $0.21 per hit.

    Michael Ferguson ran a bunch of Facebook ads for Kinzin:

    Click-through rates are abysmal. I was running the identical ad in about 15 different regions (you need to run them as separate ads to get the stats broken out), getting just over 10M views. Our average clickthrough rate was 0.06% (that’s 1 in 1513, for those counting at home). The best we did anywhere was 0.14%.

    He later reports that the conversion rate was “at a pretty reasonable clip” at about 5%. By ‘conversion’, I think he’s meaning people who actually signed up for Kinzin’s free service. All of this stuff is contextual, but if visitors had to lay down money, the conversion rate would be considerably lower.

    The folks at Valleywag report similarly dismal numbers:

    Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for eachother to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.

    From AllFacebook:

    Fred Wilson has been updating the world about his venture in Facebook advertising over the past week. Today, Fred posted and updated screenshot of his ad campaign’s performance and it doesn’t appear to be too stellar. For one of his campaigns, out of 10,080 impressions there were only 8 clicks. The average cost-per-click for Fred was $0.08 and the average CPM was $0.06. This is a less than stellar performance. This is nothing new though.

    And lastly, from a digital student marketing blog in the UK. This would seem like a natural fit for Facebook’s audience:

    Our most recent campaign saw 1.4 million page impressions delivered at specific universities – and only a 0.04% clickthrough rate. Ouch.

    Click-through rates seem to sit around 0.04%, which is profoundly lame if you ask me. I’m no online advertising expert–it’s not really our thing–but I’ve run a bunch of Google AdWords and other contextual advertising campaigns. We regularly get click-through rates of 3%, and I gather that’s nothing special.

    Here’s my theory on Facebook: it’s a silo. People visit the Fun House of Facebook, and conceptually treat it slightly different than the rest of the web. They’re in Facebook, interacting with friends, playing games, sending messages and now chatting on IM. As such, they’re really unmotivated to leave. Who wants to leave the Fun House?

    We’ve seen similar results across Facebook. It’s really difficult to drive visitors out of the app and to your own website.


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    The ROI of Social Media is ZERO

    What is the ROI (define) for social media? It’s zero. That’s because there’s no such thing as “social media.”

    People’s conversations are not media; they can’t be purchased as such by advertisers. In other words, people don’t talk whenever advertisers want them to and they won’t say whatever advertisers tell them to — so it isn’t “media” like TV, print, and radio.

    If you treat people’s conversations as media, you’d be doing it wrong. Social marketing done right means asking for and respecting people’s conversations and giving them a public place to talk so others can hear. If the advertiser’s product is already great, much of the conversation will be positive. But even if it isn’t the advertiser will have the benefit of free “product research” because people will give them ideas for improvement.

    twitturly1

    Untargetables are hard to reach. Unreachables are not reachable by traditional advertising media or channels.

    read more about the ROI of social media on ClickZ … http://www.clickz.com/3633341

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Friday, April 10th, 2009 integrated marketing No Comments