Evaluate the "Like" button on Friendfeed, Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr

By , April 26, 2009 7:52 pm

Friendfeed was the first major social media player to introduce “Like” option of a feed item. Soon this is available on Facebook. Twitter and Tumblr also provide similar feature. Looks like services with streams favor this concept.

The advantages is obvious to many users; they are now simply clicking on “Like” instead of writing comments. However, there are certain drawbacks of this feature.

Let’s consider the advantages and disadvantages on each aspect:

Advantages Disadvantages
To product owner Increase frequencies of interactions between users and feed items. Decrease lifetime of a feed item.
To users Quicker to comment. Move on to next item.

Historical data if “liked” items can be traced back.

The “Like” action is usually forgotten more quickly than actual comments with contents (Facebook case).
To community It is tempting to think that if the “Like” action spreads in the feed it would bring values to community.

However, frequency also needs to be considered as people tend to like more than re-share.

Psychologically, when someone hits “Like”, there is a feeling of “accomplishing a responsibility” for the item and no further action is taken. As a consequence, less re-share is made and the life cycle of the item ends sooner.

Appropriateness

As the “Like” feature kills off re-share actions, it is appropriate for immediate status that has very short life. i.e. Personal status

It may devalue items which have values increased when shared such as a link or a thought.

At the core, it comes down to value of the feed item. If the item is worth and appropriate for sharing, it should be forwarded, not ended with a simple “Like”.

What do you think of my proposal?

Google Book Search makes way to horizontal expansion

By , April 25, 2009 7:14 pm

A quick review of this article on Boingboing.

As search result becomes relevant to users need and free preview is provided, Google Book Search will soon become the destination of many book readers.

Soon, Google can take advantage of this and allow searchers to actually purchase the books online directly from Google search results.

In terms of business, this makes way for Google to enter e-commerce and even distribution.

If they do, Google has not and will not compete with portal sites like Amazon, but will go from their core competency: search.

Respectively, competition against Google will not be by search, but on other territories that Google has yet dominated, such as virality and social recommendations.

Geert Hofstede Framework of Five Dimensions of Culture's Possible Pitfalls, Limitations and Proposed Solutions

By , April 24, 2009 1:24 pm

Geert Hofstede Framework of Five Dimensions of Culture

Summary

  1. Power Distance
  2. Individualism / Collectivism
  3. Masculinity / Femininity
  4. Uncertainty Avoidance
  5. Long-term / Short-term Orientation

Possible Pitfalls

  1. Femininity is associated with interpersonal care of other members in the group / society. It’s not the feminine characteristics.
  2. Long-term Orientation is about building long-term relationships, building trust before establishing business partnership. The orientation is not strategic planning.
  3. Use it to strengthen stereotypes.

Limitations

  1. The survey was conducted in IBM’s global offices. Possible confusion: was it perceived by IBM employees as a measurement of global culture or a measurement of respective IBM offices’ culture?
  2. The initial survey results was released in 1970s. Things have changed dramatically.
    1. Example: Singapore scored lowest (8) in Uncertainty Avoidance. In 1970s, they were going through reformations in order to grow their economy and defend against potentials threats so risks were being taken. 30 years later, Singapore has been known for its strict legal system and the tendency to avoid taking unnecessary risks. Therefore, its result needs to be reassessed.
    2. The same case happens for many cultures.

Proposed Solutions

  1. Use it as a framework, avoid categorizing
  2. Re-evaluate at least once per decade

A question on Enterprise 2.0

By , April 23, 2009 8:21 pm

Question for Enterprise 2.0 - Communication, Information Sharing, Marketing, Production, Operations, Management, Leadership

The prospects of SMS-powered mass messaging in Vietnam

By , April 20, 2009 2:05 pm

Micro-blogging is raising a trend in Vietnam, not by the number of users, but by the level of media coverage. Obviously, the coverage of Vietnamese media is not as high as the hype of all the global ones on Twitter and its ecosystems, but still, it is perceived by many to be the main trend of Vietnam internet market in 2009.

I don’t. Well I don’t talk about micro-blogs for Vietnam. I see different things.

Moreover, there are two missing pieces of important information from media coverage: appropriate market and the greatest monetization opportunities.

Without the knowledge of the target market of Twitter-like services, reporters easily fall into the trap of comparing micro-blogs and blogs, and users will be confused.

Without seeing the monetization opportunities, people will be reluctant in using/investing for them.

This article solves this issue by discussing the two points mentioned.

1. What is the market for Twitter-like services?

I identify 4 groups of users:

  1. Geeks. Obviously, this group has already been there. They are innovators and early adopters of the services. Most use Twitter and not the clones anyhow.
  2. Users who want to use Twitter as a substitute to Yahoo! 360 blast. Check Kazenka’s out.
  3. Those who want to keep up with the Joneses. i.e. want to show that they’re cool by using a trendy stuff.
  4. This group has not existed: those who want SMS incentives for using the service(s) to send mass messages

It’s the last group which has not existed that is potentially profitable.

2. What is SMS incentive and why is it a group when it hasn’t even existed?

In an over-simplified example:

P1 does not use service S User P2 uses service S and has 1000 followers, 500 in which are followed back. 50 in those 500 are P2’s real friends
P1 organizes a trip to Nha Trang P2 organizes a trip to Nha Trang
P1 sends 10 SMSs to 10 friends. This costs him VND2,000 P2 sends 1 SMS to 10 friends through S with “Incentive” option selected. This costs him VND60
P1 and his friends send SMSs back and forth. At the end it cost them a total of VND50,000 P2 and his friends send SMSs back and forth. At the end it cost them a total of VND6,000
Why VND50? Because:

  • Business B advertises on S by sponsoring S’s users with VND150 per SMS
  • In exchange, B’s advertisements are displayed on the SMSs
  • S gets VND10 out of 150 from B
It’s simple, painless, and costly. Full stop. It’s a market that never existed in Vietnam!
Now. Think about celebrities, attention-seekers and those who want to send mass messages in general.
Is it an attractive market?

3. Devices and platforms

  1. Device: Only smart phones or laptops can access Wi-Fi. All phones can SMS.
  2. Platform: good Wi-Fi is not ubiquitous even in urban areas. Mobile coverage is country-wide.

Hope that (2) and (3) answer @firstjames’ wonder.

4. Which player has the potential?

I would say ASAO. Their Ola Me is more than a Twitter clone; the product is one in ASAO’s mobile package suite. And the company may have the credentials to negotiate for SMS incentives.

Addendum: lamgi.vn also has SMS incentives.

5. Summary

This entry is not about micro-blogging. It’s all about the market of SMS incentives, powered by Twitter-like services.

It's not only about the players; it's also about the industry and the market

By , April 20, 2009 10:33 am

Many discussions rose once again when Yahoo! 360 is confirmed to be closed in near future. The question most frequently asked is: who will be the winner? It’s apparent that some of us have been aggressive in finding nailing down the “winner” of the race after the fall of the regional giant.

Discussions are shot, entries are flared and debates are burst.

But can we take one step back and see if we are so scripted with scenarios for competitions in the market?

Have we asked the question how the market will grow and how we will grow with the market?

Product/Portfolio growth = Market share x Market growth

Where is the internet market in Vietnam? It is arguable that the industry is only in its first steps. There are great potentials in the form of markets that have not been reached and markets that have not been created.

It’s not only about gaining market share, it’s also about growing the market so you can grow along.

What will fuel market growth? The answer is efforts from every player in the industry. Your competitors also help the market grow.

@tanng and @duongminhviet have occasionally applaud FPT’s movements to enter deeper into the market. In my perspective, this is not only an act of diplomacy, but also out of their wisdom that competition shakes up and levels up the industry as a whole. As long as passion is there, opportunities are there.

Good luck

***

Appendix: market growth will be fueled by the following sources:

  1. Urban adults who have not used internet services. They have income, are skeptical, and definitely not early adopters.
  2. Users from provinces who have not used internet services. Their income varies, they range from major adopters to laggards.
  3. Young people growing up. They have sponsorship, are curious, smart, and would make innovators and early adopters.

Toward Enterprise 2.0 – positioning the 2.0 characteristics in an Enterprise and some suggestions for FPT

By , April 17, 2009 11:04 am

1. Introduction

This article discusses implications behind the adoption of a “2.0” approach to corporate management. This article is built on and extends the introductory discussion of an FPT HR representative on their application of 2.0 to internal communications. It seeks an equivalent position of the 2.0 characteristics within an organization. Basing on this finding, recommendations are given to FPT.


Hi TaiTran,
Ko hiểu youtube có lỗi hay do mạng lởm nên tôi ko trả lời bạn trực tiếp được tại video trên youtube. Quản trị 2.0.
Quản trị 2.0 là khái niệm được FPT nhắc tới bắt đầu từ 2008, đơn giản là ứng dụng 2.0 vào công việc quản trị. Các bạn chắc biết rõ hơn tôi về web 1.0 và 2.0 và biết sự khác biệt giữa 1.0 – tiếp nhận thông tin 1 chiều và 2.0 tăng tính tương tác.
Quản trị 2.0 tương tự:
– Đưa ứng dụng web 2.0 vào việc quản trị. Ví dụ mở các kênh tiếp nhận thông tin từ nhân viên qua blog công ty để lãnh đạo lắng nghe ý kiến nhân viên tốt hơn. Các lãnh đạo tự mở blog cá nhân để chia sẻ về suy nghĩ bản thân, truyền tải thông điệp lãnh đạo (ko nhất thiết trong công việc) để gần hơn với nhân viên và tiếp thu thông tin.
Hiện FPT đang có kênh 2.0 đặc trưng là: Chợ Dưa FSoft – chodua.com và FLI Blog: fli.fpt20.com, là kênh internet có thể truy cập. Còn các forum, mạng nội bộ khác chỉ dành cho nhân viên FPT. Đặc điểm ẩn danh cho phép nhiều người được nói thẳng nói thật ý kiến và cả các bức xúc của mình trong công việc hay comment thoải mái về các chính sách công ty mà ko sợ lộ mặt.
Những cái này có thể nhiều công ty đã áp dụng như “học thuật” hóa thì được gọi là quản trị 2.0.
Những thông tin khác bạn có thể đọc tại fli.fpt20.com hoặc chodua.com. Mời bạn vào trao đổi! Tks!

vanbich, FPT HR representative

Ông Trương Gia Bình nói về Visky 2.0

2. The position of the 2.0 characteristics

2a. Web 2.0 is about Communication. Is Enterprise 2.0 about Communication?

Basing on the comment from vanbich, the idea of FPT 2.0 is to provide channels and facilities for their employees to communicate with one another and with leaders.

At first, it seems sensible given light that a Web 2.0 product provides platforms for its users to communicate and share information with one another. And users do this with purposes.

Some examples of Web 2.0 products:

Product Effective communication channels Purpose of product creators Main purpose of users
WordPress
  • Entries
  • Comments
Provide a collaborative blogging platform Share & aggregate knowledge
Facebook
  • Walls
  • Media
  • Comments on most items
  • B2C: Public Profiles
  • …a few others…
  • Provide means for people to explore one another’s activities
  • Provide technical platform
Explore connections’ activities
MySpace
  • Verbal comments
  • Non-verbal expression through media and page styling
Provide means for people, especially artists, to show off their interests Express their ego
Twitter
  • Short messages
  • Provide viral platform
  • Provide technical platform
  • Viralize their contents
  • Quickly update their activities

How are “2.0 communication” and FPT’s explanation linked together?

It’s useful to map the idea:

Comparing Web 2.0 with Enterprise 2.0

Figure 1 – trying mapping web 2.0 product and enterprise 2.0: incorrect

While we see that the total scale of a Web 2.0 product is allow Communication, the total scale of an Enterprise is much larger than that. We want to revise the ‘conventional’ enterprise:

Classic Enterprise

Figure 2 – simplified model of a conventional enterprise

That is the full scale of an Enterprise. Communication plays an important role, but does not take up entirely its operations.

So how do we map it more precisely?

2b. Here is what I visual it: mapping between two 2.0 entities

Firstly, as we know that communication is the main activity of a Web 2.0 product, it is important to find out what is the main activity of an Enterprise. As from figure 2, the main activity of an enterprise is Production and/or Providing Services.

Secondly, it is important to characterize the style of communication in Web 2.0 products so that we can do the same on the style of production of an enterprise.

What best describes “multi-directional” and “decentralized”? It is autonomous. People in the 2.0 sphere communicate autonomously and are responsible for their behaviors.

Combining these two findings, here is what I propose the mapping between a Web 2.0 product and an Enterprise:

Comparing Web 2.0 with Enterprise 2.0

Figure 3 – mapping web 2.0 product and enterprise 2.0

At full scale, the applied 2.0 characteristics does not only involve open and partially anonymous communication, but reach the level of autonomy in production.

3. Some considerations

  1. It’s easier for startups than for an established company.
    Think about Google. It had been famous for its anti-corporate culture at the first days. As the company becomes mature, corporate issues start to emerge.
  2. Does the structure of the company make it reasonable to build autonomous teams/divisions?
  3. Does the culture of the company and the culture of the society make it reasonable to build autonomous teams/divisions?
  4. How ready are the employees, in terms of capability and mentality, to be autonomous?
  5. Autonomous, together with self-directed communication is not new. It traces back to 1970s and Motorola, Xerox, AT&T and so on. However, it might be new to Vietnam.

4. Some recommendations for FPT toward 2.0

  1. Select mature teams to build autonomy
  2. Delayer these teams
  3. Allow (sometimes dramatic) changes in structure, culture and mentality
  4. Allow (sometimes dramatic) changes in personnel management and resource allocation
  5. Treat this as on-going experiment

Benefits:

  1. Bring the “2.0 spirit” to the company as leaders desire
  2. Increase innovation
  3. Reduce cost, especially management overhead
  4. Reduce absenteeism
  5. Identify unofficial leaders of the teams in addition to the existing leadership training program

5. Summary

Changes in production characteristics, rather than sheerly in communication, reflect the full-scale shift within an Enterprise. Analyzing Web 2.0 characteristics leads us to autonomy. Whether and how FPT will implement it is interesting to observe. The implications of recommendations in this article go beyond social media, product management and technology companies to leadership generally.

6. Reflection

It has been challenging and exciting to write this. The excitement was how I can link seemingly scattered parts of my knowledge to form a cohesion piece of consultation – something I love doing. The great challenge lies in the idea of evaluating a big, established, known and loved company. Nevertheless, if I want to learn, first thing first, I must dare the keyboard discussion.

Facebook's Profitable Business Architecture

By , April 10, 2009 7:34 pm

I’d suspected that Facebook is moving fast toward monetization.

But Sheryl Sandberg’s confirmation that Facebook has been profitable for 5 consecutive quarters still comes as a nice surprise.

Nevertheless, considering this model, where all the money has been generated is not much a question.

Facebook Business Model Architecture

Where else has Facebook been making money on? Will Social Search come next? Will Facebook do Data Mining behind the scene?

Spreading the word for BarCamp Hanoi 2009

By , April 10, 2009 12:59 pm

BarCamp Hanoi

Barcamp Hanoi 2009 will be held on April 19, from 8.30 AM to 5.00 PM at RMIT International University, Hanoi campus – 2/2C Van Phuc Compound, Kim Ma street, Hanoi.

Topics may include, but are not limited to: online services, social media, startups, UI design, entrepreneurship, VC, Web 2.0 technologies, online marketing, online advertising, online payment, e-commerce, open source software, hardware hacking, robotics, mobile computing, bioinformatics, programming languages, even the future of technology or global issues.

REGISTER FREE HERE: http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=10&lang=en
WANT TO SPONSOR US: http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=12&lang=en

As a part of the community building process, we’re looking for people to help spread the word about the event.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

* Add a badge to your websites or blogs (http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=130&lang=en)
* Write blog entries about Barcamp and Barcamp Hanoi 2009 (What is Barcamp?, Information about Barcamp Hanoi 2009, Sponsor for Barcamp Hanoi,…)
* Spread information about Barcamp Hanoi 2009 to people who may concern, maybe via IM, Discussion groups, Email, Twitter, Facebook,…

That would help us alot and make Barcamp Hanoi even more successful.

Thank you so much, we greatly appreciate what you do for Barcamp Hanoi.

***

Hội thảo công nghệ mở Barcamp Hanoi 2009 sẽ được tổ chức vào ngày 19/4, từ 8.30 sáng đến 5.00 chiều tại trường Đại học Quốc tế RMIT, cơ sở Hà Nội – 2/2C khu Ngoại giao đoàn Vạn Phúc, đường Kim Mã, Hà Nội.

Chủ đề không giới hạn, có thể bao gồm: Dịch vụ trực tuyến, social media, startups, thiết kế giao diện người dùng, entrepreneurship, Đầu tư mạo hiểm, Các công nghệ Web 2.0, marketing trực tuyến, quảng cáo trực tuyến, thanh toán trực tuyến, thương mại điện tử, phần mềm mã nguồn mở, hardware hacking, robotics, mobile computing, bioinformatics, các ngôn ngữ lập trình, công nghệ tương lai, các vấn đề toàn cầu…

ĐĂNG KÝ THAM DỰ TỰ DO TẠI ĐÂY: http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=10
TÀI TRỢ CHO SỰ KIỆN NÀY: http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=12

Là một phần của quá trình xây dựng cộng đồng, rất mong các bạn giúp đỡ quảng bá sự kiện này đến những người quan tâm.

BẠN CÓ THỂ LÀM GÌ ĐỂ GIÚP ĐỠ BARCAMP HANOI?

* Thêm phù hiệu Barcamp Hanoi vào website hay blog của bạn. (http://www.barcamphanoi.org/?page_id=130)
* Viết blog về Barcamp Hanoi (Barcamp là gì?, Thông tin về Barcamp Hanoi 2009, Tài trợ cho Barcamp Hanoi,…)
* Gửi địa chỉ trang web này và giới thiệu với những người có thể quan tâm, có thể qua Yahoo! Messenger, Email, Forum, Twitter, Facebook,…

Việc này sẽ giúp những người tổ chức rất nhiều và làm cho sự kiện thành công hơn nữa.

Cảm ơn các bạn, chúng tôi thật sự rất cảm kích những gì bạn làm cho Barcamp Hanoi.

Eric Schmidt under flames is a good case study

By , April 9, 2009 11:18 am

Click here to read the criticism thrown toward Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google.

This story is a good case study we can take to look into horizontal corporate communication.

In many companies, conflicts usually arise between “cold-hearted” business decision makers and “burning-with-enthusiasm” inventors.

Business decision makers are usually criticized by more technical-oriented co-workers that the first group is usually so ruthless.

The truth is a company needs different balancing forces to keep going forward. Products stemmed from ideas are crucial to any firm, but the firm also needs to make profit.

The story I cited is good in a way that: it shows the flaming pressure (in this case, public criticism of a stakeholder toward CEO) under which leaders face, something leaders often choose to communicate with their subordinates in more pleasant ways.

So what’s the moral?

1. The blue time of recession is a good excuse for people to come together and elicit more empathy.

2. Hard-skill oriented workers can choose to be more politics-savvy, and know more of how organizations operate.

3. Leaders can choose to be more direct and open, even in darkest times. Daniel Roth’s success story is a good example.

Good luck everyone.

for Sam, Noa, Suzanne, Marie and Devina

Panorama Theme by Themocracy