A response to Techcrunch Steve Gillmor’s controversial article Rest in Peace, RSS
The previous article of mine sketched the architecture of Facebook’s business.
Bloomberg recently detailed how advertising, the main source of income, is done on Facebook.
Generally, some points from a business perspective can be drawn from this:
I could not find the industry structure of social media, so I decide to graph it, piece by piece.
We’ve been talking about early adopters and near-future critical mass. What links them?
Here is what I propose:
|General trend adoption is polynomial, social media’s is exponential||
|The number of innovators and early adopters is very small compared to the critical mass||High cost of learning for majority|
|Absolute value of critical mass is high||
|Abandon rate is high||
|Social media adoption is not symmetric||Influencing factors are not symmetric|
|Till this point of this entry, late majority and laggards never existed||Social media is very young|
See this measure of unique visitors, which services do you think it represents?
Click here to see the answer.
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:
|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.|
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?
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.
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.
I identify 4 groups of users:
It’s the last group which has not existed that is potentially profitable.
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:
|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?|
Hope that (2) and (3) answer @firstjames’ wonder.
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.
This entry is not about micro-blogging. It’s all about the market of SMS incentives, powered by Twitter-like services.
Panorama Theme by Themocracy