Strategy Director at branded podcast agency Wavelength Creative
This is a test post. It is testing the following:
“Time is our most valuable asset, yet we tend to waste it, kill it, and spend it rather than invest it.” ~ Jim Rohn, Business Philosopher
Last week it was reported in the Herald Sun that cricket players from a regional league have been banned from playing for weeks for mouthing off about the league on Facebook.
Let me get this out foremost: I’m not talking about libel, defamation or misrepresentation. I’m not talking about disclosing confidential information. I’m talking about opinions.
Read the article. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Social Media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are simply extensions and digitisations of existing social norms. They are a digitisations of our everyday conversations and social interactions.
All this means is, in addition to complaining to your friends in person about the shitty local cricket league, people will complain on Facebook and Twitter. I fail to see how the comments of players in a local league owe any sort of duty to represent that league positively (especially based on the facts outlined in the article). The league wouldn’t have barred them had they complained to their mates over a few beers, so why on Facebook?
Whatever happened to free speech?
This is alarming, as many companies are developing Social Media policies which confine employees to what they can and can’t say. What gives businesses the right to control what their employees talk about in person? Nothing. So what gives them the right to control what they tweet about?
This is a form of communism run by employers, local cricket leagues and the like. We can’t continue to allow the man to control what we say, off-line or online.
A recent study has shown that online social networking sites (Facebook, in particular) reflect users’ actual personalities, not self-idealisation. The paper (published in the journal Psychological Science) suggests that people do not use their online social networking profiles to promote an idealised virtual identity; but instead use them as a platform in which to express and communicate their real personality authentically (Back et al., 2010).
When it comes to online social networking sites, it really does hold that:
“Google is to Search, as Facebook is to (what)…?“
—————
Facebook, Google.
You know these two companies. You probably use them both on a weekly, if not daily, basis.
Behind the scenes, these two complex web giants have a single linchpin they build all of their business strategies around:
—————
The observation:
Google is all about Search.
Everything Google does is centred around that one little Search box; that box which has made them trillions of dollars.
Facebook is all about Like.
The reasoning:
When Facebook began, it was all about friendship and networks. This helped them to reach far, far beyond what anyone would constitute as their “critical mass”. Friends, acquaintances, aunts, uncles, mums and dads all joined to build Facebook’s monopoly of 400 million active users. I myself, a daily user of Facebook (for better or worse) was somewhat critical of Facebook’s longevity as it became less private and progressively very, very accessible & public to the world; and to people like my parents (which was one of the reasons I left MySpace for Facebook to begin with!).
I’m going to make a bold claim here, it’s becoming clear that:
Facebook is not about friendship,
Facebook is not about networks;
Facebook is about Liking, and the connections that eventuate via this “Like principle“.
We’re beginning to see a repositioning of their business model and strategy towards this concept.
Facebook is making a big move and taking progressive steps to highlight the social act of liking something. All of Facebook is designed around this idea. For example, when you add a friend you’re essentially liking that person. On Facebook we like celebrities, brands, videos, posts and anything else they can slap that Like button on!
It’s becoming clear to me that Facebook’s monetisation strategy is no longer about targeted ads based on your age, sex, location, marital status; but about collecting data and monetising the natural, instinctive social act of liking things.
I’m excited to see how Facebook goes about doing this. Expect to see a lot more of Facebook’s focus on the “Like Principle“.
You heard it here first on Who Is Adam Jaffrey‽
—————
Finally, a shout-out to Julien Smith who inspired this post through his comments on the Six Pixels of Separation podcast (iTunes link), in the episode titled SPOS #203 – Media Hacks #29.
—————
Update (18/06/10): Facebook has just launched the Like feature for individual comments. Another step in the direction of the “Like Principle“. Read more about it on the Facebook blog.
This button appeared at the top of my Facebook home page (News Feed) today:
Yet another attempt by Facebook to take over your internet. With the recent implementation of their Open Graph protocol (those “Like” buttons you’ve been seeing on every website you visit), and continued rumours of geo-tagged statuses & Facebook virtual money/credit tokens; Facebook really are making a strong push to have a presence on the web FAR beyond http://www.facebook.com/.
Online, it’s Facebook vs Google for the control of your web experience.
Mobile, it’s Apple vs Google for control of your mobile experience.
I’m not quite sure who I’m rooting for, but it’s sure going to be exciting for consumers. After all, in a competitive open market, the consumer always wins!
If you’re a regular Facebook user, you’d have probably noticed that Facebook recently trashed it’s “become a fan” language and opted for a more generic “like” feature for it’s branded pages.
In a way, this seems a more intuitive way of connecting to brands you “like” not necessarily a “fan” of. Becoming a fan does seem to imply an intimate connection with the brand which requires more user commitment. This is detrimental to marketing a brand, since users that brands wish to be influencing and converting need to be engaged before “becoming a fan” to begin with. Facebook’s decision to transition this language to “like” a brand attempts to fix this problem.
Here’s the document explaining the change:
But, is that the real reason Facebook has made the decision? I argue not!
Facebook says that users click the “like” button almost twice as much as they click the “become a fan” button. In real terms, Facebook is trying to boost the number of connections users have to brands.
What’s the reason for this? Revenue!
Most Facebook pages gain their user connections through Facebook advertising. So essentially, Facebook is endeavouring to double their revenue from brand advertisements with a simple terminology tweak.
They claim that liking a brand is a much more natural option that will streamline the site, but as Julian Cole contends on his Adspace Pioneers blog, it may actually create more confusion as to which Facebook adverts are for Facebook branded pages, and which are for external websites.
What do you think? Do you “like” Facebook’s new terminology?