socialmediocrity

Putting the “oh” in Web 2.0

The value of sweepstakes to drive fans

leave a comment »

That much is true. And sometimes lots of them.

But are Sweepstakes a good way to acquire fans? High profile examples might make us think a bit harder about how best to use prize draws.

Let’s consider the Chase Freedom facebook page, and a recently ended sweepstake that offered two levels of prizes. Firstly, 504 prizes of $500 each, issued through a Visa Pre Paid Card, to one winner every hour for 21 days. The prize cost of this element then is $252,000. But that is dwarfed by the Grand Prize: One lucky winner will be selected at random to $1 million.

Wow.

Total prize fund for this campaign then being $1,252,000.

The page itself, on the 28th October 2011, just a few days after the grand prize closing date, stands at 474,203 fans, or Likes. That’s approximately $2.64 per fan, even if every one of those fans was generated directly by virtue of the prize draw, based only on the cost of the prizes, and before any related marketing costs or at least the costs of planning and designing the competition have been taken into account.

Cost per fan, at least $2.64.

If there was little or no marketing spend, then it would be safe to assume most of the Fans were existing customers that heard about it through their regular notices from the bank. So the increased value to the bank will be: some slightly more engaged existing customers? Perhaps three weeks of incremental positive sentiment amongst customers and the small number of friends they may have affected?

Alternatively, if there was in any way substantial marketing promotion of the sweepstake, and let’s face it if you’re giving away $1m you may as well tell the world about it, then the actual cost  per Fan will be considerably higher than $2.64. What’s more the likelihood is you have a lot of “Fans” that are specifically motivated by prize draws, and that could get expensive to maintain their interest in you brand. They are likely to be transient, unlikley to listen to your messages other than new giveaway or prize draw opportunities, and are probably more intent in finding the next promotion than they are applying for your credit card.

So are prize draws particularly effective ways of driving new fans? Perhaps they are better used as “thank-you”s to your existing customers and fans, and by virtue of that the improved sentiment and loyalty may be a valuable property to build. But it is probably not an effective way to acquire new “fans” – who of course are still some way from being customers – and at a minimum of $2.64 and quite easily double that, it is not even a particularly cost-effective way to generate leads.

Written by Richard

October 28, 2011 at 10:50 am

Posted in Facebook, sweepstakes

Zuckerberg does not ‘Like’ Google+

leave a comment »

It would seem that despite having almost 10% of all users on Google+ adding him to their Circles, one is not amused. Or is that +1 is not amused?

Not a single Post to say “Hello world”, or something equally profound. Nothing.

Rubbish.

 

No posts, no update, nothing.

 

Written by Richard

July 7, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

User numbers in SocialMediocrity rising. FAST.

with 2 comments

Following the revelation published yesterday that Facebook user numbers are falling, in some of their originally strong-growth and key territories, we can today reveal that user numbers have DOUBLED on socialmediocrity.com in just a couple of days.

At this rate of growth, it will surpass MySpace user numbers in about 174 days. Reports of hurried preparation of an 8-figure IPO in the near future are “wide of the mark” according to a socialmediocrity.com spokesperson, despite increasing demand for anything “social”.

Written by Richard

June 14, 2011 at 10:52 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Facebook User numbers falling

with 2 comments

As covered in BusinessInsider earlier today, the rise and rise of Facebook user numbers appears to have hit the rails.

In fact, evidence has begun to emerge that many of the key, and early, markets are falling in user numbers. According to Inside Facebook’s data service, the US has lost 6 million users, Canada 1.5 million – approximately 4% and 8% respectively.

Daily user numbers from Google also support that evidence, showing thatdaily user have been falling for several weeks now, cerainly in the US, and the UK, shown.

US Daily Users Facebook

Daily Facebook users in US falling

UK Daily Users Facebook

UK Facebook users also falling

Better news still exists in other territories, and there is of course a lot more growth to come from the less mature markets. Turkey, for example, has always stood out as an over-adopting nation almost, and yet growth continues there

Turkey Daily Users Facebook

Growing base in Turkey

Does any of this impact Facebook’s strategic direction? The pressure to monetise existing audiences may grow, especially as FB move inevitably towards an IPO, and it won’t help valuations if falling mature markets become the norm.

Or will falling “western” users increase the pressure to expand in the more nascent markets? And presumably seek to retain and monetise aggressively. The Facebook user experience, which has been exceptional to date bar the occassional privacy indiscretions, could suffer with the combined pressures of growth and revenue.

Written by Richard

June 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm

Posted in Facebook, Social Media

Real-time targeting

leave a comment »

Facebook’s real-time targeting capability is on full display in the Recommended Pages box todayPosting details of a couple of pages recommended to me this morning, interestingly the recommendations changed to be, and in fairness very openly (“related to your post”), based on that update.

To be fair, I had no idea Park Ji Sung was a Tory. Who would have thought?Facebook Status, realtime changes to recommendations

Written by Richard

May 26, 2011 at 8:25 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Facebook Photos Hacked and oh-ned

leave a comment »

Some terribly clever McCann Erickson Israel people wanted to show the world of prospective new talent how good their imagination was, so they came up with what has been described as a “hack” to Facebook Photos.

I only hope they’re not hopinLook - no numbers. Where to begin?g to attract any new talent with a pedantic eye for detail, or anything so silly. Even this hawkish amateur can spot that possibly the second most important aspect of any snakes & ladders board appears to be missing. That’s right. The numbers.

Oh, but hang on. They’re not missing entirely. You see, they have actually included them, it’s just that they failed to understand the medium they were working with and executed the idea in a laissez-faire kind of way so that they don’t actually show up when the punch line is delivered (in the photo album view) . Presumably they wouldn’t want a client to think that’s how they manage their projects either.

The concept appears to be based on a snakes & ladders board, and the “real-world” version (that’s real-world in facebook) of it can be seen here (which they may at some stage update to improve the execution)

If you do got to the real version you’ll be able to see that the individual picture views include the numbers but that the crop in the summary level kind of cuts them out.

Nice idea though. I might nick it and do it properly.

(Tip to the designers – just move the numbers that you photo-shopped into each image up a bit, and to the right a bit)

Written by Richard

March 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Next Up: Inferential ad targeting?

leave a comment »

According to a report on InsideFacebook, Facebook have filed for a patent on inferential ad targeting.

And according to the report this goes beyond friend-connections targeting, as is currently available in the Facebook ad platform (allowing advertisers to target *only* connected friends of existing “fans” or “likes”), and covers the possibility of broader inference. What does that mean? Well, in a nutshell, that if you have infirmation missing from your profile, but amongst your hundreds of connections on the network there is some commonality or popular data item for that missing information, then it may be infered that you also share that piece of information.

To give a similar example to that in InsideFacebook‘s article, if you don’t publish details of your education, but enough of your friends have indicated they are all connected to the same academic institution, then it may be infered that you also came from that same institution yourself, and advertisers may target you based on that inference.

All of which sounds teribly clever, and in keeping with the notion that you are defined by the company you keep. However, there are a number of reasons why this approach can only suppress advertising effectiveness if utilised by an advertiser.

Firstly, accuracy.

I won’t for one minute imply that Facebook’s data is not accurate (indeed they would counter that by declaring it is not their data, but that of the user), but maybe, just maybe, the absence of the data is just the start of the story. I can imagine, for example, and to continue the same example, that students of celebrated institutions will *tend* to have a greater propensity to publish their affiliation than those that attend less well known and less envied institutions.

So consequently, and especially when we have developed professional networks that include people from all sorts of backgrounds later in life, the celebrated institutions become, logically, over-represented (if anything). Inference Targeting in this example, then, would only serve to exaggerate that over-representation, and presumably those infered ads *should* work significantly less well (diluting the overall effectiveness substantially). Algorithms to the rescue? Maybe, but not for a while, and not before a lot of mis-attributed inferences had been made (and reported)

Secondly, User-Suspicion.

Even if the inference was accurate, it is easy to acknowledge that an advertisers’ use of data that I haven’t published about myself could “spook” a user – and is unlikely to solicit a positive response. I liken it to the email I got from Alliance & Leicester yesterday, warning me of a security issue and inviting me to reconfirm my details by following their link to the security test area. (I don’t bank with Alliance & Leicester) If I did bank with them though, it is to me clearly a con trick, and I can entirely understand why users might get caught out by it from time to time.

My final offering would be that, users who consciously publish these details will, in part at least, accept that such information may be used to deliver advertising to them. They will have already witnessed it, consciously or not, and will be familiar with its’ occurence. Arguably, they have given expresss permission for others to use that information. Users who have intentionally not published that data then, again at least in part, have specifically chosen not to publish that data, and consquently are likely to be less welcoming of those ads. And from a privacy perspective, this could be dangerous new ground for Facebook to be forging.

There are surely many other reasons why the inference itself may be inaccurate, but there is only very little prospect of better returns for advertisers. The only real purpose for this, then, is to dramatically increase the scale of a prospective campaign, and consequently drive ad revenues up whilst decreasing effectiveness.The same thing happens all the time, and we have seen it time and again, with some direct similies on the way paid-for Search has evolved.

If, or when, it becomes available, buyer-beware. Facebook’s focus on revenue will increasingly pit them against user experience, and this development might see another battle erupt between user and provider.

Written by Richard

October 28, 2010 at 10:58 am

Is the TippExperience social or viral?

with one comment

I was recently sent the tipp-ex digital campaign by a non-digital friend of mine – a clear sign that either I am no longer at the bleeding edge (anyone who knows me, this is your cue to comment in a light-hearted manner here), or this type of thing has gone, how do you say, mainstream?

http://www.youtube.com/tippexperience

A nice enough campaign, but a distinctly similar experience in the main to the subservient chicken, which remains one of my all time favourites. So a decent enough idea, but in no way new or original.

And to execution,  I tried a few things to find that the range of actions / videos available and was disappointed with the 404 error video (and that there’s only one of them), and the frequency with which it appears. The limit on the actions that have been shot is too tight, and the way the word connection occurs is light-weight too. “Plays Twister With” gives me a shot of RoShamBo being played, “shears” gives me nothing, “races” gives me nothing – in fact about half of my suggestions failed to deliver a result.

And what occurred to me most of all by the end of it is that as a campaign, by the end of it, all I actually remembered was the bear and hunter. The product or brand it was meant to be promoting is lost almost immediately as at no point after the intro video does the product itself feature. Burger King’s (TM)  Subservient Chicken was, in my opinion, much better executed and being presented in the guise of a web cam, represented a far better creative treatment.

What is a real shame is that I can’t forward links to the phrases or words that I have used to my friends, so that they can see how clever I am, or that I have “discovered” a funnier, naughtier, clever clip included in the campaign – instead anything I share is back to the top end of the campaign – which really counts against it as far as “social” is concerned.

Of course, the reason for spoofing the YouTube setting is no doubt to somehow claim this is another great success for “social” marketing. I’m old enough to remember when YouTube was the platform of choice for viral marketeers, but something tells me  history will record this as a great triumph for social marketing.

Written by Richard

September 3, 2010 at 9:43 am

What of the UK Government Spending Challenge?

leave a comment »

Launched in something of a fanfare (though admittedly it took this scathing, anonymous blogger a few days to have come across it originally), the UK Government’s much applauded efforts to engage the public in spending cuts has, essentially, faltered despite self-congratulatory release of (super-cool) video conference chats with the King of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, proudly released here. And summarized here:

DC: Basically, we’ve got a huge problem here…. thank you for “engaging”

MZ: We’re really delighted to be in this partnership with you guys….to help harness the ideas facebook users have to help the UK public save money…..it’s a really innovative thing you guys are doing…to try to create more social change.

DC: Thanks for doing this…..a lot of people say: people are not really interested in how to make government cost less, not really interested in politics….because it’s always been up to now top-down, take it or leave it…….there’s an enormous civic spirit in this country where people want to take control….people really want to take part. But thanks Mark, because we couldn’t have done it without you, and getting this public engagement for free is a good start.

MZ: Glad to help

DC: Well thanks. This web conference thing is great, is it new? And great to see you the other day. Next time you’re in town, drop by

Allow me to highlight some of those phrases and ideas: “enormous civil spirit” exists in the UK; engaging for free on Facebook is going to help plug the deficit; the UK Prime Minister has never before used web conferencing.

Launched on the 9th July, the Spending Challenge website was designed to encourage the public to contribute their ideas as to how and where our newly elected, more in-touch Government could, or should, consider cuts in public spending. Harnessing the power of that “enormous civil spirit”, you might say. Well that’s not quite how it worked out.

The unelected government that the UK public find themselves with clearly promised much ahead of the election which they simply had no idea about how they would deliver against it. Which means any commitments they gave as far as reducing the debt were concerned prior to the election were at best disingenuous. In short, they lied to us all to buy a few votes. I will resist the urge to rant more about the Lib Dem u-turn, trading policy and manifesto pledges for ministerial cars.

Perhaps more unforgivably (as it required no special access to the public accounts), it also demonstrates just how out of touch even this newly installed government actually are. The reason for the process failing is that is became subjected to a level of abuse that they simply had not prepared for, and presumably therefore had not anticipated. It does not take a Bullingdon graduate, let alone a Cabinet full of them (here and here), to work out that given the opportunity, the public will respond with profanity, attack the unelected government themselves, or indeed that they would vent their frustrations at social minorities first, and in spite of the many thousands of constructive ideas offered, the press would highlight the few that were deemed offensive.

So following a number of offensive suggestions that attacked, specifically those with disabilities, and having failed to have removed the offending items even after they had been highlighted, what does the government do? Does it put in place appropriate monitoring and moderation processes to ensure that items like that are picked up, thereby ensuring that they continue to embrace the “enormous civil spirit” that exists amongst the UK public as they shoul dhave done in the first place? Do they continue to let the public review each others ideas, refining them with comments and suggestions and rating them? Do they shoot the people that advised them, built the website and failed to put in place the appropriate controls? Do they heck.

Instead, they effectively pull up the drawbridge. You can keep sending those ideas, kids, but the Government and its’ cronies will be the sole adjudicators from now on. So there. We’ll tell you what we’ve decided in a few weeks time.

It’s just like the good old days, when politicians got on with the jobs they were elected to do, and we got on with ours. Apart from the allegedly “free” charade of public engagement. FOI request submitted for more details.

As for web conferencing. Yes, Prime Minister, it is indeed very good. You should try it without a script next time. Like a normal person would. And try speaking to your own people, and not the next-best-thing to Obama, just because he won’t come out to play any more.

Written by Richard

July 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

McEleny on Soci……oh I can’t be bothered

leave a comment »

Interesting  comment from the NMA’s feature writer on Social yesterday, Charlotte McEleny.

In response to the IAB UK SMC’s I.A.B. framework for measuring social, it seems the feedback they were expecting was, as McEleny describes it, “mixed”. She goes on to completely fail to express any substantial opinion of her own, but rather concentrates on criticising the very people participating in the social space (albeit in a scathingly anonymous way) by blogging their own opinion, and in their own way trying to agitate the discussion to a more meaningful and ultimately valuable end.

The only solution proffered by our erstwhile journo? A call to ending criticism is the answer, to end the #FAIL culture, rather than acknowledge the failings and shortcomings of the industry and demand better quality of output and leadership. What has the world come to when ineffective trade bodies are supported by lazy journalism of this kind?

Given the subject matter, it strikes me as ironic that any negativity expressed in these social environments itself becomes the focus of criticism, almost as if to not support the views of the party (the IAB UK) is not to be tolerated. Somehow the blogging proletariat have nothing useful to say, or that whatever they do say should only be judged through the lens of the governing party’s own opinion. Is this really the writing we have come to expect from NMA?

I find it at best disappointing and honestly couldn’t think of a better way to demonstrate, as a journalist, that you really have failed to grasp the very concept of the subject you are meant to be a leading commentator on.

The mixed feedback is surely something to be welcomed. Goodness knows, as all practitioners will understand, to get any substantial, though out, considered consumer feedback is an achievement in its’ own right. Absolutely it should not be casually and aggressively dismissed, and I sincerely hope that the IAB UK SMC had their listening strategy in place and will have collected all of this feedback, in all it’s forms, to help inform future development of the I.A.B. framework, and are not relying on feedback from the fully paid-up member base.

And just to be clear, rather than intending to attack any one journalist, this is aimed at the wider journalistic community who all too often provide ill-considered opinion on a subject they often know little about, yet still demand to be revered.

I for one refuse to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator in the Social space. As outlined in my own scathing and anonymous attack on the IAB UK SMC’s I.A.B. framework, and my opinion remains firm, “Social” is far more than advertising, far more than just a concern for digital marketers, and to be taken seriously we must, as an industry, resist the temptation to flirt with “standardisation” of metrics which would imply to some degree a standardisation of desired outcome. If we point our guns at that particular enemy, then we will end up with an industry incapable of innovation, one that turns out mediocre work at best, and more often and more likely, socially neutral or damaging results for brands.

Written by Richard

July 21, 2010 at 10:56 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.