Social Platforms

Fast Fade: Unpaid brand posts on Facebook are getting rarer by the day.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lower ReachIt was just a matter of time.

Once Facebook ramped up its advertising program in order to monetize its platform and mollify its investors, unpaid posts by companies and brands were sure to be the collateral damage.

Sure enough, the recent monthly stats show that the “organic reach” of unpaid content published on company and brand pages on Facebook has been cut in half from where it was just a short time ago.

To illustrate, look at these stark figures gathered in an analysis by Ogilvy of 100+ country-level brand pages measuring the average reach of unpaid posts:

  • October 2013: 12.2%
  • November 2013: 11.6%
  • December 2013: 8.8%
  • January 2014: 7.7%
  • February 2014: 6.2%

What these stats show is that within the span of less than six months, the average reach of unpaid brand posts dropped by nearly 50%. 

To go even further, an anonymous source familiar with Facebook’s long-term strategy is claiming that its new algorithm could ultimately reduce the reach of organic posts to 2% or less.

Actually, the reason for the squeeze is more than just Facebook’s desire to increase advertising revenue.

Here’s a dynamic that’s also significant:  A Pew Research study conducted in mid-2013 found that the typical adult American Facebook user has around 340 friends.

That average is up nearly 50% from approximately 230 friends in 2010.

Of course, more friends mean more status updates eligible for feeds … and Facebook’s not going to display them all to everyone — even if it wanted to.

Also, Facebook users “like” an average of 40 company, brand, group or celebrity pages each, according to a 2013 analysis done by Socialbakers, a social media analytics firm.  That translates into an average of ~1,440 updates every month.

Compare those figures to five years ago, when the average number of page “likes” was fewer than five … yielding fewer than 25 monthly updates on average.

Clearly, there’s no way Facebook is going to to be able to display all of these updates to followers.  So … the content is squeezed some more.

The final nail in the coffin is the rise in “promoted” posts – the ones that brands pay dollars to promote. It’s only natural that Facebook is going to give those posts priority treatment.

Thus, the hat-trick combination of more friends, more likes and more promoted posts is what’s causing “organic” brand posts to go the way of the dodo bird.

In retrospect, it was only a matter of time before a major social platform like Facebook would seek to monetize its program in a big way.

In some respects, it’s amazing that the free ride lasted as long as it actually did …

The Continuing Ambivalence about Twitter

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Or is it more a division of the house?

ambivalenceOf all of the social media platforms that have taken root, the one that seems to cause the most divided opinions among the marketing and communication specialists I know is Twitter.

… And these are the folks who have been diligent about “following the script” for crafting tweets that are interesting, informative, and get noticed.

Each social platform has its strong and weak attributes, of course … but I hear far more mixed views about Twitter than I do about Pinterest, Facebook and LinkedIn.

This is amply illustrated in a recent discussion that was started on LinkedIn’s B2B Marketing Group, of which I’m a member.

Joel Harrison, Editor-in-Chief of B2BMarketing.net, posed this question to the group’s members:

“If Twitter ceased to exist tomorrow, would we all be better off?”

This rather provocative query elicited a range of reactions pro and con – which was to be expected.

However, I was a little surprised that the comments were weighted roughly two-thirds negative about Twitter versus positive.

Remember, this is a discussion group made up of marketing professionals — people you’d expect to be keen on pretty much any established social platform that has an extensive following for marketing purposes.

… Which, even if you discount the ~30% of accounts that “fake, faux and farcical” – still makes Twitter qualify as one of the leading social media platforms.

But consider these comments about Twitter posted by members of the B2B Marketing Group on LinkedIn:

“16 characters solve this dilemma: ‘Don’t take part.’”

 “I once read a tweet that said, ‘This is the generation that had nothing to say, and said it.’ Sums it up pretty well.”

 “My target audiences … have not mentioned that they prefer to communicate on that channel, so until that happens, there isn’t much going on.”

 “I like the old BBC mission: ‘Entertain, inform and educate.’ If you don’t do any of that, I ain’t following.”

 “Useful as an additional channel for customer service and sharing experiences – if the customer wants it.”

 “It depends on the industry and the target audience.”

 “As a marketer, it’s useful.  On a personal level, it annoys the hell out of me.”

These statements don’t sound like a ringing endorsement of the platform, do they?

Of course, they were posted on a business-to-business discussion board, so presumably people were commenting based on their B-to-B perspective; consumer marketing opinions are likely somewhat different.

What are your opinions about Twitter? Based on your own experience, how important and how effective has Twitter been to your marketing efforts?  Is it a critical component … or is it just one more ornament on the MarComm tree? Please share your comments for the benefit of other readers.

Twitter’s “Potemkin Village Problem” Isn’t Getting Any Better

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

“Millions of fake accounts dog Twitter.”

“Twitter dogged by bogus accounts.”

social-media-inflated-statsI’ve blogged before about the scads of Twitter accounts that are accounts in name only.

It’s been a problem for years.

But now, it takes on even greater significance as the market valuation of Twitter is being measured in the tens of billions as the company issues publicly traded stock in its IPO.

To this end, I found a recent Wall Street Journal article penned by technology reporter Jeff Elder particularly interesting in that it pulls together various pieces of evidence that have been building … and which together showcase the extent of Twitter’s “Potemkin Village” problem.  (Note the headlines from this article displayed above.)

Essentially, the problem is a plethora of “faux” Twitter accounts being created by an underground network of sellers – including 20 or so major operations scattered around the world – that then offer these accounts for sale to companies and brands wishing to “juice” their Twitter follower statistics to appear more consequential than they actually are.

Consider these points from Mr. Elder’s article:

  • Faux accounts abound on Twitter because users aren’t limited to having a single account – nor are they required to use their real names.
  • In securities filings, Twitter claims that “fake” accounts represent fewer than 5% of its active user accounts.
  • But this past summer, security researchers Andrea Stroppa and Carlo de Micheli reportedly uncovered more than 20 million fake accounts for sale on Twitter – which is closer to 10% of Twitter’s active account base.  (Twitter had no comment on this report.)
  • Stroppa and de Micheli also unearthed the existence of software programs that allow spammers to create unlimited fake accounts on Twitter.  (Twitter had no comment on this report.)

Evidently, Twitter has taken stabs at reducing fakery among its account base — however sporadically.

About a year ago, the company reportedly worked with a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and George Mason University to identify fake Twitter accounts and minimize “robot” activity.  This was done by actually purchasing fake Twitter accounts on the black market and then identifying their common characteristics.

A filter subsequently developed was then able to block ~95% of such accounts – but it was only a matter of days before the underground market figured out ways to get around the new filters.

Within two short weeks, the filters were successfully blocking only about 50% of new fake Twitter accounts, and that percentage has continued to decline further since then.

And these faux accounts are available for a ridiculously small amount of money.  For instance, this past November one marketer purchased 1,000 accounts from an online vendor located in Pakistan … for a whopping $58.

This marketer then programmed them to “follow” the Twitter account of a rap artist client who was interested in boosting his standing on the social network.

In addition, those same accounts have been used to retweet the rapper’s own tweets, thereby giving them greater exposure on Twitter.

And believe it or not, this sort of ruse often works, because prominence on Twitter can lead to legitimate attention by an unwitting press and other “influencers.”

But it’s all blue smoke and mirrors, of course.

The downside?  As more of these stories get reported and shine a light on the seedy underside of the Twittersphere, it can’t help but have a negative impact on the social platform’s reputation.

… Beginning with people like you and me.

Customer testimonials and user reviews: Social media takes a time-honored marketing tactic … and puts it on steroids.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , ,

product and service ratingsThere’s no question that most people value hearing the opinions of others when deciding whether to purchase a new product.

But in the fast-evolving world of social media where there’s been an exponential increase in testimonials, ratings and recommendations about various products and services, what types of recommendations resonate most?

We may have some answers to that question in results from a recent survey sponsored by marketing firm Social Media Link, which was issued in October to all members within the company’s Smiley360 community brand activation program.

Dubbed the “Social Recommendation Index,” the 20-question online survey was answered by more than 10,300 respondents.

The survey isn’t exactly a true cross-section of American consumers in that the vast majority of the respondents were women.  Moreover, most respondents were between the ages of 25 and 45.  Still, the results are certainly worth a look.

For starters, three-fourths of the respondents stated that fewer than 10 reviews are all that they need to make a purchase decision.

Moreover, the most valuable reviews tend to be the ones that include personal stories, rather than a laundry list of product benefits.

By contrast, “star” ratings are the least influential type of review by far:  Only ~15% of respondents report that those ratings are the most important way to influencing their purchase decisions.

The degree of impact of a product review also depends on who’s doing the reviewing:

  • 86% cite reviews by friends and family members as having the  biggest impact
  • 39% are influenced by blogger reviews 
  • Only 11% report that celebrity reviews have the most impact

I’m not at all surprised about the paltry figure for celebrities.  Celebrity endorsements in general are far less influential than many marketers would like to admit – a topic I’ve blogged about in the past.

"It's OK. Your cousin Merlin also likes the product!"
“It’s OK. Your cousin Merlin also likes the product!”

Considering that “friends and family” are the most influential reviewers, it also comes as little surprise that survey respondents view Facebook as the most trusted of all the major social platforms:

  • Facebook:  ~68% consider highly trustworthy
  • Pinterest:  ~56%
  • YouTube:  ~51%
  • Twitter:  ~41%

Commenting on the research conclusions, Social Media Link’s CEO Susan Frech stated this:  “The survey found that people don’t need hundreds of recommendations and reviews to entice purchase; it’s really about receiving a quality message from a trusted source.”

Click here to view an infographic summarizing the Social Recommendation Index key findings.

What about you?  Is your view different from what’s been reported in this study?  If so, please share your observations with other readers here.

A new milestone for LinkedIn: 200 million users.

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , ,
LinkedIn reaches a new milestone: 200 million registrants.
LinkedIn is adding new registrants at a rate of two per second.

It may have gotten lost in the shuffle amongst the news about other social platforms like Twitter, Facebook … and now Pinterest and Instagram … but LinkedIn has quietly signed up its 200 millionth user.

While LinkedIn may have only a fraction of the 1 billion users who have signed up on Facebook, reaching the 200 million milestone is a pretty big deal for a professional networking site, and in fact makes LinkedIn the 800 lb. gorilla in the professional social segment.

LinkedIn is adding nearly 175,000 new registrants each day; that averages out to about two per second. So it comes as no surprise that if you look at LinkedIn’s trajectory over the recent years, it like one of those exponential lines:

  • January 2009: 32 million user registrations
  • March 2011: 100 million
  • December 2012: 200 million

LinkedIn has gone worldwide, too – although it’s not as international as Facebook. There are LinkedIn members in more than 200 countries and territories.  The United States continuing to lead the pack, but it now represents well fewer than half of registrants:

  • USA: ~74 million user registrants (37%)
  • India: ~18 million (9%)
  • United Kingdom: ~11 million (6%)
  • Brazil: ~11 million (6%)
  • Canada: ~7 million (4%)

There are detractors to look at Facebook and its user profile and see a lot of chaff among the wheat: a large portion “wannabe” professionals who are sole proprietors of varying degrees of consequence or even validity.

But at least these people actually exist, which is much more than you can say about the Twittersphere – the very archetype of the “digital Potemkin Village.”

LinkedIn’s growth isn’t just noteworthy in and of itself. It’s also become much more of a revenue machine … to the tune of an 80%+ rise in 2012 3rd Quarter revenues in over the same period in 2011. Look for that trend to continue.

Launched a decade ago, LinkedIn’s been fluttering around the periphery of the “big boys’ club” in social media for the better part of a decade.

Clearly, they’ve joined the club now.

A Game-Changer for Charitable Organizations and Causes?

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jumo, a social network focused on charities.Chris Hughes
Jumo, the newest social network focused on charities and social activism.
There’s a new international social media resource being launched. Jumo, which was unveiled this past week in a beta test version, aims to connect people with not-for-profit causes and charitable organizations.

Established in February 2010, Jumo describes itself as “a social network connecting individuals and organizations who want to change the world.”

The founder of Jumo is Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook who more recently served as director of online organizing for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. He sees Jumo as a way for people to find and evaluate organizations that focus on the causes that interest them. Such organizations can range all the way from health and educational initiatives to ones dealing with advocacy issues such as gay rights.

News articles, YouTube videos, Twitter posts and other content will be added to Jumo pages, and users can also add their own comments and feedback.

What’s the inspiration behind Jumo? It’s to establish a social platform focusing on issues, advocacy and not-for-profit organizations rather than on personalities or branded products. “The more connected [an] individual is to an issue they care about, the higher probability there is they will stay involved over a longer period of time,” Hughes has stated.

As part of establishing its mission, Jumo has outlined the following three key factors:

 Millions of people are working to improve the lives of others, many of whom lack the resources to have major impact.

 There are millions of other people who would want to help, but don’t know how.

 Despite where we are with technology, it’s still difficult to find meaningful opportunities to get involved.

Jumo provides a platform wherein people can discover the type of causes and organizations they care about, follow the latest news and updates in those fields, and support the work of these organizations through the donation of skills, time or financial support.

In Hughes’ view, this is what differentiates Jumo from social media platforms such as Facebook, which also allows the creation of pages for non-profit groups. Facebook’s groups tend to be passive, with many an individual’s interaction going little beyond “following” or “liking” them.

Hughes believes there will be significantly more volunteering and giving associated with the people who interact with organizations on Jumo. And if that happens, it may finally fulfill the promise of online platforms enabling not-for-profits to raise money more efficiently and less expensively than via traditional means.

That’s a goal that has been stubbornly elusive to date, as only about 5% of all U.S. donations come from online giving, according to the Blackbaud Index of Online Giving.

How does Jumo intend to grow and thrive in the online world? As a not-for-profit initiative itself, it plans to rely on payments from users and sponsorships from groups that would like to receive more highly visible promotion on the site.

Jumo already contains ~3,000 charitable organizations and issues-oriented groups which have been “seeded” on the site. But any organization that is certified as “tax exempt” is eligible to set up a page on Jumo.

Is Jumo destined to transform social activism? Only time will tell … but it will be interesting to see how this interesting new venture evolves and grows in the coming months.