A lot of people have been busy pouring over the documents filed by Facebook, for their IPO. Finally, it seems there is enlightenment about this magical land called Facebook!

Amongst the various Facebook facets that people have commented upon then, is also this one take – that Facebook’s reported numbers of Daily Active Users, may not be an accurate number!

These reported numbers have been questioned for accuracy, also here and here.

The key point that all of these articles make is that Facebook counts as a daily active user, someone who clicks a Facebook like button, on a third party site, without even visiting Facebook.com, either on the web or on the mobile.  And which these authors feel, is an inaccurate way to measure the daily user. Their main argument, it would appear, is that the particular daily user, is someone who cannot then be targeted for advertising, since he does not even come to the Facebook property.

Okay, so before I jump in to my views on the subject, let me explain this third party business, for those who may not quite get it.

If you are a Facebook user, the one obvious type of usage you can do, is when you go to your Facebook profile, say on your wall, as under:

You could also access Facebook similarly on your phone, say:

The authors of the articles mentioned above reckon, that such type of access to Facebook is the only kind that should really count, as being an active usage.

So what other ways CAN you be using Facebook?

Well, there are many web pages all over the Internet, which have plugged in what is known as the ‘Facebook like’ button, on their own pages. It would look something like this below:

What you are seeing here (and which you’d see on many web pages) is an article on a website, with a ‘Facebook Like’ button next to it.

So if you were on this website, and you actually enjoyed this article, you might just click this Facebook Like button next to it.

Now Facebook is counting SUCH clicks to also be a daily active usage of Facebook. And these authors who are questioning the number, are questioning exactly this factor!

Personally, I believe that it is perfectly okay for Facebook to count this as a daily usage number.

And I will give my reasons below.

First of all, let’s understand WHAT happens when a user clicks this particular link.

It is not just about a self-acknowledgment that “I liked this article”! What it does simultaneously is that, it sends out a status update on behalf of that reader, on his Facebook profile, to the effect that “I liked this article”, and with a link to the article.

Something as under:

Liking this page will result in a Facebook update of this kind:

In fact, this article explains this point in detail.

So as you can see, first of all, on account of having clicked that ‘like’ on the web article, there is amplification of the article, and it has a chance to be seen by many OTHERS (the reader’s friends, who may see his update on their walls). This then has a chance, to increase their engagement on Facebook, and also of course, increase traffic to the concerned website.

Note that, EVEN IF the web article did not carry the “Facebook Like” button, there are ways in which you can “Facebook Like” anything that you see on your browser. Thanks to “Facebook Like” browser plug-ins. I have one installed on my Chrome browser, as you can see below:

So anytime someone clicks such a Facebook Like button:

1. They are acknowledging that they are Facebook users
2. That they are logged in to Facebook at that time
3. That they want their Facebook friends to know that they liked a particular Web URL

And on account of this, many of their friends may ALSO engage via Facebook to that particular web article.

So why should this NOT be a legitimate Facebook usage?

The observers who are questioning this count worry about Facebook not being able to reach this user, via its’ ads. And hence, they feel, that such usage should not be counted as daily active usage.

Well, from a pure earnings’ standpoint (and which is of interest at IPO times, I guess), this may be a fact. For now at least. I presume, theoretically, there may be ways for reaching this user for some form of advertising or the other, later on. And I will not put this beyond the ingenious engineers at Facebook.

But from all other, non-revenue aspects, I believe that participation, even via third party, external sites, IS a perfectly legitimate use of Facebook, and cannot be questioned.

At this point, I may also emphasize another key element that people should think about, when they think of Facebook, especially in context of its comparison to most other web properties.

There has to be a recognition that the web is changing, and that content is getting mobile!

Time was when Amazon’s reach was the number of people who logged in to Amazon.com.

Then Amazon got affiliates. And allowed other websites to carry Amazon shopping options. Now if I were on a gardening blog, and saw a gardening book offered by Amazon, there was a chance that Amazon could have reached me, without my having gone to Amazon.com.

Think Google and Google search ads.

Earlier, you’d see Google ads on the Google search engine, when you searched for some topic. The ads would appear on the right side.

And then Google enabled other content providers to also carry Google ads. So again, if I went to a gardening blog, and the blogger had enabled Google ads, those ads would appear on the blog as well.

So if a gardening tools advertiser had picked some gardening related keywords to advertise on, his ad would be seen by a user reaching that blog, and who did not even go to Google to search!

And the feature of Facebook like buttons on external websites, is a part of this dynamic web 2.0 world. Especially in the case of Facebook, which is a Social Utility (being different things to different people at different times!), the important part is about creating a Facebook ecosystem.

And it has clearly created that in a big way!

Then, for a Facebook ecosystem, measuring the usage by considering how many people came to the website, Facebook.com, would in fact, be an inaccurate estimate of the impact that Facebook has on people’s lives, on a daily basis!

I believe if 450-odd million people connect with a Facebook property or link, one or the other way, that’s clearly more power to Facebook. And irrespective of the reach of advertising to these folks, these guys count!

Now, if it was about the little +1 on the corner that I see when I access Gmail, and which I do nothing about, and if Google were to treat THAT as active Google+ usage, then that would indeed be wrong. No matter what changes Google does to the user agreement!

It is often misunderstood that managing social media is easy for brands. I mean, we all do Facebook. So what can be the big deal about managing a brand presence on Social Media.

Well, for one, going from a comfortable, many times edited broadcast mode communication, to a real time, interactive space, where responses go out on the fly, is a huge bridge to cross. That is where the challenge begins. And then, it can get bigger!

Let’s look at this example, where perhaps, on behalf of the brand, someone with lack of understanding, lack of language skills, or both, decided to respond to comments on a Facebook post:

The disaster that can happen is for all to see.

Maybe English was not the primary language for the person replying. And she did not get the word ‘shameful’. What if it was a one-time unfortunate accident. But by the fact that this screen shot has gone around the world, many times over, the damage to the brand has been done. And badly.

Let’s look at another example. This was in fact, a well-intentioned effort, from a global leader and a household name, McDonald’s.

They’re been very active on social media, have done interesting activations, and have engaged their fans.

So it was not surprising that they initiated a hashtag #McDStories, where they hoped and expected that customers may share fun stories linked with McDonald’s.

But the campaign backfired and how.

Check out the detailed story which shows how the #McDStories hashtag became instead a bashtag. While there may have been consumers who had genuine, interesting McDonald’s stories to share, there were others who used the opportunity to bring out the horror stories of their McDonald’s experiences, from unhealthy food, to poor working conditions, and everything else in between.

Clearly a well intentioned effort that went horribly wrong.

There have been other cases where brands have had trouble, while engaging with consumers on social media. A case closer to home in India was about Cafe Coffee Day, when a fairly active social media brand had a trending hashtag in the form of #ccdsucks.

All of these cases show that:

1. Social media is clearly a double-edged sword for brands.

2. There is extreme participation of consumers around brands. Good and bad experiences can get quickly amplified. Whether the brands like it or not.

3. Brands need to have a sense of preparation, for things that could go wrong. While a #CCDSucks or a #McDStories cannot be necessarily foreseen, a fundamental awareness that things can go wrong, and a broad strategic approach for such situations, is something that brands need to have in place. Typically, before an incident occurs.

4. Often the understanding to manage such crisis is not internal, within organizations. This is due to a lack of experience in real time interactive spaces, and the eagerness to be “in control” always. The latter eagerness can often get brands to take impulsive steps that may not be the wisest ones after all! The Vodafone case when the brand tried to sue a consumer who was complaining about their services on social media, is an example of this.

Simple pointers for brands at this point are:

1. Your consumers are present and talking on social media. Whether the brand is present there or not. So just because there are challenges, to not be present on social media, is not even an option for brands.

2. Brands need to prepare themselves well. They cannot trivialize social media and relegate it to a lower level, in the corporate hierarchy. Senior management must participate in decisions related to social media.

3. Being prepared for eventualities helps in not being totally surprised.

4. Adequate budgets need to be apportioned. Just because Facebook or Twitter are free to use does not mean that brand budgets for social media should be peanuts!

5. And brands should really engage with agencies or consultants who “get” the medium. There are cheap ad film makers, but brands still go for the best in the business. Because stakes are high. The same kind of thought must prevail while making choices in selection of a social media agency!

With all that, social media’s an exciting space. One just needs to work harder, on a 24×7 basis!

I have received more than my share of “critical feedback” suggesting that my blog posts are often a little too long. The feedback has come first, from my teenage daughters (I am glad for their candidness!). Unfortunately, there is a risk that this post may also not be “short”.

But then, for this, I have to blame Mrs. Hansotia. Who Mrs. Hansotia? Oh, she was my English teacher from class VI to X. And like most English schools, ours too suffered from the now-exasperating British legacy of being extremely verbose.

Till today’s teenagers do not go and completely take over all English language teaching in schools, we may still suffer this excess for some more time. The rest of us have too much of a hangover from our school times, and end up being flowery length by default!

Then there is the radio legacy.

Back when live TV had not come, we had to depend on the adjectives of our poetic commentators (think Suresh Saraiya, for example) to visualize how the ground was, and how exquisitely Vishwanath had cut the ball to the cover fence for four (before getting out the next ball), and things of that nature.

Live television came, and we did not need to be “told” many of these things, as we could see them. And yet, our commentators, brought up in radio days, continued to tell us what we could plainly see!

So you get the point? I am talking about the long, long text that we write and speak. Instead of cutting to the chase. And instead of sometimes, cutting out the crap!

My grouse is not just about the longer blog post or the verbal diarrhea of our commentators, but in general, about the legacy to write too many words, and which even shows up on Facebook at times. Thankfully, Twitter does not give you that option at all.

At a recent event where I was a speaker, the topic of my talk was ‘How to be relevant to your audience in 140 characters’.

Before the event, once the organizers announced the topic, there was a whole lot of interest seen in Twitter, etc. I have not seen so much buzz around a speech topic. While part of this may be attributed to the organizers promoting the talk and the event, that the topic fascinated and intrigued a lot of people, was undeniable. In fact, there was a lot of questions post the talk and many of the folks also came and chatted individually, later.

So where are the real challenges in our habits, and especially in context of social media updates for brands?

You want to make a product update.

You have written brochures of web content for the product before this.

You are greedy. You want to get all of your details out, in that one update itself!

You want to use the opportunity of having to make a Facebook post about the product, to cover more or less everything about the product!

So your post could well read like:

“This exciting new <product> from <brand>, model number <abc> comes with it’s own remote control and a child proof lock as well. Made of stainless steel, you could see your own reflection on the <product>, and it is lightweight as well. So you can enjoy your day, with this <product> even as you bask in the sunshine.”

Or words of this kind.

This is clearly brochure-ware, and not good for a Facebook post.

If I had to constrain the writer to write the same post for Twitter, she’d find a way, wouldn’t she?

She’d probably write this as “Our new <product> <model> has a child proof lock, so your kid will not get accidentally hurt. Check it out at bit.ly/abc.”

Why could this not have been done on Facebook as well? Just because Facebook gave her more characters to post, she let her flowery language loose?

Here’s another example from recent times.

I had this really weird experience at a recent pitch where 6-7 people from the client’s end were sitting and my colleague was presenting. And at a point where he was explaining a point in depth, the client (almost) rudely interrupted him and said, “Yes, we get it. It’s a good idea. Now let’s move on!”

Whoa! That took us by surprise, although the client meant well.

We are all busy. Our attention spans are low. So get to the point. And get there fast. ANY word that does not add real value ought not to be present. If I can say it in one word, I don’t want to use two.

In a twitter conversation, often a single word tweet can have impact, e.g. “Epic!” or “OMG”. And if you want to give the liberty of an additional word, then there could be “Life sucks!”, or “Go Federer..”, etc. The story is told. In those 1-2 words!

So guys, as the title to the post suggests, “Cut the crap. And cut to the chase!”

Here’s an ad, that drives home the point..

The debate continues. Unabated. Nay, I should say, the cacophony. About whether Google+ is finally the one challenge for Facebook, in it’s dominating Social Networking presence.

If you think the noise will die down, rest assured, it would not. At least not for a while.  And perhaps, this piece is only adding to the various views already submitted on the subject.

At the very outset, I am glad that there is a challenger to Facebook. My views on what extent it can trouble Facebook follow later in this piece. But it is always good to have a challenge. That way, the leader is on alert, and is motivated to deliver even better innovation and value offerings to its consumer base.

But how much of an impact is Google+ really having, or how much will it have?

My observations on the subject are based more from the consumer behavior pattern, and less from the technology point of view here.

Let’s be clear. Facebook, Google, Ebay, Amazon or even a GroupOn, Rediff or others are now, as much of a consumer product and a consumer brand, than being technology plays. Technolgy is what’s behind the making of these, but to the consumer, they may as well be experiencing an LG television, as they are experiencing Facebook, or perhaps enjoying a movie in a PVR cinema.

So the way to look at the Social Networking space and this current market battle, is to understand the consumption pattern of social networks, and the characteristics of the same, and how, and if, will market share change.

So we have Facebook with it’s gigantic user base, an absolute dominating market leader, having got there in a few years, but on the back of providing amazing value to it’s users, and constantly “being more and more” and “to more and more” people.

Being more and more is in terms of value propositions that Facebook kept offering over time. From a social network, which could help connect students at a University with each other, to being a platform to connect to almost everyone you ever knew, to gently peak at the goings-on in your friends’ lives, to share your own, and while doing so, also share pictures, videos, play some games, keep tab on birthdays, chat, form groups of interest, follow your favorite brands, etc., Facebook kept becoming more than just another social network. That all of these activities had a lot to do with sharing and being with friends and groups, made it a logical reason to evolve around a social network. I mean, there were obviously better photo sharing sites, for example, but Facebook ended up having a multiple of photos shared than the biggest specialist photo-sharing site, Flickr. The reason of course, was that when you share photos, you want to show them to your loved ones – your friends and family, colleagues and classmates. And what better place to do so, than Facebook, where they all were anyway!

Your friends’ presence pulled you into Facebook, and then your presence, pulled in your other friends, and so on. It was a viral movement like none other. And which is at the heart of it all, more than technology. Yes, there is some sleek technology that makes all of this happen easily, but that is behind the scenes.

It is the occupation of the position of being a unique “social utility” that has given Facebook the position of domination that it enjoys today.

In the journey to domination, Facebook went past earlier leaders like Orkut (in India), MySpace and others. Some of the reasons why this shift happened was that, while Facebook kept innovating its range of offerings, and doing more and more, for more and more people, platforms like Orkut stopped innovating, and MySpace remained constrained in terms of it’s areas of focus. Leaving the space open for a better player like Facebook, to catch up and then move ahead!

And then comes Google+.

No wait, prior to Google+, Google came with earlier attempts like Buzz and Wave. Launched with nearly as much fanfare as Google+ has been launched this time. But both of those did not go too far.

So what is the difference this time around?

Well, with Buzz and Wave, Google was attempting to change the way people will experience social networking. While both had social networking fundamentals in place, they were asking users to experience social networks, much differently than they were used to doing. If Wave or Buzz had come in pre-Facebook era, perhaps, consumers might have got used to those structures. It is like someone introducing a cell phone, which is spherical in structure. Where perhaps you have to open up the sphere to dial, and then hold the ball to your ear, etc. As an innovation, it may generate intrigue but people are just too used to, and too comfortable, with the flat rectangular piece. If the first phones were spherical, then maybe, the world might have been moving around with balls next to their ears, rather than flat squares!

This was the challenge that Wave and Buzz faced. And perhaps due to which reason, they did not go far. Technology or merit of the platform apart.

And now comes Google+. Is it different this time?

Yes, the one clear difference that Google+ makes is that it stays closer to what people are already used to. While we will talk of specific features that Google+ offers, if you see past the names, it is clear that Google+ is similar in structure to Facebook, and in particular, attempts to address the few perceived gaps in Facebook. For example, the ability to share selectively with groups of friends, rather than with all of them together. It also innovates in the faster and easier photo sharing, and few other features.

But at the core, this time, Google has stayed closer to social networking features that users are already comfortable with. And then tried to fill the gaps, or do some of those things, better.

If anything, this is their best chance to succeed.

If like Wave or Buzz, they needed to get people to do something different, they should not even call it a social network. Or let anyone call it that. Yes, get into a completely different Blue Ocean, in that case.

Facebook got into a blue ocean. So did Twitter. And so did Foursquare. All of them, more or less occupied different spaces to begin with. After they all got some critical volume of usage, we find a lot of things common across the space. If however, Foursquare had come out saying, “we are a microblogging site that also allows you to put your location data”, they would have not got traction against Twitter.

Google+ though, goes into more or less, direct competition. It’s like one more soap to take on Lux, or a new butter to compete with Amul. Yes, the soap may leave a slightly better feel on your skin, or the butter may have a salty taste, or whatever. But at its core, it does not pretend to be something different!

So then what does it take to compete head-on with a market dominator?

In the world of soaps or butter, it can happen. It takes doing, but it can happen. Because in that physical world, due to issues like distribution network and geography, multiple brands can survive together.

The challenge is bigger online. Everyone’s a click away. If Ebay is one click away, do I need an upstart auction site, with lesser traction, to try out? No, I don’t!

So how does that explain the huge initial that Google+ has got, and the fan boys shouting themselves hoarse??

For one, Google being Google, whatever it does, generates a lot of interest. Yes, it has been the poster boy of the Internet era (okay, ONE of the poster boys, lest the Apple fan boys feel betrayed). Just for that reason, when Google talks of the new, new social networking initiative, and plays hard to get with limited invites, there is genuine intrigue. And there is a virtual stampede to get the invites, and try things out. That clearly explains the large initial.

The questions though are:

1. How many of those initial registered users continue to use it longer, beyond the first day / week?
2. How many have updates other than “someone or the other followed them” on Google+?
3. And most importantly, how many have reduced their usage of Facebook, or God forbid, STOPPED their usage of Facebook, and are spending more time on Google+?

Without adequate answers to these questions, it is inconclusive. Just yet.

I spend a lot of time online (my family thinks I spend ALL my time online!), and I have some observations. Yes, a lot of my friends have signed up for Google+. Of course, I have signed up too. And every day, I do keep getting the few new sign ups or follower updates.

However, except for 1-2 regulars who post a lot of updates on Google+ (like one would do Facebook status updates), I do not see any other ‘action’ on Google+.

And gradually I have started spending less and less attention to the red number at the top of the screen, when I am checking Gmail. I allow it to pile up and clear it once in 4-5 days.

As against, looking at similar red numerals on top of the Facebook screen, few times a day.

Meanwhile status updates, friends’ requests, photos and videos continue to keep coming and increasing, on Facebook. So no perceptible slowdown there.

So what’s happening here? Let’s look at the consumer behavior analogy. Just because it is tech, things don’t change, in terms of consumer preferences.

Think of it this way. You have your favorite pub, where you hang out. And whenever you go, there are always friends. Like the famous Cheers bar, this is the place where “everybody knows your name”. And then one day, a new pub opens up nearby. Puts out flyers with your newspaper, puts some hoardings out there, offers a better brew of beer. So like many others, you walk in one day. Don’t see any familiar faces. There are smiles, but not very personal, since they don’t really know you. You have a beer. It’s good too. And then you leave. Next evening when you are ready to hit the pub again, you think. For a moment. Okay, new or old. And then you reckon, “let me go where everyone knows my name”. And you go there, meet your pals, do a few high-fives, hug a few, and settle down and gulp away your old favorite brew. Even as the folks keep coming by and greeting you, your favorite music keeps playing, and in short, “life’s good”. So who cares much about the new place anyway? And since all your friends think the same, life continues like before.

That’s your Google+ vs Facebook situation. Now, in case your old pub had changed, stopped playing your favorite music, charged you extra for the chips, or something like that, THEN you might be tempted to give the new place another try. But otherwise, you stay put. Yes, that is what’s happening here too.

Let’s look at one of the big features that Google+ has. Circles. The idea is that, unlike Facebook where all your friends are clubbed as one (well, there IS the groups feature, but not many people use it much), Google+ says that you may like to share things selectively. Different stuff with your school buddies, something else with your neighbors, and likewise, with your relatives, wives’ relatives, colleagues, etc. etc.

Correct. Makes sense. Except for the effort to maintain those various groups!

It’s a different world we live in. The number of “connections” that a person has today is a multiple of what one typically had, say, 10 years back. Work, school, college, neighbors, relatives, twitter friends, Facebook friends, LinkedIn connections, and folks you meet at events, etc. etc. The list is large.

Maybe a lot of these kinds of connections were always there, earlier too. But when the world was not so small, some of the people you knew disappeared over the horizon, due to lack of contact for a long time. When people were at a distance, and they did not travel as much, again, the physical meetings did not happen. Again, the connections got irrelevant, after a point. And there were no “pure virtual” friends like we have today. People you have never met, but who become great Twitter pals, or some you connect with, on LinkedIn, etc.

So in this scenario of a very large number of connections, sometimes we wish to meet some of these people. And the utopian wish list is to meet the individual set of friends separately. In smaller groups maybe. But with maybe 20-odd “groups” that you may have, across your different slices of life, you would need a lot of time, to manage meeting these different people separately. So what happens then? When the urge to meet these folks becomes a bit too much, you finally throw a nice party, and invite all of them. And then just walk around, chatting with smaller groups. But the conversations are open enough, and the rest of the folks there, can also overhear. But you are fine with it. Because at least you managed to meet all of them.

THIS is the reality!

What is the Twitter thing? You broadcast your thoughts. Let the whole world know. You know some folks; they may listen to your tweets. Others are not. You don’t care. This is today.

So is there no need to do private communication? Sure, there is. But that part is handled by Direct Messages on Twitter, or Messages on Facebook, or via good old emails or phones, or even a face-to-face.

For the rest, we are good with the broadcast mode. Let whoever is interested “hear” what we have to share, and we will pick up things we need to know, from the various activities that our friends share. That is the ONLY kind of time we have. Imagine, looking at 10-12 different sets of groups, to check what people are saying and doing, and also going and posting different messages there. We just do not have the time for something like that!

We have seen brands lose out from dominating positions, online.

The search engine story. From Yahoo and AltaVista and others, to Google now.

The email game. From Hotmail and Yahoo and others, to Gmail now.

The reducing relevance of the portals. How dependent are you really, on Yahoo and Rediff, as a starting point now?

And then, you see the continuing dominance of Ebay and Amazon, in their respective categories.

If at all Groupon is looming large for an Ebay, it’s by doing a ‘blue ocean’. By not competing in traditional auctions or areas of Ebay’s dominance, but creating a new category altogether, in Group Buying.

So where does Google+ vs Facebook fit in?

In the cases of search engines and email, it was fundamentally ONE service. That had to be bettered. Like a better brew of beer. You get that. And you are one up.

So a search engine that delivered better results, an email service that worked little better. All of these were enough to upstage a leader. Sure, there was huge technology behind building that better mousetrap, but to the user, it was another mousetrap. A better one. Period.

In the case of the portals, it was different.

They had their legacies in the AOLs and the Prodigys of the world. Where they were the gateway to the World Wide Web, in a sense. And when people needed that hand holding to their ultimate goal. Of finding interesting things for themselves on the web.

Those days are gone. People have matured on the Internet; know what they want, and how they can get there. This is the reason for the reduced relevance of portals as portals. Rediff email may still have relevance, or Yahoo Finance may do too. But their relevance as portals has gone down.

So where a Facebook offers multiple things, does it face irrelevance like portals? No, I do not think so. Facebook is not just a motley combination of unconnected stuff put together, for each person to help himself. In a way, it is. But on the other hand, most of the stuff there, HAS a connection to connecting / sharing with others. And which is the key to a social network. The various features of a social network ‘live’ together, and work together. Quite like the way, one lives with one’s many relationships, many equations and interactions in society.

A social network, which helps me best to complete in the virtual world, what I am unable to do in the real world – keep up with my relationships – is valuable to me. And that is the preeminent position that Facebook has occupied in our lives.

As you can see, from a consumer behavior point of view, I do believe, it is a huge and uphill climb for Google+, no matter the initial registration base it has built. As a user, I am happy to see options, I am happy to see the leader challenged. And yet, in this particular battle, I do not see the challenger making much of an impact. I would be happy to be proven wrong, in the long run!

Being in the space of Social Media, I have been asked time and again, what my feelings are, about Google+. Well, that does go to show the deep interest that this latest launch from Google, has generated. People are talking about it, many are trying it out.

Before expressing my opinion, I must emphasize that as a Social Media agency, even though we may be leaning towards Facebook at this time, we are not “married” to any platform, as such. In fact, we are platform-agnostic. A couple of years back, when our agency, Social Wavelength got started, we did include Orkut as part of our recommended strategies, for many of our clients. But as we saw Orkut declining, we stopped recommending it. We have recommended Quora in some cases, but not all. And so on. In short, we’d love to recommend the right platform and the right strategy, to our clients, and we have no permanent favorites!

Having said that, the early views on Google+ are that, it will not really challenge Facebook just yet. There are many reasons for this view:

1. It is a hard act to take on a 750 mn giant. If Facebook had started off thinking of getting past MySpace (at whatever size it was) or any other network, it would always have looked weak. Whether Google+ is even aimed at Facebook or not, people are thinking in that direction. And it will always come out a poor second, in that situation.

2. Because there isn’t enough compelling stuff happening there, not enough people will spend much time. And if much time is not spent by many people, it will not pick up traction. It’s that vicious circle. People will still spend time on Facebook, put their photos and videos, update their statuses, share fun stuff. That will make their friends stay there, and spend more time there. No serious migration happening.

3. I ask this often when I speak at seminars and conferences: Which is the second biggest auction site after ebay? Most times there is total silence. Even if there is one, who knows? Who cares? That’s the issue. If you become really big, and you keep doing great stuff, especially via technology (as ebay has done in its space), why DOES anyone need options? And everything’s a click away, so it’s not like “this store is closer to me, so I’ll go there, rather than the market leader”. Everything’s a click away. So ebay it is. And Facebook it is.

4. Facebook did not come with an objective to be on Orkut killer or a MySpace killer. It came with an idea of doing some great things for people connected to each other. And in doing that, they kept working on many, many good things that people wanted out of a network of this kind. And during all this time, Orkut and MySpace kind of stopped evolving. And suddenly we had people spending more time at Facebook because it was doing all the right things that they wanted, and in turn, stopped spending that time on MySpace or Orkut. And so the shift began, and Facebook kept growing. And growing. And growing..

5. Google+ on the other hand, seems to have picked the few specific features where it wants to look a little different from Facebook, and offer an apparent advantage. Those few features, or that little bit difference, does not an exodus create. So while it may cause a little intrigue, some trials, some debate, it is not enough to make any serious dent on Facebook. At least just yet.

6. This in fact, is my feedback often to entrepreneurs. For example, in recent days, I have seen 3 different models of recruitment portals. At the entrepreneur’s level, he knows exactly how he is being different from the current leaders. And usually it is about that one feature, or the few niceties. But I ask them, a) are these differences so apparent to the user, as he gives his 10 seconds spin to your site – are they immediately apparent, and b) once he recognizes those differences, are those significant enough for him, to make your site a habit? If the answers to either of the questions is “No”, then the site is not likely to go far. Same questions can be asked to Google+ at this point. And the answer, I am afraid, will be “no”!

7. In fact, there is another parallel I can draw with an online entrepreneur. So the entrepreneur starts a new online service. Something unique. Some new niche identified. And lets word out. One or the other way. And sure enough, there are many who rush in, to try the service. A few hundred, maybe a few thousand. Some of them are excited enough to leave flattering messages on email or on phone. All this tremendously excites entrepreneurs. They feel they are on to something. And they go head long into big investments, more features, etc. Too often though, they get it wrong. This is the classic case of crossing the chasm. There will always be the initial adopters. Some do it because they want to try new things. Some out of intrigue. Some because of peer pressure. But the true test is in longevity and sustained growth. Do people stick around? Is the growth rate exponentially growing? And the farther ahead a competitor is, the growth rate needs to sustain for that much long. In absence of that, it would be yet another interesting new thing that came, people tried, and nobody noticed when it became inconsequential.. Google+ stands this risk again. Whether Google itself takes these early numbers seriously or not, the many Google fans in the world have started doing so. I am afraid we are not even near the chasm just yet, forget about crossing it.

Few other interesting view on the subject:

Social Networking is a Zero Sum Game: Google+ Will Need to Figure Out What Problem It Solves

How are you my dear Google+ and what can you DO FOR ME???

Google Plus (Google+): The Painful Realization

Why Google+ Doesn’t Stand a Chance Against Facebook

Well, I am sure there are other opinions on this. I know there are few different ones within Social Wavelength too

So these are my opinions, and yet, I am happy to be proved wrong. Will be fun, either ways..

Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.. !

It was fun time again this year, at the Global Youth Marketing Forum, organized by Dr. R. L. Bhatia.

I was invited to speak on the subject of how brands are using Social Media to reach youth markets. As our company has many brands that target youth markets using Social Media, I was able to share my experience. A detailed case study that I shared was about one of our clients, Channel V, and a recent, successful campaign that we ran on Social Media, called ‘Sabse Liked College’.

My presentation deck, from the forum is as under:

Anyone who knows me a bit knows that I am an avid Bollywood fan. But that does NOT mean that I watch all films. I do have my favorites and I do have hunches. And I end up seeing a lot of films in the process. From a film marketer’s point of view, I would consider myself a top consumer.

One of the last big releases of the year, from a successful film maker and starring a popular and also successful pair released last week, viz. Tees Maar Khan. Ordinarily, I would have not waited for reviews and would have seen a film with such pedigree. But somehow, due to a hunch that the movie may not be so great, and also a basic paucity of time, I held back. And I am glad that I did. Because the verdict was out by early Saturday. On Facebook and Twitter, the film was flamed. And I was glad that I had not wasted my time on it.

I do not understand so much about movie making economics, so I am not sure if Tees Maar Khan will still end up recovering its costs or not. But overall the film has flopped. And there is no denying it. And two very critical factors in the failure of the film are:

1. Social Media – Facebook, Twitter etc. – that enables reviews and opinions from people spread out faster, and

2. The fact that ‘people trust people like themselves’. So much for the number of stars the film got, in the newspapers. That is only one reviewer’s opinion. I will trust my friends and people of that kind.. !

This article on Film Marketing shows the impact that Social Media is having on Hollywood as well.

A few specific quotes from the article are as under:

When negative Twitter commentary seemingly torpedoed the Sacha Baron Cohen film “Bruno” in July 2009, movie executives started talking in solemn tones about the ability of social networking to sway attendance. The era of using marketing to trick consumers into seeing bad movies was drawing to a close.

It was mostly lip service.

Yes, as it says, there was denial in Hollywood as well. Although they sensed the possibility of a Social Media impact, and talked about it, they did little in terms of actual response. So what was the result?

As Hollywood plowed into 2010, there was plenty of clinging to the tried and true: humdrum remakes like “The Wolfman” and “The A-Team”; star vehicles like “Killers” with Ashton Kutcher and “The Tourist” with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp; and shoddy sequels like “Sex and the City 2.” All arrived at theaters with marketing thunder intended to fill multiplexes on opening weekend, no matter the quality of the film. “Sex and the City 2,” for example, had marketed “girls’ night out” premieres and bottomless stacks of merchandise like thong underwear.

But the audience pushed back. One by one, these expensive yet middle-of-the-road pictures delivered disappointing results or flat-out flopped.

And what was one of the reasons WHY this happened?

As a result, studios are finally and fully conceding that moviegoers, armed with Facebook and other networking tools and concerned about escalating ticket prices, are holding them to higher standards. The product has to be good.

Although the article is more about the need to make quality films, the impact of Social Media on pronouncing a verdict on the success or otherwise, of films, is clear and unambiguous. This is true of Hollywood, and becoming increasingly relevant in Bollywood as well!

Why just cinema? In fact, even television shows are impacted significantly, by Social Media chatter.

Check this data about Twitter and its relevance to television programming.

It is clear that with smartphones, streaming television, and a fundamentally multi-tasking attitude of people, the activities of watching television and tweeting, often happen simultaneously. The tweets could be about not believing Barkha Dutt’s words as she tries to give her side of the story in #RadiaGate or it could be your view on the singer in Indian Idol. It could also be about the bizarre twist that the story takes in your favorite soap opera, or your opinion on the commentator at the cricket game.

The tweets (or facebook posts or blogs or whatever) have a tendency to create larger opinions. Whether a program ‘works’ or not. Whether a TV anchor is doing a good job or not. Whether a channel does good coverage of sporting action or not. Suddenly in addition to your isolated TV watching (or maybe with few friends or family), you have a whole world out there, ‘watching with you’ and also ‘talking to you live’, about their feelings regarding the television program! Your opinions are obviously subject to their influence now!

So if you are in the television or movie business, these are not mere statistics. These are real signs to watch for, to deal with. The success of your film or your television program, WILL have dependence on the chatter in Social Media. The earlier you accept this, the better.

Once you accept it, and you are still responsible for the marketing success of your entertainment product, what can you do about it now? Or can you do anything at all?

Here are a few thoughts:

1. You cannot get away with an ordinary product. Sorry, there are no short cuts anymore. Word gets out. It gets out fast. Fewer suckers are available to test your product, if it is fundamentally not good. So work on creating a good product, in the first place!

2. Talk to your audience before the release of your film, or the launch of your television program. Use the Social Media channels to create the right expectation around your product. Most of the time, a film bombs because people were expecting something very different. Or the wrong audience went in, they did not like the film, and then the wrong buzz started on Social Media. By talking to your potential viewers in advance, setting up the film / TV program, for what it really is (and what it ISN’T as well), you make sure that the audience that likes that kind of entertainment, will only watch, and they may actually like it, and start sharing good tidings about your film / TV show.

3. Don’t oversell. A lot of the buzz on Social Media, prior to the release of a film, centers around the reports that one has picked up, and the anticipation therefore, about how the film will turn out. If there has been aggressive selling, there is every chance that the expectations will be very high, and as soon as these are not met, the chatter on Social Media will swing to how the film did not measure up! And disaster follows, then. An example of this may be the new show about to be launched on Imagine TV, with Shah Rukh Khan as the host. Marketing messages about it being the greatest show on television or how SRK is being paid close to $ 0.5 mn per episode etc. are creating massive expectations out of the show. Will it measure up in actual delivery? Either ways, the pressure will be very high for the show to be absolutely perfect for everyone. A tough expectation to live up to.. !

4. Listen, monitor.. : Whether it is a film or a television show, listening in to what your consumers are talking about, on Social Media, is absolutely critical. Listening, and then acting on the feedback. For an ongoing television program, there is no more immediate a feedback loop than Twitter. Even as the show is on, you will see tweets about ‘how the VJ sucks’ or about ‘the bias from the celebrity judges of a reality show’, etc. There is a chance to correct in the next episode and relate better to the audience. Of course, the ultimate opportunity is to crowdsource the complete show, going ahead, based on feedback from Social Media. In the case of a film, there may be low opportunity to correct, since the serious monetization life of a movie these days, is about a week or so. Still, say, Ashutosh Gowariker listened to, and got the feedback that Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se was a little too long, and people were strongly disliking that fact, AND if he had also kept a shorter edit ready, could he have quickly replaced the prints, and given the film another chance to succeed? Possibly.. !

For the record, our company, Social Wavelength, works with few entertainment brands (amongst other clients) and we would be happy to guide you, for creating a good Social Media strategy for your next film or your next television program! Feel free to contact our sales team at bd@socialwavelength.com.

I would love to get your thoughts / feedback on the above points. Do share them in the comments below..

Almost a year ago, I had blogged about the challenges that Advertising Agencies face, while approaching Social Media. And one of the points that I shared at that time was the “campaign” oriented approach that agencies had, whereas Social Media demanded more of an ongoing management approach, rather than a burst of a campaign.

While a lot has changed in a year, including the level of understanding that Advertising Agencies have, about Social Media, the one thing that has perhaps only gone worse, is the increasing campaign-style approach, while making Social Media a part of the marketing mix, for brands.

I interacted with one such agency recently. It was heartening to hear that they had close to 20-25 Social Media activations for brands. Considering the type of brands, and assuming that these are all active at the time, I presumed that they had a large team managing Social Media, at their end. Or that they were outsourcing the execution to someone else.

First of all, they proudly mentioned that they did not outsource anything. Which was fine. But then they conveyed that their Social Media team was all of 6 persons. Which came as a surprise to me.

I did some digging around after the meeting, and I found that almost all of the brands that they had mentioned had had some good bursts when they went online for Social Media, but they were nearly inactive at this time. Except for the 4-5 which were currently active.

It so appeared that the brands did not care (or they did not realize what damage they were doing to their brands by creating a community and ignoring it later) and neither did the agency.

Many a significant FMCG brand in recent times, have gone on to television and in print, with their specific campaign oriented Facebook pages. Given that this visibility to Social Media is heartening, but if the page is left to die, when the campaign goes off air, it will be sad. And we have seen more cases of such abandonment for me to fear the same fate here as well!

And as against these approaches, consider the approaches of brands like Fastrack, Ching’s Secret, Just Dial or Pantaloons, for example, and you will see that these brands have kept their Social Media activations central to the brand, and not to a campaign, and they have nurtured their communities, with good, ongoing engagements, not just when an offline campaign was running. And these are the more long lasting approaches, after all.

So what made that agency I was referring to earlier, to take a campaign approach? The reasons as I can see can be one or more of the following:

1. The agency does not understand better. With a legacy of a campaign oriented approach, they continue to recommend the same thing, even in Social Media.
2. The agency understands the difference for sure, but going the ‘ongoing social media management’ way would demand them to grow their team size, by leaps and bounds, for every new client that goes on to Social Media (like our company, Social Wavelength has done, in fact). And adding heads into the agency is not so easy for them. Sometimes they need to justify every new head to add to the rolls, all the way to Singapore or New York or Chicago or Paris. It is an elaborate process, and someone in the system needs to stick his head out, and take responsibility to bring in revenues to justify the addition. All these are easier said than done. It is easier then, to recommend campaigns to clients, and get done. And manage with the team size that the agency carries.
3. The agency could of course, outsource to specialist social media outfits (like Social Wavelength or many others in the space now) and manage long term social media activities. However here again, there is a demand for effort and energy from the agency’s end. The few agencies that have created some excellent ongoing working relationships with us have put in serious efforts from their end. Like having a few people dedicated to work with us and with the client, and ensure that the agency adds value in the chain. When they take a certain responsibility of delivery on behalf of the brand, they have to be involved. In real-time, when the outsourced social media outfit puts out updates on behalf of the client brand, the agency is still carrying the responsibility of there being no goof-ups. This does not happen without effort from the agency’s end. Few agencies have the attitude or the commitment to social media, to invest that kind of time and effort on this. And so they do not outsource, they manage in-house, and with their small teams then, they end up doing only “short term social media campaigns” then!
4. Many times, the constraint is from client’s end. They are not willing to take long calls on Social Media, and want to experiment at a campaign level. And agencies agree to these suggestions (as they do, to a lot of client demands – after all, the client is signing the cheques!). And which is why we see the short bursts of campaign oriented social media. Unfortunately for the client too, this will not serve as good examples. When you think you are experimenting in social media, with such bursts, you are not really experimenting in social media, but rather you are using social media as one more media platform, to run your traditional marketing campaign. And these are NOT the same thing! What you learn – good or bad – about Social Media, from such an experiment, is not the right research for an ultimately, long term ongoing Social Media presence.
5. The final reason is that of budgets. An ongoing Social Media presence demands commitments to resources say, for the next one year. A campaign may on the other hand, ask only for commitments for 1-2 months. The latter is an easier decision for the brand to take, and for an agency to sell. But it is happening at the cost of not utilizing Social Media, for what it really stands for. And it can often cause more harm to the brand, when social media platforms are abandoned. I have seen many in recent days, where fan updates on a Facebook page include marketing messages of Viagra like pharma offers, competitor offers, or other home business promotions. And no one from the brand or the agency has felt it necessary to go and clean up the page!!

Recently we have also got an assignment from an agency, for a brand that wants to do a campaign oriented social media presence. We advised against. We shared the pitfalls of the approach. The client was not convinced. We are doing the Social Media activity, only for the campaign, much against what we stand for. However, we disowned our responsibility on the ultimate benefit for the brand. And we reckoned that while executing this “campaign”, we will make the case for an ongoing presence. So let’s see how that part pans out.

But for us, this is a rare one. But it is also indicative of the way many brands and agencies continue to take the quick fix approach. It is important to understand that this Is not how a good Social Media presence should be established. We continue to put our efforts to educate clients and agencies that we work with.

What are your views on this? Do you face similar challenges with brands / agencies? Do you even agree to the campaign vs ongoing management approach for Social Media? I a keen to read your views on the subject!

Time was when years back, good friends Venky (Venky Iyer, owner of Goli Vada Pav) and Sanjay Mehta (Jt CEO of Social Wavelength, a Social Media Agency) used to sit on the “katta” along with friends, chai and vada pav, and make casual chatter! From golis about Chetan Chauhan’s inability to face bouncers, or Rekha’s dances in Muqaddar ka Sikander, to the gyaan about what career might be best to pursue, such “profound” discussions were the norm!

Cut to 2010. Not much had changed for Venky and Sanjay. Still the same kind of golis and some similar gyaan about all kinds of subjects under the sun. Except it was not the footpath ‘katta’ where these discussions were happening. In fact, Facebook had become the new ‘katta’. And the golis and the goli gyaan are a part of the “Vada Pav + Cutting Chai + Aamchi Mumbai = Awesomeness” Facebook page, a hugely successful Social Media activation run by Social Wavelength, for Goli Vada Pav.

When Venky and Sanjay got talking originally, to create a Social Media presence for Goli Vada Pav, many different strategies were considered. Finally, the Social Wavelength team in consultation with Venky, came up with the idea to go a surrogate way. Instead of pushing Goli Vada Pav as the brand, at the top of the Facebook page (as is the norm for most corporate Facebook pages), an alternate strategy was planned out.

The Facebook page that got created was called “Vada Pav + Cutting Chai + Aamchi Mumbai = Awesomeness”. This resonated absolutely perfectly with the Facebook fans. After seeding the page and sharing it with a handful of people, the fan growth was rapid and totally viral. The name itself had the element of magic:

• Vada Pav – the staple food of the masses and especially the youth, a product of Mumbai, extremely popular all over,
• Cutting Chai – that half-full glass of tea that is an ‘anytime’ drink for people in Mumbai, and makes for a perfect blend with Vada Pav,
• Aamchi Mumbai – how the citizens refer to their beloved city, Mumbai,
• Awesomeness – not just good, not just great, but simply awesome. That is what the combination of Vada Pav, Cutting Chai and Mumbai, meant to Mumbaikars!

The fan growth of this page was immediate, very viral. The Mumbaikars who discovered the page, simply clicked the fan button and joined the community. Many from outside Mumbai also came to the party, as this was the food combination that they looked to grab, on their visits to Mumbai. The spirit of Mumbai was evident in the combination and even people from outside Mumbai, and outside India, in fact, connected to the idea!

This Facebook page of Goli Vada Pav, created by Social Wavelength, worked for different reasons, for different people. And they said so in the comments that they left on the page.

Many remembered and missed the Vada Pava they had left behind in Mumbai. Others remembered that perfect diet that worked for them every day – at work, at college, anywhere! And there were the few, who were curious to figure out, what this page was all about.

And the discovery happened as the days rolled out. Beyond the intrigue of the name of the Facebook page, there was a lot of fun, on the page.

Interesting trivia, fun around Bollywood and music, little known vada pav facts, and occasional ‘serious’ stuff like career advise kept getting posted, to fascinate the largely young set of fans that the page had acquired by then. These were interestingly named as Daily Goli, Garam Goli, Goli Gyaan, and similar ones. The play on the word ‘Goli’ was deliberate, considering the brand behind the page, Goli Vada Pav. We leveraged this place to the maximum to know more about our fans by starting a friendly conversations, which would provoke them to response. For Eg: A simple question like ‘What is the best place to have dinner on a rainy day? 1. Dhabba 2. Fine Dine Restaurant, Bhajji/vada pav with cutting chai at a thela?

The content was mixed up with photos and music, to satiate the demands of such fun elements, for the youth following. Sharing few yesteryears photos along with simple trivia, helped us to engage our fans who felt nostalgic about their past and to youth alike, as they are more curious to know about the past.

Fans were instantly able to connect with our Goli Gyaan.

Our Facebook fans were eager to share their views and comments when we interacted with them on a friendly level and asked them what they feel about any particular issue For Eg:

We were able to generate tremendous response from our client when we asked them to recognize the childhood picture of famous Bollywood star. For Eg,

The Facebook page was supplemented with a blog, written in his own inimitable style, by Venky himself. The can-do, go-getter attitude of the brilliant entrepreneur, Venky, was exemplified in his blog. And Social Wavelength proved to be the perfect foil for Goli Vada Pav, to make this strategy happen, and successfully too.

Goli Vada Pav as a business, and as a Social Media entity, continues to grow very well. Large number of stores all across the country, and a growing base of fans on Facebook, are parameters of fast paced growth, of Goli Vada Pav.

Social Wavelength also continues to thrive and grow as a Social Media Agency. A large team of 50+ dedicated Social Media professionals, an excellent roster of clients, and an increasing experience base in the ever evolving Social Media space, provides the perfect leadership position for Social Wavelength, in the field of Social Media.

For more information contact,

Social Wavelength

Sanjay Mehta, Jt CEO

smehta@socialwavelength.com

No, this is not a typo. I was not referring to Google. I was indeed referring to Facebook as a search engine.

What is a “search engine”? From a users perspective it is a platform where I can quickly get relevant results for whatever I am looking for. Five years back if were looking for, say a recruitment agency, I would go to Google, type “recruitment agency in Mumbai” in the search box and then in 0.182 seconds a set of results would be displayed on my computer screen. I would faithfully click on most of the links on the first page and perhaps one or two on the second page. I would look at each website and based on the communication and aesthetics of the site, perhaps shortlist 2-3 people to talk to. Chances that I would succeed in finding a suitable agency or perhaps my efforts would yield zilch result and I would be forced to continue with my existing agency.

Now in the Facebook era, my search works differently. I go to my Facebook page and type “Looking for recruitment agency in Mumbai. Referrals welcome”. In the next 24 hours I have some 5 suggestions from people I know on Facebook. Since these suggestions are coming from people whom I already know, a prima facie faith in the prospective agency has already been established. I touch based with these 5 suggestions and zero in on one of them.

Alternately, I go and make a posting in LinkedIn forum regarding my requirement for a recruitment agency. In the next 2-3 days half a dozen prospective agencies have made their presence felt in my mailbox. I look up the CEOs profile, see how he is linked to me (do I know someone who also knows him, if yes, do a quick reference check) and then zero in on the agency I want to work with.

Social Media is changing the way we are looking for information. If Web 1.0 (and Google) gave us information at our fingertips (everything and more was available at the click of the enter key), Web 2.0 (and the likes of Facebook and LinkedIn) are giving us access to experience at our finger tips. If I have 200 friends on my Facebook, in effect what I am having is access to their collective experience at the tip of my finger.