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..

For some reason, December gets your mind working in this manner. Thinking about what went by, thinking about what’s coming up. Though this is something you can potentially do any time of the year, there are these December triggers.

You’ll take this kind of a stock for yourself, and then perhaps larger issues, like the world at large!!

So I got afflicted too. And rather than look backward (more of an analysis and research task), I choose to look ahead. Crystal ball gazing on where the digital space in India is going, in 2012.

The good part about this effort is that you can only prove me wrong, after 12 months, by which time, if I have gone horribly wrong, you’ll not remember, and if I have struck gold with my predictions, I will ensure that you don’t forget that ‘I told you so’! So it is a win-win for me, and hence, here goes.. my 10 predictions for the digital space in India, in 2012:

1. E-commerce or more specifically, online retail of goods, will continue to show fabulous growth: the hockey stick curve has started, perhaps 12 months back. This will continue on a sharp, upward trajectory, right through 2012. The growth is on account of various factors:

• Internet user base growth
• Better bandwidths
• Mobile penetration
• More focused online stores doing awesome job of merchandising, logistics, etc.
• COD and other easy payment options

But besides all of these, I believe that there is one very significant factor here. I believe that a new consumer generation has come into the marketplace at this time, and they are shopping online. And they are digital natives. And not digital migrants. Like the folks who shopped before.

Those who are 20-21 now, on their first jobs, earning their first salaries, and having disposable incomes, these guys never wrote letters, only emailed. They used computers at schools and shared homework with their friends on email. For them, texting and tweeting are like air and water. They were just there. They did not migrate into these from some other planet of letters or faxes! So for this new consumer generation, shopping online’s also as natural a step.

It is my belief that the coming of this new generation has been the biggest contributor in this significant upward swing in online retail. And that being the case, this will only continue to grow, in 2012.

Because Flipkart and Infibeam and few others, are investing so well into logistics and other fundamentals, they will continue to establish themselves as leaders here. But the space is very very young still. These are no permanent leadership positions. You could see challenges, especially in specific categories, emerge in 2012. Perhaps a different brand for lifestyle products, another for household items, something else for motherhood, and a different one for kids maybe.. watch the space. It is about to change!

Amazon should be entering India for sure, in 2012. And even while they are building their own team, and deny rumors of acquisition plans, they WILL acquire. But it may not be Flipkart. Flipkart on the other hand, will use the large sums of money it has raised to make 1-2 niche acquisitions of its own. And most certainly, amongst the rest of the pack, some consolidation will happen. Perhaps driven by the common VC investor!

India’s retail majors will NOT acquire yet. They will continue to be in huge debt burden, and FDI will only reduce their debt, but the economy will not allow them to venture into online retail via acquisition routes, especially at a time, when VCs have driven up the valuation of online retail, and they will not sell cheap. At least not so soon!

2. The Group Buying / Daily Deals space will crack: Yes, while e-commerce / online retail will be hot, some of the ventures which have pretended to be e-retail, but were actually deals’ sites only, will have challenges to face. I have been a verbal critic of the group buying model. I have been a believer that group buying is good for certain categories only, and for certain times (like for liquidating perishable / excess inventory), but the direction that the industry took, and the way everything was being sold at deep discounts, was a dangerous trend. And not sustainable, in any case. And the valuations that these sites have commanded have been a function of numbers, that are unsustainable too. So we will see the model crack. We will see some Deals Snap, and some Groups On fire.

3. Media Buy Spends for digital will increase: Well, the marketers have been talking the talk for a while now. Check out one marketing conference after another, and all they want to talk about is, how digital is becoming big and exciting. And yet, on the ground, the talk has not been walked. Enough. And we still see fat cheques written out to television, and loose change dropping the digital way. Multiple things are happening that will make for big shifts here.

First of all, a lot of marketing is getting integrated now. So while the bulk money may be spent on traditional media, because a contest or some call to action is integrated into digital, there is digital spend too (perhaps an application on Facebook, say). Then again, due to the slow economy, larger mainline budgets may be hard to come by. And yet, the brand has to reach the consumer, and at a lower outlay, digital may be the way for a brand to do so. And the marketer can finally walk his talk then, no matter if it was forced to him, due to his budget constraints.

One way or the other, digital agencies will see increased billings as a consequence.

4. Marketing will get more integrated: We are already seeing a lot of this. Like a TVC having a call to action that goes to a Facebook link. Or when bloggers are invited to brand events, along with press, and there is amplification of the communication sought to happen on social media spaces too. Some of these are already here. 2012 will see a lot more of these happening, and in fact, integrated marketing will become commonplace.

So if there is an iconic TVC campaign, and you have run out your television media budgets, you could create a set of sequele, to continue to ride the popularity, on YouTube maybe. Or where more and more flash mobs are seen (God help us.. !) just to create content that a brand may expect (“hope”?) to viral thereafter. Live tweeting of your on-ground event, a story that begins on Twitter and takes wings on mainline media, etc. are all examples of media merging. So from media spaces like television, print, digital, social, mobile, to Above-the-line, Below-the-line, etc. all combining, are realities that we will see more in 2012.

As Nikesh Arora of Google said, there is no online or offline, now there in just the one line!!

5. Brand Pages on Facebook will have to fight clutter: A Facebook page for my business, then one for my housing society, and then one for my Walking Group, and one also for my pet dog, and oh, one for my bonsai plant, etc. etc. Just because these are so easy to make, there will be tons of brand pages on Facebook. Everyone and their uncle will have one. And names will be misleading. Confusing. And brands that got excited by a Facebook presence, will now realize that the presence is only a starting point, and means nothing by itself.

Creativity will be at a huge premium, and brand pages that stand out for creativity, a unique approach, will emerge victorious.

6. Google+ will get an honorable mention in history: After Orkut, Wave, Buzz, Google+ was yet another effort by Google, to get into Social Networking. Perhaps Google’s best effort till date. Got a lot of initial buzz, many diehard Google fans swore by it, were happy to see competition to a dominating giant. But after a few months, we are already seeing a larger registered user base for G+ (curiosity got people to register) but very little traction in terms of usage. Yes, some of the geeks are there, and love their own private network. There are also some interesting features, like Hangouts, for example.

But it is no challenge to Facebook. Not now, and unlikely to get there. And because people only have so much time in a day, their ‘social media hours’ will most likely go to Facebook and LinkedIn, and not shift to G+ anytime soon. And that’s the reality, like it or not.

So while the fizz has already gone down, 2012 will see Google+ take its rightful place in history, as another commendable effort in the space, by Google. But an effort that was at best, a good also-ran!

7. Social Media embarrassments will happen: Inspired by Anand Mahindra and Ratan Tata, CEOs and other top management are getting tempted by Twitter. Except that they don’t always spend so much time to ‘get’ the medium. And they could make costly mistakes! Likewise there would be others in the organization, who could make some boo-boos. There are organizations who like to keep their social media efforts lean and mean in costs. “An intern could take care of this”, they figure. And they hand over their brand worth thousands of crores to that intern. And yes, they’d save a few thousand bucks each month. Except the intern could also mess up one day. Or for that matter, the social media agency could make a mistake too.

We have not heard so far, terribly embarrassing situations, but I suspect one will happen, in 2012. And the sooner we have it, the better, so that it draws everyone’s attention, and everyone gets a little more careful from that point onwards! Nothing like an incident to make people acknowledge the risk! Oh, and by the way, I hope that the embarrassment is not with any of OUR clients.. lol. I don’t mind learning this with someone ELSE’s experience, rather than mine!!

8. Online Reputation Management will be part of a brand’s budgets: People will cuss brands on social media. Why? Because brands are there, and because social media is there! And cribbing and cussing is so easy to do. Then there will be some mean competitors who think it is easy to use fake accounts and malign a competitor’s brand. OR a disgruntled employee wanting to run down his ex-company. Only because he reckons that he can do it, and get away with it.

So all this was already happening, and so how will 2012 be different? Well, for one, more people will discover how easy it is to malign brands. Secondly, as the base of users increases, and more people use the web and take decisions based on the inputs got from these media, the impact of such negativisms about a brand, will be larger.

For few brands it could be loss of market share. For others it could mean a loss of market cap! And for yet others, it could mean the filing of legal suits and / or a large PR budget to clean up the mess.

The later in the reputation loss that repair is initiated, the more difficult and more expensive it gets. Which is where Online Reputation Management (ORM) comes in. While ORM will also NOT prevent from bad news showing up for a brand, ORM will detect, and enable a fix faster, before more damage has happened.

With that consideration, I’d expect more and more companies to make ORM a nORM in their business!

9. A killer case study will happen, on Social Media, in India: While India has got some brands with very large Facebook fan bases, and there have been some moderate YouTube views, we have not yet seen a thunderous success, like an Old Spice or a Blendtech or something of that level. I think we have come close now. The year 2012 should see a few large Social Media successes in India as well. It will give a well deserved respect for Social Media, amongst marketers.

And yes, in this aspect, I would hope that it is one of our client campaigns, which makes the cut ‘from good to great’

10. We should see some M&A in the agency space: We have many agencies in digital and social media spaces, that are either boutique or small enough, and not part of any big agency group. Between all of these smaller and independent agencies, they manage a large part of the digital and social media businesses. And ad and PR agencies, much bigger than these independent agencies, often do not get a share of that business.

As explained in an earlier prediction, the spends on digital wil increase, and there will be more number of integrated campaigns, too, where the mainline agency and the respective digital agency would probably work together.

It would be time where the larger agencies start thinking of ‘owning’ this piece, and not just renting it. And while ‘build’ is always an option for them, some will look at a ‘buy’. Here is where before end of 2012, we will see some M&A activity amongst the agencies.

We may also see some smaller agencies consolidating in parallel, which wil add steam to the M&A movement in the industry.

So those are my ten predictions. What do you think?

Agree with few, disagree with others? You have any other predictions? Share them as comments. Love to do the discussion.

Meanwhile, here’s wishing everyone in the digital industry, and then everyone else also, a Very Happy and Prosperous 2012.

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!

I had the pleasure of attending the Mumbai leg of Exchange4Media’s Conclave where Nitin Paranjpe, CEO and MD of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. was the keynote speaker.

Starting the day’s proceedings with a heavyweight speaker of this kind, set the tone for the day. His talk was thought provoking and virtually posed a challenge, for all of the attendees present, to think if they were preparing adequately for the changing times, and the future that could be!

I was particularly pleased when in the first 5 minutes of his talk – which were in a way, also the first 5 minutes of the conclave – he started talking about how digital has started to grow, and how it can only get bigger now!

Digital and social media figured extensively in the keynote address, and which certainly pleased me, no end!

Paranjpe made it clear at the outset that he was going to throw some thoughts, potentially with an idea to provoke, to challenge, to make people think and consider. Some of his observations were speculative, and he emphasized the same, but the idea as per him was, to wonder how things would be, if those speculations came true. He also emphasized that he did not necessarily have answers, just questions. And that everyone would need to figure out their own answers really!

With this background, I am pleased to share some of his thoughts, with my comments interspersed, as per below:

1. One of the bold thoughts that Paranjpe threw was about how big digital could potentially get, in India? He mentioned that in the US, TV was still a lot bigger, but in the UK, digital had become bigger than TV, in media spend. Could such a scenario occur in India as well, he wondered?

* My thoughts: wow! Even to consider the possibility is mind boggling. Today digital is almost an afterthought for planners and marketers. And it is a small percentage of the spend, with bulk still going to TV. While we consider digital going to a double digit share – and that looks far away – considering an idea that it could possibly be bigger than TV, is certainly HUGE. If anyone else had said it, we’d have dismissed it summarily, but when Nitin Paranjpe speculates this, we have to stand up and think about the possibility!!

2. Paranjpe talked about possibilities that we had not envisaged and how things have got impacted on basis of the same. Be it mobile phones and their population in India, on the one hand, or the use of Digital Video Recorders. As CEO of one of India’s largest advertisers, it was candid of him to admit that most of the television that he himself sees, is on DVRs. And that he certainly fast-forwards the advertising there, except on account of his professional interest! Paranjpe was essentially referring to potential inflexion points. He wondered, if like mobile phones’ usage costs had come down dramatically, what if cost of DVRs came down from around INR 4,000/- to INR 400/-? How will life change then?

* My thoughts: indeed a staggering thought. If more and more television in India gets viewed via DVRs, what does that do to the big budgets allocated for TVCs?? Would there be a strong rethink then?

3. Nitin Paranjpe shared this amazing infographic, about what happens on the Internet in 60 seconds:

A fabulous graphic, this shows the totally dynamic and ever-changing world on the Internet.

* My thought: how many marketers are really prepared for this ever-changing world? If there was an eye opener, this graphic it is!

4. Like in case of DVRs, Paranjpe feared another possible inflexion point. Like the cost of mobile usage, he speculated, what would happen if broadband costs came down rapidly? Say, these became INR 200/- or even free? How will life change due to that?

* My thought: will anyone watch any TV at all? Would you get all the entertainment and news and everything else that you need, on broadband? When you want it? From allocation of media spend, to budgets for content creation, things will never be the same again!

5. Nitin Paranjpe emphasized the three new skills people need to learn and have: Engage, Engage, Engage.

* My thoughts: If this does not spell Social Media, what does?

(In fact, Paranjpe waxed eloquent about Social Media!)

6. An important point Paranjpe made was that consumers see a lot, but remember litte. On one of his visits to small town India, he asked a few people to remember some of their favorite ads of recent days. And they could not recall much at all. That in spite of the fact that television reaches everywhere. On further prodding, they mentioned that they remember the old Sridevi ad, for Lux!!

This is what he meant when he said that while consumers see a lot, there are few things they remember. And which is where the challenge for the marketer lies.

7. Another story that Paranjpe related, again from a village in India, was seeing a young woman there, use fabric softener. On asking, he was surprised to find that the girl completely understood the concept of softener, and it was not accidental use. That prompted Paranjpe to share a masterful insight – that thanks to television “aspirations have become homogenous, even though the means may be heterogenous”!!

Few other thoughts that Paranjpe shared included sharing how Cornetto had used crowdsourcing and social media. The fact that even their agency partners were also still getting an understanding of the new space, and they were learning together.

Paranjpe shared a very interesting personal challenge that he has taken up for himself. That this year, he intends to get familiar with the new media, and he is doing it the hard way. He has a 25-year old “mentor” who is taking him through the paces, including giving him homework and projects! Isn’t this fantastic??!

No wonder, Anurag Batra of Exchange4Media conveyed at the end of the talk that Paranjpe’s speech was better than many that he heard at Cannes recently!!

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.. !

Social Wavelength is full-service Social Media agency, based out of Mumbai, India.

We do Social Media. We do almost nothing else!

In outbound communication oriented Social Media, we work right across the board, from strategy to execution. In short, we help brands create an exciting presence for themselves, on Social Media.

We also do Social Media Monitoring, or “listening” into social media, and this is used for multiple purposes, including Online Reputation Management (ORM), general buzz monitoring, sentiment analysis, competition tracking, market research, etc.

We are one of the largest Social Media teams in the country, enabling us to handle upwards of 50 leading brands, for their social media activities.

But this only happens with a great big, smart and very talented team. And one which is growing by leaps and bounds.

YES.. WE ARE HIRING!!!

So, if you are smart, can communicate well, are a digital native, love to dabble of social media spaces, and want to make a career in social media, do write to us. We may just have the perfect job waiting for you!

I was at the Click Asia Summit earlier this year, and shared thoughts on Social Media Planning, and challenges thereof.

A video recording of the same is shared here below:

Would love to read your views on these thoughts. Do share!

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:

I had the privilege of being invited to the Click Asia Summit (20-21 Jan, 2011), to be on a panel discussing Social Media Planning.

Over the last 1-2 years that I have been talking at various events on Social Media, I have seen a distinct shift in the awareness levels of the audience. I realized therefore, that it did not make sense at this point, to talking about Social Media Planning from a Social Media 101 point of view. That was what I was doing, perhaps, even 6-8 months back.

However, realizing the maturing of the audience, it was important to put together a higher level thought, and give the participants something more to think about. With that in mind, I put together, the following presentation, and which received excellent response, and also generated good Q&A after my presentation:

Challenges of Social Media Planning

View more presentations from Social Wavelength.

Some pictures from the event: