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.. !

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.

Are you struggling to grow your Facebook Fans ? Or not getting enough quality followers on Twitter? Do a Google search and you will find zillions of articles telling you “10 ways to increase your Facebook Fans” and “5 Tips to Getting more Twitter Followers”. And perhaps following some of these tips may actually help to get some numbers.  However as Social Media matures,  we will see a shift happen from “activity” based thinking to building a “strategic” approach to finding and more importantly retaining Followers and Fans.

I like to the think of a Social Media communication  strategies in terms of 3 concentric circles. Think of the brand as being at the centre.

• Circle (A) is the circle of fans (say on Facebook)  who are already connected to the brand
• Circle (B) is the circle of friends, of all those fans who are already connected to the brand
• And Circle (C) is “rest of the world”

Any Social Media strategy has to think in terms of what to communicate to each of these 3 circles and how to expand A (that is the end objective)

Let us look at circle A.  If you, as a brand, have a  1000 fans on your fan page, you have 1000 people who are willing to receive information from you. How do you keep them engaged?  How do you ensure that they continue receiving your feed? There is always a possibility that a person is your fan but has turned off receiving your feed…..hence you continue to see him in your fan count but he is actually not there.

These are early days, and right now people are going to be joining all  kinds of fan pages, mostly out of curiosity and partly on account  of some tempting promotion or give-away. But as dust settles, consumers will  be more discerning . A consumer does not  want to be scrolling through 10 pages of FB updates on a daily basis. Primarily he want to receive updates from his friends . He wants to know what is happening in their lives…that is his primary reason to be on Facebook. At the same time he is  willing to allow a few brands to send him messages. Hence very soon brands will need to compete for attention from their fans.

In order to ensure that your fan is willing to receive your feed, it is important for you  to occupy some portion of your  fans (consumers) life.  In his daily life, you need to mean something to him. Hence start by identify what part of his life (or his needs) can you fulfil. And this thinking will need to be “outside-in” and not “inside-out”. Do not think “What do I make and how can I get my fan to buy it “. Rather, think: What does my TG (target group) really look for in their day-to-day lives and what part of their needs can I fulfil (which also in some way connects to what my brand stands for). E.g if you are manufacturer of soaps, you can fulfil the need of a beautician in your consumers life. If you are are an insurance company, you can fulfil the need of a financial planner…..and so on. Once you identify what part of your consumers life you can own (and mind you “go thin”. Don’t try to be everything to your consumer. Try to be something very specific…. that will give you the edge), engage your consumer around that.

Note, the word is “engage” not “sell”. While communicating to your fans by way of Facebook updates, follow the 80:20 ratio. 80% of the communication should be about fulfilling the consumers needs, not about promoting the brand.  If as brand, 80% of the time you talk to consumer about something  meets his needs, then maybe 20% time he will be willing to listen to your marketing communication.

This is how you work on engaging circle A and more importantly ensuring that the consumer remains with you and does not hide your updates from his Facebook feed. These are early days and brands that are able to occupy a part of the consumers Facebook timeline, will find it easy to leverage the asset base.

Circle B is the circle of all those people who are friends of  those people who are already your fans. If you have 1000 fans, and each of these fans is connected to an average of 300 people, then circle  B comprises of 300,000 people. And these 300,000 people are most likely the kind of people that you as a brand are looking for. E.g. If you were a medical brand and all my fans are doctors, then who are their friends likely to be ? Obviously more doctors…and these are exactly the kind of guys you are looking for. Hence the key focus for any social media practitioner should be to find ways to convert people from circle B to circle A.

And how does that happen ?  Via people in circle  A.  People in circle A need to be “motivated” to tell their friends in circle B, to join the fan page of your brand. And how does this “motivation” manifest itself :

• Provide shareable content: As someone said “I will not tell my friends about your brand because I like your brand, I will tell them because I like my friends”. So think, what is it that your fans will find worthy of sharing.  A text posting in not shareable on Facebook. Hence good content supported by visual communication (images, videos) will make the content shareable.
• Polls, quizzes, photo tagging, group activities are other methods of reaching out to your fans’ friends
• Facebook applications : This is one of the most powerful tools to leverage circle A to reach out the circle B. Application should be designed in such a manner that is involves your fans getting their friends to participate via the application. Hopefully while participating, lot of them may get motivated  join your fan page.

And then we come to circle C. This is the rest of the 400 million Facebook users (less people in circle A and circle B) reside. This is the biggest circle in terms of size but also one prone to high wastage in terms of rewards-to-efforts.  Ways to reach out to this circle would be by way of

• Participation on relevant Facebook forums and becoming a part of that community
• Creating virals that get forwarded and talked about
• Creating events and contests that can spread by word-out-mouth
• Advertising on Facebook. These are early days and cost of fan acquisition on Facebook is still affordable

A successful growth strategy has to able to create a ripple effect that percolates from Circle A to B and then to C

In my opinion one should focus one’s efforts as  follows

• Initially build  Circle A : Keep them engaged and involved. Ensure they don’t turn off the update feed that you send them. Try to become an important part of their lives
• Then get on to Circle B : This is the most relevant TG for a brand and perhaps the easiest the crack.
• And finally look at  Circle C : As a brand we need them but then this is like finding needles in a haystack. Facebook advertising or viral applications could act as a magnet to pull out the needles in the haystack.

What  is your opinion ?

Time was when companies would accumulate large email lists so they could write to these people, updating them about their offerings and promotions. In fact, we still come across a lot of companies who think in terms of creating an “email database”.

So for long since the Internet was recognized as a means to reach your prospects, email has lived and thrived. That one great way to have your brand message delivered directly to your prospect, in her email box, which she was certainly going to see. At such a low cost. And which is how, companies and brands started using email a lot.

Till the point of time that email was also discovered by few others: those that wanted to sell you Viagra, those who promised to get you rich quickly, and others that offered to deliver free porn to your desktop! With junk and spam coming into the email system, users got wary, stopped accepting many emails and suddenly, email became a dirty word, for sending out brand messages.

As we meet and talk to clients and prospects, there are many who want to drive traffic to their website and the website alone, even while using our services to generate Social Media engagement. They feel that the website is “theirs” with their brand name etc., and which is where the traffic should be ultimately driven. And where they can then pick up the email addresses of these visitors!

Well, I think they need to understand a few new realities:

1. People get just way too much email, and most users filter email and block spam. And there is every chance that your email may not really reach the customer.
2. People are very concerned about leaving behind their email ids at sites now. So the genuine customers and prospects may not even be in your email list.
3. This also means that when you drive traffic only to your website, it may be that one-off visit, but you lose the customer thereafter, as she did not leave behind any of her contact details.
4. It is the new world of convergence, and of using multiple devices to access the Internet. In scenarios like these, what is really important? To have your brand message reach your prospect and get read. Does it matter how that happens?
5. The other comfort that a mailing list used to give earlier was the possible reuse of that list, to reach the customer again, after a while. Well, on email in fact, people are less tolerant now. I will get into my email box, only that information which I really want to see. Anyone else sending email to me, and that too repeatedly, is taking up my time and attention, and is therefore not welcome!

So what options do brands have now, to deliver their message to their prospects and customers? If not email, then what?

Consider the option of a Facebook Fan page.

You create one for your brand. You populate it with good content. You also put out images and videos there. You are subtle in your marketing messages. You genuinely show the human face of your brand. You actually converse with your customers. And in doing all these, you pick up “fans”. Those folks on Facebook who tell you that ‘they like what you are putting up out there, and will not mind your occasional updates coming on to their Facebook walls’.

Permission marketing, anyone?

Why is this working at this time?

Clearly, the nature of the medium teaches brands, and they comply as well, to keep their messages small, simple, friendly and subtle. As against that weapon of the HTML email that marketers had got in their hands, with Flash and what not, and which was blatantly pushy. And which consumers wanted nothing of.

So the simplicity of the Facebook update works well.

Then again, the brand is not expected to push too many updates, too often. As soon as a brand tries to overdo this, for the user who has her Facebook wall full of one brand’s updates, it takes only a click to withdraw her fan-dom for the brand. Email also offered the “unsubscribe” option in such cases, but too often it did not work, and it was also in the hands of the sender of the email, to stop sending those emails to you. In case of Facebook, the control is in the hands of the user herself. And if any brand still finds a way to abuse the system (say, by pushing “messages”), then big brother Facebook is quick to the rescue of the user.

So getting occasional updates and not too many, is also a good thing.

Facebook fans may become fans of many things. At this time, not many are un-fanning themselves that often. In other words, for a brand, if they acquire say, 10,000 fans, that is nearly as good, or perhaps better than acquiring 10,000 email addresses. With those 10,000 fans, even if you do not know much about them, you are able to reach them with your updates when you have something useful to tell them. They are usually around and don’t leave you. Unlike the email addresses which change every once in a while, a user’s Facebook account is normally not changing that frequently. And the other advantage is the viral aspect. Today, we have gone past the early stage of email usage, where we would forward good emails to long mailing lists of our friends. So an email is perhaps going to reach only that one individual to whom it is sent. On the other hand, a good Facebook update like a video is easily “shared”, and suddenly you get a possible viral surge on your fans list.

I have told many of our clients that they should not be obsessed with driving traffic to their website. Their Facebook page is as much “theirs” as their website. If they drive traffic to the website, but the user does not leave behind an email address, there will still be an effort to reach him the next time. On the other hand, if you drive traffic to a good Facebook page and manage to get the user to click a simple button and become your fan, you have reach to him for a long time.

So as long as Facebook rules ensure that companies remain disciplined on this front, till then, Facebook’s your new email! That one way to get to your prospects and customers, in a permission marketing mode.

And what about Twitter then? Is having Twitter followers also the same thing? I guess not. To penetrate a user’s mindshare on Twitter, amidst tons of tweets flowing past him continuously, takes more than getting the person to just follow you. With filtering concepts like groups and lists emerging, the user will have to pick your account and put it in a list that he “wants to see” for sure, and then only, does it become the equivalent of the Facebook case.

What do you think? Do you agree that Facebook’s your new email? Any other experiences that you have had? Please share in comments below.

Facebook users today were greeted with a message that a letter from founder Mark Zuckerberg was waiting for them. As this is not your every day occurrence, most of us ended up checking it out.

And while we found out that the galloping giant had moved beyond the 350 million user base number, it was also bringing about some significant changes in the coming days, to the way it has been functioning. While details about the exact implementation will be known over the next few weeks, there is enough information to generate many early reactions, to these changes.

I have a slightly different view to the opinions in that story in Business Standard.

1. On the subject of the regional networks which will not remain anymore, I have not seen any serious value to this so-called regional network, including the one of India. Networks, groups, communities are worth if they truly unify, generate exchanges and interactions, and are active. The specific Facebook Fan pages or groups that actually engage its members are the kind that are actively managed, have reasons for engagement, and have a common passion. Not the kind where you just ‘belong for the sake of belonging’. Regional networks were largely of the latter type.

2. The privacy factor, on the other hand is very crucial. As a father of two daughters who are active on Facebook, and as a consultant  and speaker on Social Media, this is one fact that I have highlighted many a times.

Let me explain with an example.

You go to a vacation at a beach resort, and have a rollicking time. Fun photos of the trip, including several in your two piece bikini find their way to your Facebook page. You are comfortable sharing these with your friends. After all, you have been selective about choosing your friends on Facebook. And as always, you get a lot of comments from your friends, on your photos.

Now few of your friends have large friend groups of their own, on Facebook. As they comment on your photo, a status update goes out to their friends, that <your_friend> has commented on <your> photo album. And in that status update, the ‘photo album’ is a link, that your friend’s friend can click on, and view!

Oops..that is not something that you expected / wanted / anticipated. And yet, you did not even realize that this could happen, because there were no apparent warnings (current version of Facebook also has selective privacy settings for many of its features, but often the default sharing is ‘everyone’ and most users do not realize the need to change it!).

And while that friend’s friend cannot comment on your photos, he can definitely view them, and should he have mal-intentions, he can do worse.

Not your best case scenario and something that is very real and happening, right now. I must admit for example, to not have any major celebrities as friends, but some of my friends have such friends. And once in a while when I see my friend commenting on their celebrity friends’ pics, I have been curious to check the pics out. I am sure the celebrity did not mean to share those with me, or many others like me!

So considering these risks, it is indeed a move in the right direction, to enable and basically prompt users to choose the level of sharing, for any piece of content that they update on Facebook. In a growing and large space, where abuse is so easy, even if it means a little change that we have to deal with, I think the privacy changes being proposed are a step in the right direction.

3. But does that mean that I will need to go and look over my hundreds of friends, one at a time, and set privacy settings for each of them? Surely that would be very tedious?

No, I don’t think that will be necessary at all.

Consider again:

a. At this time, the higher level of privacy was not present. It is being introduced. So whatever content you uploaded on to Facebook, you were comfortable to share that with whoever (largely, your friends) had access to it via your Facebook page. Just because you now have a choice to be selective, you do not HAVE to go and change privacy settings for your existing content. It was visible to your existing friends, and if you don’t do anything special, it will continue to be visible to them.

b. What is a choice for you is the NEW content that you will start uploading hereafter. At that point, while uploading, you may have a choice to decide if you want to share with friends, of friends of friends, or everyone. Again, as I read the open letter, it does not state anywhere that you will get to make selective permission settings within your friends. As long as someone is a friend, he is equal to all other friends. So you do not go and set levels of permissions to your various friends.

After all, Facebook wants to continue to remain a common user’s utility, and does not want to become a techie application. Multiple level of permission settings on users, is a techie activity, which I am sure, Facebook will not indulge in.

So what kind of consequences do I see as a result of these changes?

1. As an individual user, your privacy settings are certainly better protected. I would then recommend users to set their settings correctly, e.g. have private photo and video albums to be only shared with your friends and no one else. But if you post a link to your blog, which you actually want more people to reach, then that content can be allowed to be accessed by ‘everyone’. And of course, if it is just someone else’s content (like a neat video that you see), fell free to share it with ‘everyone’ again, as you have no need to protect that further!

2. But what if you are a brand? The one thing that brands found favorable about Facebook was its viral nature. Where good content could potentially fly on account of features like ‘share’ and ‘like’. Will Facebook become less viral now with these changes? Will your content not move that fast?

I would think not. Unless users make mistakes in their personal settings.

As a brand, the content that you produce, you will anyway want maximum people to see it. So you will not put any significant privacy protection levels on the same. You will set your content to be accessible to ‘everyone’ (as against only fans, or friends of fans or something like that). With that setting as your content moves out from your fans to others, there are no stops really. The viral aspect remains.

Unless.

Unless some users have made their settings such that “all that they share is only accessible to friends” and no one else. Ideally they want to protect their personal privacy, and would protect personal content, photos and all. But a mistake in user settings could well make ALL content that they share, only reachable to friends. In SUCH cases, the content that passes through such friends may perhaps stop flying as much, as it will not go to the level 2, beyond their friends.

This should not happen, but if it happens to a small degree, to that extent, the viral flight of good content may be diminished to an extent.

Other than these factors, I do not see major consequences of these new features of Facebook.

What are your thoughts? Have I missed something? Do you agree? Love to hear your thoughts on this.