WalesCymru.com

If you are a member of Facebook you will know they are going to drop Regional Networks. Their argument is that to provide the level of privacy users now demand they need to remove a feature which, in my view, provided a great attraction. The argument goes … “Almost 50 percent of all Facebook users are members of regional networks …”, but this doesn’t matter to so we have come up with a “plan” and this is “to remove regional networks completely …”. Huh?

I don’t get this, how is something that was used by 50% of users a bad thing?

Personally I think Regions are an important feature that defines a community, even virtual ones. True I share interests which cross global boundaries, but I also share interests which can only be expressed in social interaction, and in ‘locally focused’ world, this means shared with people who live close by. To me, some of the most interesting aspects of Facebook were the local groups I found by accident, because they were local. With the removal of regions, how will I find these now?

This naturally brings me to the role WalesCymru has, or should have. Are we a regionally focused Social Network? Should we be?

This was the ambition we had in 2007, but is still some way off. Should this be pursued as our goal now, or should Regional Networks, as Facebook thinks, be consigned to the past?

What do you think?

List building (the act of paying someone to recruit ‘followers’) is an impersonal business; but is now a reality on most social networks. The offer is simple - we (who understand how these sites work, when you who don’t) will help you build your Friend / Follower / Fan lists.

Ok, I’ve lost some of you, so let’s start on 1st base.

Social Networks: Friends, Fans and Followers

Social Networks are online communities where ‘members’ (you) have ‘followers’ - those real people who (for whatever reason) have either asked or elected to ‘follow’ your updates - those short and largely trivial actions you broadcast each time you ‘do something’ on a Social Network.

On Facebook these people are called ‘Friends’ (if they follow you), ‘Fans’ (if they follow your page), ‘Guests’ (if they’re attending your event), or ‘Members’ (if they follow your Group). On Twitter they’re called ‘Followers’; while on LinkedIn they’re ‘Contacts’.

It may not matter what label you use, but the point of followers is clear. These are the people who actually like you and want to be kept up-to-date on everything you’re doing, thinking or saying right now. If they didn’t why would they ‘follow you’?

Using Contact Lists

In business your contact lists include current and past customers, as well as the names and contact details of everyone who has made an enquiry or sold you something, down to people you’ve met at every business event, meeting, or conference you’ve attended. These ‘contacts’ may also include lists you have produced or purchased for marketing campaigns and have typically taken years to develop.

Regardless of how these lists have been constructed, they have a cost (in building and maintaining) and a value, which is usually measured according the conversion rate (i.e. sales) they deliver when you make contact.

It doesn’t take much to recognise these same lists apply in the Social Networked world, where they have potentially even greater value. Unlike your corporate list, which may identify and rank customers by value, on social networks you generally get unrestricted access to a lot more personal information. As a minimum this is likely to include a brief “bio statement”; but is more likely to include not only how they know you, but also who their friends are, what movies and music they like, the events they attend, the groups they follow, and even down to where they went last night and their forthcoming holiday plans. Given the amount of personal data you can now access, it is clear these followers have value and is why social network list building is now a commercial business.

But how do you value your follower list?

Cashing in on ‘Friends’ and ‘Followers’

While figures may vary it’s not unusual to record a 1% click thru on status update links; and has the effect of delivering real users to that site.

Let’s say you have 20,000 followers and each time you post an update 1% click on the link. That’s 200 clicks, or 200 eyeballs you’ve just delivered to this webpage. Now if you were to ‘value’ these eyeballs @ say 5p per visit, which is lower then a typical Pay Per Click campaign on Google or Facebook, then each status update is worth £10 (200 eyeballs @ 5p each).

OK, most of us have no way of extracting this value, but if your business is about selling products or services, then the more people who actually access this offer, the more sales you’re likely to make. If this wasn’t the case, perhaps you could explain how Google makes it’s money and what Facebook expects to do with it’s 200 million members.

List building services recognise this and make one simple offer - they will help your business to grow by growing your followers.

It probably doesn’t matter if this list building is carried by yourself, your PR or Marketing agency or provided by a software based service that selects new users according on an algorithm. The results are what matters and is ultimately what your list is for. The key question you have to ask is how you’re going value these followers. Personally speaking, while many of my ‘friends’ have limited commercial value, a select few are priceless.

I’m not generally a Daily Mail reader, but I’m a sucker for a catchy headline, so today’s front page article got me.

Daily Mail Headline 24th February 2009: “Social websites harm children’s brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist”

We all know sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are bad for you. Now, thanks to Baroness Susan Greenfield we now know why.

Social Networks (or was that websites in general), as well as computer games and fast-paced TV shows, are supposed to shorten our attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred

… sorry, got distracted, checking my latest video on YouTube … where was I … Oh yes.

According to the Daily Mail article, Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes “repeated exposure” to these social networks “could effectively ‘rewire’ the brain”.

Reporting her words, the Daily Mail quotes, “My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.”

Now, if you’ve been following the web links, as you should, you’ll have discovered that Baroness Greenfield, is also a director of MindWeavers, a Oxford University spin-out company that have developed MindFit - a computer brain training game. So it seems using websites and computer games to “rewire” the brain is not only good for us, but also makes commercial sense. Maybe then it’s only the Daily Mail, and a few modern anti-technology authors, who find these claims “disturbing”.

Personally I think following the social lives of your family and friends is a good thing, and logging onto our favourite newsfeeds, blogs and scientific websites helps improve our understanding of the world. If a shortened attention span, propensity to seek instant gratification and a slightly self-centred approach is the outcome, then it’s a price I’m willing to pay.

Social Media Marketing is not a new trend. In-fact one could argue that all marketing is social, in that you attempt to engage a number of people who share similar interests, passions or outlooks. If you’re successful, the first group you reach help spread the word on your behalf and in so doing recruit your next audience level, and so on. The main difference between traditional word of mouth promotion and Social Media Marketing is where it’s conducted.

Social Media Marketing is generally carried out in Social Networks, or Online Communities; i.e. digital meeting places where an audience already exists and content is provided by the users. Entry to these communities is typically free and allows users to do many or all of the following:

• Create personal profiles/accounts
• Grow a network of friends/colleagues/followers
• Collaborate with other community members
• Join Groups
• Submit content
• Comment/Vote on content
• Tag content
• Share content - using social bookmarks, posted links and/or activity feeds

The ‘media’ in social media refers to the platform as well as the content and includes:

• Blogs (web journals/logs)
• Wikis (small items of content, often with shared editorial rights)
• News Feeds (RSS - used to push news to followers)
• Social Bookmarks (tagged/shared items)
• Discussions (heading, posting and comments)
• Comments Walls
• Media files - Photos, Audio and Video

While the current choice of Social Networks is rather limited, and for this reason has perhaps put off a number of companies from advertising; this situation is starting to change. In recent months a growing number of niche communities have started to develop, as more users leave the established players and as the software that runs these sites becomes more widely available.

The nature and form of these new niche communities is comparable to the readership of a popular newspaper or magazine, the audience for major TV channel or Radio station, or the membership of a large association and professional body. As these communities have a much clearer focus they also represent a more attractive advertising space to the average company.

A rise in these diverse and focused communities, with their niche interests, may be the catalyst business has been waiting for, and could lead to the long waited development of Corporate Social Media Marketing. Let’s hope so.

Although in the meantime there’s always Facebook Pages and Groups, esp. if you need to appeal to the wider population.

A recent survey conducted by LinkedIn, Anderson Analytics and SPSS, found 60% of LinkedIn’s 30 million users have “high personal incomes, hold executive level or consultant positions, are decision-makers and likely to be active networkers”.

According to the sponsors, these results prove that “online social networks are not only a way for professional groups to stay connected, but powerful tools for business as well.”

If you’re a business networking site this is probably one thing you didn’t need a survey to tell you; although I’m curious as to why it’s only 60%.

It doesn’t matter what you call it (or does it?), but these days some of us are plagued with too many ‘Facebook friends’. By this I mean we have accepted a ‘friend’ request on one of the many social networks that we joined last year from someone we don’t really know, and are unlikely to have anything to do with, and now get a constant stream of unwanted invitations, meaningless notifications and status updates.

This got me wondering, what does a ‘friend’, ‘contact’, or ‘connection’ actually mean? And should we add people to our personal address book, when for many the implied relationship is little more than an acknowledgment of “yes, we know each other”.

For my part I view Facebook as a ’social network’. That is one where I am mostly connected with Friends and Family and people I know at a social level; while Xing, LinkedIn, and a few dozen other web2.0 sites I’ve joined, are mainly for ‘business connections’. Clearly the boundaries are blurred and I have business relationships with friends, and friends on these business network sites who are not on Facebook; but I usually try to keep these separate - after-all we don’t want to bore everyone with our web-chatter, even if this is your biggest passion in life.

I realise this distinction is transient and that Facebook once had a ‘how do you know this person’ feature which they have sidelined; but for now I prefer to keep things as black and white as possible.

However, as business connections start to invade our social space and in anticipation of the future problem this will create, I’m thinking about putting my ‘friends’ into some useful and meaningful categories. Why? Well it should allow me to maintain a better relationship with them, and more importantly not spam them with unwanted notifications and updates. So towards this end I have come up with the following categories:

• Friends and family - my real friends
• Suppliers - actual and potential
• Buyers - actual and potential
• Advisers - for information, advice & / or support
• Colleagues - current and ex (school, university, work, etc. We had a shared time based experience, but that’s all)
• Social - everyone else I know and might meet socially
• Others - I can’t recall how we connected, but I’m not deleting you just yet

Although this is still a work in progress, I feel it starts to address one of my concerns with social networks; namely how do I manage my connections in a way that adds real value to my time and network activity.

Putting these categories aside for a second; what I find interesting is what these names say about the nature of connection and in particular the level of implied activity between you and them. Distinctions such as these may not be that important today, but when social networks take over more of our lives, by adding the commercial transactions that will ultimately justify their existence, these categories will become more important. Maybe I should adopt a ‘folksonomy‘ that helps index my contacts and conveys our relationship at the same time. So how about, rather than simply calling someone a ‘friend’, ‘contact’, or ‘connection’; why not call them a: drinking buddy, team mate, lover, soul-mate, co-workers, school mates, etc. or are these too American to be universally acceptable?