Why I won’t be buying in the Facebook IPO

I was asked by a publisher recently where the most innovation would come from in the next three years.  My answer – it hasn’t been invented yet.  Sure, it sounds like a cop out, but  when you look at the exponential rate of change in the digital environment, predictions become unreliable and giants (even the mighty Facebook) seem less solid.

Consider these facts on the speed of adoption:



Whitefireseo.com

(the G+ reference is a bit of a misnomer – as Google migrated current users rather than building an audience from scratch).

And Pinterest did it in 2 years.

So, if speed is anything to go by the current leaders should be invincible right?  Actually it could be their downfall.  George Anders describes it well in this post on Forbes.  He talks about something called the ‘liability of obolescence – a growing mismatch between an organization’s inherent product strategy and its operating environment over time’.

When ‘time’ becomes compressed, such as in the accelerating speed of change in digital, companies operating in that space have a much shorter natural lifecycle (AOL, Myspace, Bebo anyone?).  Sure there are companies that have survived, thrived even (Amazon, Apple), but will they be able to continue to adapt as the pace of change quickens? 

To look at it another way – the Pinterest example shows a subtle shift: from the social graph (who people care about) to the interest graph (what they care about) [paraphrasing Josh Constine, Tech Crunch].  It’s a distinction not many commentators have picked up, but an important one.  To look at the Anders example, where he pits Web 1.0 against Web 2.0 against Mobile – what happens when the change isn’t linear?  As it splinters into ever more directions, it gives more credence to  Anders’ thesis –

Those who own the future are going to be the ones who create it. It’s all up for grabs. Web monopolies are not as sticky as the monopolies of old.

So I won’t be buying in the Facebook IPO: the digital world order could be in for an overhaul sooner than we think

The Decade of Mobile

At least once every year for the last three years I’ve heard someone at a digital conference proclaim that “this will be the year of mobile”.  Their tone has always hinted that this will be an event in media planning that none of us will be able to ignore, akin to the moon landing or Sir Ed knocking the bastard off.  But then it’s never seemed to happen.  Instead it’s been more like Kanye West - a steady accumulation of content, audience and commercial opportunities. 

Nevertheless, and arguably unlike Kanye, there is no doubt that it has slowly but surely become an increasingly important media space for planners and clients to consider.  The challenge that remains is that there isn’t a great deal of market data around of the NZ market.  Sorry Roy Morgan, I usually love your data, but it seems hopelessly out of step for mobile when the answer to ‘how many people say they need a mobile phone to access the internet?’ is 7%. 

But last week InMobi, in partnership with Decision Fuel rode into town with a piece of research that delivered some quite interesting insights (albeit from a sample size of 500 users… coincidently, about the same sample that dictate TV ratings). 

So, a few numbers that no one has delivered before;

• Of 6.2hrs media consumption, 114mins are via a mobile
• 53% of market are using their phone while watching TV
• 65% using phone while lying in bed
• 23% using to access social Media
• 21% using to access entertainment
• 7% are using to shop

This OurMobilePlanet tool has also recently come to my attention (thanks Mitch Campbell and nzh).  About as accurate as any other tool on NZ market about penetration (ie, take with grain of salt), but least it’s fun to play with.

Does social connectivity equal influence?

Last night I had the privilege of seeing @danielberkal present Project Butterfly – a study into the “effect learning about how sociable people interact in the real world has on the online space”. The purpose of this study is to help brands - and the agencies that work for them - understand “how highly sociable people work” and how “this knowledge can be used to build online social communities that act more naturally”.

All interesting stuff. I’m no market researcher, but the way this study has been conducted is groundbreaking and worthy of every award won to date.

My reason for being there was to understand the connection between sociability and influence, in particular:

-          Does real world influence translate to the digital world; and

-          Are those who are socially connected online, influential?

While the study wasn’t designed to answer these questions, it did offer some interesting and applicable insights.

In the real world Social Butterflies are those who can bend social conventions, but in a good way. They are experts at initiating friendships, but also at maintaining them. They’re interesting, interested and genuinely curious about everyone and everything.

We all know one: they’re the organizer, the one who keeps in touch even just to say Hi. They’re resourceful and will hook you up with anything you need. And they’re happiest when everyone around them is having a good time.

But are they influential? My guess is yes based on three findings from the study: Social Butterflies are early adopters, decisive and the kind of people you turn to for advice.

What they are not is digitally prolific. Their online presence is likely to be built around maintaining one-on-one connections rather than broadcasting clever one-liners to the world, making it near on impossible for brands to identify them using standard ‘connectedness’ metrics. And even if we could identify them, it seems unlikely they would use digital tools to exert their influence.

Instead brands have tended to consider those who are socially connected and highly vocal in the digital world as ‘influential’. Not anymore. According to this study these ‘hyperconnected’ people are delusional self-promoters who need external validation to make themselves whole. They crave attention and use the internet to overcome their social awkwardness.

While they initiate lots of connections, they have no interest in maintaining them. It’s a one way conversation – usually about themselves – which their audience soon loses interest in.

But are they influential? For me the jury is still out.

If the number of people losing interest is less than the number of new connections being made then surely they could maintain their influence – if indeed they had any in the first place.

And if I buy into their online persona by liking or following them because what they offer is interesting, entertaining or useful to me, then do I care who they really are IRL?

Heck, there are many celebrities out there with a million plus followers who don’t even write their own tweets so maybe it’s not just the highly connected that are living a fantasy life online….

So many unanswered questions, but as someone who works with brands seeking to influence in the digital space there were some definite learnings:

-          True influence is about quality and frequency, not quantity

-          Getting someone to tweet or post a status update on your behalf is not the same as influencing.

-          Brands who implement ‘influencer programs’ need to look beyond the digital world.

The Butterfly project is an utterly fascinating body of work, and I would encourage anyone who has the opportunity see this presented in person to grab it with both hands. Thank you @danielberkal for a truly thought-provoking evening.