Be careful about what you post!

This sounds like something your mum would tell you upon hearing you made an account on a social networking website. However, I'd probably say it is sound advice after reading this story. A post over at Mashable (see here: http://mashable.com/2011/10/12/google-engineer-rant-google-plus/) recently caught my eye. A Google engineer recently posted a 5,000 word rant about how Google+ has ultimately been a failure in comparison to its main rival, Facebook. Furthermore, he criticises the production of the social network, stating that Google+ is a 'pathetic afterthought'.

(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2011/10/google-plus-logo.png)

Ironically, the post was made on Google+, and was intended for certain internal employees at Google. As the engineer states 'Sadly, it was intended to be an internal post, visible to everybody at Google, but not externally. But as it was midnight and I am not what you might call an experienced Google+ user'. This seems to be just another PR nightmare for Google+, after recent reports of traffic to the site falling dramatically, along with many managers at Google not even using the social networking service. 

After accidentally making this post public, the news of the Google engineer bashing Google+ quickly became headline news around many technology and press websites around the globe, and has quickly resulted in a very nasty headache for Google, and I'm sure the engineer too. 

Clearly, this is one of many classic examples of failing to realise the public nature of the internet. The real question is, is too much value being placed upon posts like these? As I've stated in a previous post, companies have been known to place a very high value on seemingly personal reviews or statements of a product or service by individuals. It could be assumed that this post was made by a disgruntled employee after a very bad day at work, and has now had disastrous effects for the employee themselves and for Google. Personally I'd say the employee is to blame, and that responsibility should be taken for their own actions. However, I feel that the online press jumping all over this story is a bit much. Being one employees view of the service, it doesn't really dictate the amount of negative press Google+ has received. 

What is going on with the iPhone 4S?

Browsing over at The Age lead me to an article titled 'Unprecedented' demand for the iPhone 4S (view it here: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/unprecedented-demand-for-iphone-4s-say-telcos-20111010-1lgje.html). The article states that the recent passing of Steve Jobs has lead to consumers to pay their respects by pre-ordering and purchasing the iPhone 4S, which has resulted in demand never seen before for the iPhone line. I found this quite strange, especially considering the wide range of criticism and public outcry online for the iPhone 4S, due to the little differences between previous models. The iPhone 4S features an improved camera, an improved processor, and a new method of voice control titled Siri.

(http://images.theage.com.au/2011/10/05/2669450/iphone4smain-420x0.jpg)

Another article featured at The Age (view it here: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/apples-iphone-4s-an-evolution-rather-than-a-revolution-20111005-1l7r1.html) mentions just how damaging some of the criticism of the new iPhone was, with one critic stating 'It's been 16 months and all you've got is an A5 processor in the existing iPhone 4', along with reports of shareholders not being satisfied, with Apple's stock spiralling down after the announcement. However, after the death of Steve Jobs the day after the announcement of the new iPhone, it appears response to the product has improved substantially. This illustrates the sheer loyalty and respect of Apple fans for its products, and its people. However, for the future, it seems that Apple will be required to continue to push the boundaries and innovate when announcing new products, along with proving it can continue to drive its massive growth and success in the future without its previous CEO. 

Facebook Gaming

One recent trend which has turned into a multi million dollar business is Facebook gaming. Companies such as Zynga have created business models which revolve entirely around creating gaming platforms for social networking websites, primarily Facebook. Those who have a Facebook account I'm sure have experienced the waves of hundreds of game requests from FarmVille, CityVille, Mafia Wars and etc.  However, this has failed to spare other social networking websites either. Google is known to also have strong ties with Zynga, as CityVille for Google+ was recently launched. For the moment, Google+ seems to have spared much of the impact of social networking games, however only time will tell how popular it becomes.

The games are generally based upon interacting with your friends, you usually earn points/credits/items by interacting with your friends in the game. The company itself then either sells credits or utilises advertising to generate revenue.  Personally, I work in a retail store which sells credits for FarmVille and other Facebook and Google+ games. Much to popular belief, the game cards sell like hotcakes, people of all ages seem to snap them up at every denomination (which ranges from $10 to $50).

(http://gamenreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-Sims-Social.jpg)

What I'm really wondering is, is the popularity of such games destined to continue? Or is it simply a gimmick? With the recent launch of The Sims Social (it's free to play, or you can watch the trailer for it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMCcYa_gLZs), it seems that the traditional game developers such as Electronic Arts are quite keen to become involved with the platform. Already The Sims Social seems to be quite popular from what I can tell (by seeing which of my friends are playing the game). Clearly, it is obvious Facebook and other social networks would like its users to spend as much time on the website as possible, with the more users on the site at one time, there is more opportunity for advertising.

Personally, I think there will always be a place for gaming in the way of video game consoles, however I'm unsure as to where social network gaming is headed, or just how big it will become. At the moment, it is largely seen as a casual time waster, however I get the feeling as I continue to see big money being spent by consumers on the game credits, that there is much more to come..

What's next for Google?

As stated in a recent post on Mashable.com (http://mashable.com/2011/09/13/google-flight-search/) Google has recently announced its 'Flight Search' tool, expanding its interests and services in the travel industry. Users can currently browse and purchase domestic flights in the United States, however, it is likely that the service will be expanded worldwide.

(http://cdn.ientry.com/sites/webpronews/pictures/google-flight-search.jpg)

This makes me wonder, what's next for Google? Google already operates in a plethora of industries, from its Android mobile phone platform, to Google+, to Gmail, to YouTube, Google seems to be everywhere we look. However, I don't think this is just because Google is such a powerful entity. The products it creates generally seem to be well made and innovative, and often spur on a number of 'copy cat' clones, ultimately the greatest form of flattery. 

Some may claim that having one company having access to so much information about one person isn't a good thing (see my previous post about Facebook privacy). But the real question is, what's next for Google? Surely there isn't many products left that it hasn't already explored. But whatever it chooses to create next, I don't think it's presence is such a bad thing. 

The Smartphone Revolution

Australia has recently been crowned in a recent study by Google as having the highest rate of smartphone penetration in the world behind Singapore, at 37 percent (see: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/australias-white-hot-smartphone-revolution-20110908-1jz3k.html). It's quite clear that we can't get enough of our iPhones, our Android phones, and our Blackberries. Smartphone 'apps' such as Angry Birds and Cut The Rope have now basically become household names, whilst turning into multi-million dollar businesses. These devices have now become a part of our everyday lives. This kind of growth is enormous, especially due to the fact that Australia was lagging behind the majority of the developed world for smartphone penetration this time last year.

(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/03/03/1225836/404467-smartphones.jpg)

However, the real issue is how we actually use these devices. After reading the above article, I felt the more important issue was the increasing use of financial services such as PayPal, and the use of media sharing and mobile internet surfing. This is highlighting a significant transition, from activities which previously might have been undertaken on a desktop PC at home, to an entirely new platform. This has meant that the methods of undertaking these tasks have had to be redesigned. For example, completing a financial transaction on a desktop PC is very information heavy, with the user being provided with quite a lot of information, whilst the user is usually paying close attention. With regards to the mobile platform, tasks are designed to be quick, to be paid little attention to, and to be highly convenient.

The interesting part here is the question of what will happen to the user experience with regards to mobile devices in the future? The mobile world continues to expand at a rapid rate, largely thanks to web apps and 'cloud' services, and businesses have clearly recognised this, with mobile devices now being recognised as a crucial tool in communicating with the consumer. Is the desktop PC eventually doomed?

The way of the future?

An article over at The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/business/harvey-norman-caught-in-a-web-of-competition-20110830-1jk7b.html) caught my eye, which discussed the increasing trend towards online shopping in Australia, and the resulting decline in retail shopping. Retail giants, such as Gerry Harvey's Harvey Norman, have been basically pleading with Australians to return to shopping at home, instead of overseas. Gerry Harvey has recently been quoted as stating that Australians should be happy and spend "as happy as pigs in shit" with low unemployment and a resources boom.

(http://mizwhiz.com/wp-content/uploads/amazon-online-shopping.jpg)

It is generally accepted that recent shifts in consumer buying habits have formed due to a number of factors, namely the Australian Dollar being at parity with the US Dollar, an increase in the cost of living here in Australia, and the ever increasing adoption of technology. This has lead to 'mainstream' Australian consumers beginning to seek to purchase a considerable amount of goods online, which, as we know, generally provides a greater variety of products at a cheaper price, in comparison to what we'd find in shops here at home.  

I believe Australian retailers need to really focus on providing a decent offer with their online shopping offerings. Most major Australian retailers, such as Target, Harvey Norman, Kmart, Big W, Myer and David Jones offer an online shopping portal, however it is usually extremely limited, offering a small selection of products in comparison to what is available in store. JB Hifi and EB Games are just two of the select few major Australian retailers who actually offer the full range of their products to purchase on their website. 

(http://www.harveynormanbigbuys.com.au/Images/logo.png)

Australians have shown their thirst for bargains, with the extreme popularity of Australian based sites such as Catchoftheday, Scoopon and LivingSocial. Retailer Harvey Norman has tried to catch onto this trend, with its own website Harvey Norman Big Buys. All of these websites generally offer a different 'deal' or range of products every day at bargain prices. 

It seems that the successes with regards to online shopping are being dealt to organisations with a fully integrated and expansive online shopping experience, offering a range of products at a low price, as well as often providing full mobile and social media integration. This includes overseas clothing retailers such as Asos, who have become almost household names to Australians (without actually having a physical presence in the country) seeking to take advantage of the strong Australian Dollar. 

Do Australian retailers still have something to learn with regards to this change in consumer buying habits? Should they be learning from their overseas counterparts? Or is it better for retailers to try and improve their physical retail offering to try and win consumers back?

Personally I believe Australian retailers should aim to improve their online offering, as the continually increasing popularity of online shopping is only going to continue. Despite some arguing that Australian retailers will never have a place on the internet which some American and European giants already occupy, I believe that Australians do prefer to purchase products from home, and there is a market for Australian retailers overseas. The main issue is the case of pricing and product variety, which is absolutely key to a successful online shopping operation, and should be paid close attention to by retailers. 

You HAVE the power..

It has never been easier than it is right now to voice your opinions, and to make them heard. The advent of websites such as TripAdvisor, which allow users to review accommodation and tours, have revolutionised the world of customer service. With regards to TripAdvisor, hotels are now paying upmost importance as to what their customers experience on their stay. The opinions of their customers and their hotel in general are now immortalised on the internet for everybody to see. Since my personal discovery of TripAdvisor, whenever I need to book accommodation it is the first place I go, and I find it great, no more dirty or overpriced hotel rooms, generally if it is rated well on TripAdvisor, it is a good hotel. Hotels themselves have well and truly recognised this newfound power in the hands of their customers, and actively monitor and reply to reviews on such websites.

'Tried to kill the cockroaches, they fought back!'

An article on The Age website caught my eye, discussing this newfound form of 'customer feedback' (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/tweet-revenge-at-last-for-shoppers-with-complaints-20110823-1j8h4.html). Even traditional forms of social media such as Twitter and Facebook are being utilised by the general public, which is forcing businesses to closely monitor what is being said about them, and to respond quickly, in order to maintain their image and reputation. There are many examples, but the most recent, and probably the biggest, is the 'Vodafail' campaign. Many consumers recently became fed up with the Vodafone network, after struggling with drop outs, poor reception, and generally bad service. The momentum and sheer numbers behind this 'protest' forced Vodafone to respond, announcing a prompt network overhall and service restructure.

www.twitter.com/@vodafailure

Personally, I believe this is a great tool for consumers, and I generally find myself checking reviews on the internet for any high involvement product I purchase. However, I think it will be interesting to see how this evolves in the future. Consumers need to be constantly aware of the sheer degree of subjectivity and personal bias taking place with everything posted on the internet, including reviews, and take everything with a grain of salt. 

Pom Wonderful Presents: Blog Post Number 3

Product Placement. Something which has been utilised by marketers for many decades, seems to be increasing in its use in recent years. From subtle to extremely obvious. From Smirnoff Vodka featuring in James Bond's Martini in almost every 007 movie, to Apple products featuring in nearly every single episode of 30 Rock. Morgan Spurlock's newest film 'Pom Wonderful presents The Greatest Movie Ever Sold' tackles the issue of product placement and really takes it to the next level, with every single scene and every single aspect of the film featuring product placement. If you haven't seen it, it's worth checking out the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJvl5JTuKV8.

http://www.themoviebanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Morgan-Spurlock-Pom-Wonderful-Presents-Greatest-Movie-Ever-Sold.jpeg

The recent trend towards product placement has not spared forms of digital media and social media, either. Celebrities, and other people who have a strong following on social media websites, are being sought out by companies to 'name drop' their products into their updates or blogs. It may be difficult to claim this type of advertising as 'product placement', due to product placement traditionally referring to television or films featuring a subtle advertisement for a product where you traditionally wouldn't expect to see one. This has spurred a new found definition, 'tweet sponsorship' - which I still personally see as a form of product placement. It was featured by the Daily Mail that 'socialites' such as Kim Kardashian are paid up to $10,000 per tweet which feature a particular product (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1238285/Is-worth-10-000-tweet-Kim-Kardashian-earns-big-money-using-Twitter-account-advertise-various-products.html). Furthermore, it is widely known that popular YouTubers are often sought after for products to be placed within their videos, which YouTube cracked down upon, due to it not receiving payment for these advertisements. Clearly, this is starting to become big business.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/24/article-1238285-07B23EFF000005DC-542_468x272.jpg

I believe it is reasonable that product placement transcends into digital forms of media such as social networks as they explode in popularity. However, where do we draw the line between advertising and simply irritating consumers? I know personally, I find this type of 'tweet sponsorship' on Facebook or Twitter by celebrities annoying, and it seems quite blatant and obvious rather than often subtle forms of product placement in some films or television shows. I find it really cheapens the image of the celebrities, and I usually just don't bother following them. But then again, I'm probably not the exact target audience for Kim Kardashian's Reebok EasyTone shoes. Despite this, I think that the future holds much more for digital forms of product placement, and we will probably see it take a much more subtle form as consumers begin to become more aware, if it hasn't already. 

Do You Have a Facebook?

Okay, so the idea for this post sort of stemmed from my previous one. It's a massive issue plaguing social media at the moment, and a million blog posts could probably be written about it. Privacy.

A recent news article caught my eye at the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2024449/Anonymous-threaten-close-Facebook-November-5.html), where 'hacktivist' group Anonymous was planning to take down Facebook over their supposed misuse of personal information (keep in mind that whether this is an 'official' threat from the group looks to be false).

(http://www.xssed.com/files/Image/News/facebook.jpg)

Are Facebook and other forms of social media such a privacy concern that we need a group like this to consider shutting them down? People seem to like the idea of Facebook holding less information about us, with groups like 'MILLIONS AGAINST FACEBOOK's PRIVACY POLICIES' continuing to pop up, however no one seems to be doing anything about it, whilst still uploading 191 pictures from last weekend's festivities. Furthermore Facebook's facial recognition capabilities have recently hit the news, being labelled as 'creepy' and 'scary', with the ability to automatically recognise and tag people in uploaded photos. 

Facebook itself has recognised the strong concern around its level of control around people's information and privacy, and has provided the users of its service with a number of ways of altering, viewing and changing their information and the way it is seen by others, and the company itself. This attitude revolving around a positive view towards its users privacy clearly needs to continue, in order to counteract such negative publicity. However, its methods of generating revenue have also changed from its beginning, as ads within the service are now tailored to each individual user, becoming intertwined with their friends preferences and activities. 

I feel that Facebook and other forms of social networking really are what we make of it. It has proven to be a force for good, and one for bad, as Karina spoke about in her recent blog post here. The only information which the site can hold is information which we provide it with, so it is really up to us to decide how much we want to be out in the public domain. I recognise the concern about one entity holding such a large amount of information on one person, especially if the issue of misuse comes into play, but it really is easy to not post any information which you wouldn't like others to know about. Does Facebook need to be stopped? Or should people be responsible for their own privacy?

Check-in Closes in 30 Minutes

Foursquare. Facebook Places.

These are two (somewhat recent) forms of 'Location Based Social Networking', with the purpose of announcing to the world where you are currently located, what you're doing and who you're with. Many people argue, what's the point? At first glance, it can be seen that these tools provide few benefits, which can include:

- being alerted when a friend is near, then being able to get into contact
- discovering a new bar or restaurant which a friend has frequented
- providing another outlet of 'no one really cares' information, such as the check in at 'My Bed', or
- bragging to friends that you've just landed in a tropical holiday destination

However, it is clear we are only just beginning to see the true potential of these types of services, especially for those concerned with digital marketing.

On a recent trip to the US, many places I visited publicly encouraged visitors to 'check-in' to Facebook or Foursquare, usually through big posters plastered outside the venue or building. One particular place was The Lion King musical. Upon 'checking in', you are greeted with a professional page with information and photos of the musical, its location, and its history. This allowed the individual to connect with the brand, if they enjoyed the musical and wished to learn more they could, but there was no considerable pressure to do so. Furthermore, the benefit for the organisation itself was also great, my friends knew where I was and I'd ensured my continued connection with the show I had just seen, equating to (almost) free promotion of the musical itself.

The use of location based services as a promotional tool is only just beginning to be explored by marketers. As stated on Mashable (http://mashable.com/2011/08/01/mastercard-facebook-places/), MasterCard recently ran a campaign where seats from Yankees Stadium were scattered around New York City. People were encouraged to find the seats, scan a QR code on the particular seat which 'checked them in' on Facebook Places, which then entered them into the competition to win VIP seats to a 2011 Yankees game. Another example also highlighted on Mashable (http://mashable.com/2011/01/10/facebook-places-campaigns/) refers to a Westfield shopping centre in California offering considerable discounts to patrons who 'checked-in' to particular stores.

This type of utilisation of location based social networking provides a real exchange of value between both parties, the individual receives an entry into a competition, or a discount for a particular product, and the organisation is able to promote itself through the users page. However it is important to note that the three examples are quite different, the MasterCard and the Westfield campaigns asked individuals to post advertising material to their Facebook 'walls' in order to receive the stated benefit, whereas The Lion King was much a more subtle form, being seen as a regular 'check-in' which could be done at the individuals leisure, without being an overt form of promotion. Are Facebook or Foursquare users willing to 'whore' their pages out to get their competition entry, or their discount? Or, should marketers focus on creating 'official' check-in pages for their organisation, encouraging individuals to make use of the service at their leisure?

(http://www.liberatemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/foursquare-talks-about-facebook-places.png)

Personally, I feel that marketing utilising such tools requires a balancing act, between the social and personal level, and the promotional aspect of the product itself. The Lion King model did this quite well, allowing people to check-in at their free will, enabling a connection with the brand to enhance and continue their experience with the musical. Marketers need to be flexible and remember that Facebook and Foursquare are both generally seen as a tool for sharing, and people are generally willing to share brands which they have a positive connection with. I know that, if I enter a competition on Facebook, I usually quickly delete the spam that has been posted on my wall, embarrassingly alerting all my friends that I've 'just received a free Coke Zero from 7-Eleven'. For me, this would continue even if I'd entered such a competition through Facebook Places, or any other means.

As stated at FastCompany (http://www.fastcompany.com/1746838/facebook-places-foursquare-social-medias-tiny-2-impact-on-businesses), marketing campaigns revolving around Facebook Places and Foursquare have provided little benefit to organisations to date. It is clearly early days, as the model for effectively using these tools to provide a benefit for the marketer hasn't been perfected yet.

The real question is what type of incentive is enough to encourage individuals to utilise location based social networking for marketing purposes?

Can 'Location Based Social Networking' prove to be a useful tool for marketers? Or, is it simply a gimmick?

Welcome!

So, I thought I'd do a bit of an introductory post to get things started.

I'm Dave, this is my blog 'The Digital Train' for MKF3881 Electronic Marketing. I aim to blog once a week, covering one of a wide range of topics within the world of Digital Marketing! However, my interests include social media and mobile marketing, so you'll probably see more posts relating to those areas.

I'm always up for comments/discussion/chat, so feel free to go nuts.

Cheers!