Randall Craig 2013-05-23T18:37:28-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=randall-craig Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Randall Craig Good old fashioned elbow grease. How Many Social Media Sites Will Survive? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2925234 2013-03-21T17:22:32-04:00 2013-05-21T05:12:01-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/
With the advent of YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and the many other public social networks, the centre of gravity shifted dramatically, from the corporate site to an interconnected public cloud. Except it wasn't a shift to a "public" cloud -- it was to a venue owned by someone else.

First individuals flocked, lured by connection with others, entertainment, and perhaps a bit of narcissism. Then companies (and causes, and governments) came, lured by the critical mass of prospects -- and the stunningly low cost of entry. As we all know, the social web is here to stay, primarily because this equation hasn't changed.

But is this sustainable? Has the equation changed? Evidence suggests that it has. By some reports, there are some 500+ social media sites that exist. Some, like Facebook, have been phenomenally successful, attracting a critical mass of users. For them, the race to solvency has been won -- at least for now. The same can be said for YouTube, and perhaps also LinkedIn. All of these businesses (for that's what they are) actually have a business model that generates cash. Others, such as Twitter, make very little from advertising, but exist by virtue of their deep pocket investors.

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW



But what about the other 496+ other social venues? Some will eke out a return for their investors. Some will be gobbled up by eager investors, looking for synergies and strategic growth. But a number of them -- maybe a majority, will go down for the count. Consider the following sites, all of which have closed during the last year or so: Amplicate, Booktour, Cardscan, Gowalla, Hellotxt, Mixx, Retaggr, SpeakerSite, Skribit, Tagfoot, and Timely.is. Too obscure? How about LinkedIn Answers, Google Buzz, Google Wave, or most recently, Google Reader? And if you don't think that the great won't fall, remember MySpace? It doesn't matter whether the market forces closure, or if investors pull the plug: in both cases, the venue no longer has a life.

Which brings us back to the question of centre of gravity: what happens when all of the interactions for your organization take place on the social web, and then the venue shuts down? Some tough questions:

  • What happens with the data? Is the data deleted? Sold to a third party? And even if you do own it, can you actually extract it in a form that is usable?

  • What happens with the relationships? The conversations, connections, likes and shares all are evidence to your thinking in the real world, and have incredible value. At the most basic level, the (closed) social venue might be the only way to reach a particular community -- or a particular individual. All lost.

  • What happens when your organization's plans rely on data from the now-closed venue, or the community within that venue? And if there are technical connections at the systems level, what happens to these? (An example of this last point: some organizations allow users to sign in using Facebook or Twitter credentials: what would happen if the authorization system shut down -- or changed it's terms of use?)


These questions have legs in organizational strategy, marketing, sales, technology, compliance with privacy legislation, and more. There are four key ways to mitigate the risks:

  1. Avoid investing time in social media sites that don't have a critical mass of your stakeholders: stick to the bigger ones.

  2. Consider whether your user forums should take place within your own website, instead of on a "public" venue like a Facebook page or LinkedIn group.

  3. Use the social web to drive registration and data capture within your organization's CRM (Client Relationship Management system). That way, your relationships can develop directly, without a middleman.

  4. Periodically export data -- e.g. connection lists and conversations -- from your social venues into your own systems, for archival purposes.


At the individual level, the same is true. What would happen if you could no longer reach your far-away cousins on Facebook? Or get professional support from your community in LinkedIn? (Or look for a job using that tool?) Spend some time updating your connections' non-social contact points: their phone number, mailing address, and email. Then connect with them in the real world: over the phone, at professional association meetings, at family events, and at Starbucks. Not only will your relationships become stronger, but they will be on your turf -- and with your "terms of use."]]> Facebook Has a Billion Users, but Numbers Aren't Everything tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1939715 2012-10-04T17:30:58-04:00 2012-12-04T05:12:01-05:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/ one billion active users -- an astounding number. On the other hand, you (or your organization) may have but 1,000 or 10,000 -- hardly a dent, and at best, a rounding error.

Whether your number hovers at 100 or a billion, this singular measure of "success" is of little value, and at best misleading. Here are two reasons why:

  1. How many of those users are actually active? How often does each person actually sign in, let alone "engage"? Facebook uses statistics called Monthly Active Users and Daily Active Users: but what does "Active" really mean? "Activity level" is a useful statistic only if it is defined, and transparent.

  2. What are those who do log in actually doing? They are posting the inane details of their lives, reading the inane details of others' lives, and playing games like Farmville and Mafia Wars. So-called "F-Commerce" has turned out to be a dud -- no one seems to be setting up stores and when they do, no one is buying. Engagement level by activity is a far better statistic. Sales and profitability are also not bad numbers to track.


McDonald's also once celebrated billions served. Eventually they also figured out that people cared more about taste, healthiness, clean restaurants, and speed. They also determined that an emotional brand connection was more powerful than just numbers. (They no longer advertise Ronald McDonald, the Hamburglar, and their French Fries, preferring instead to talk about the feeling of having a quality coffee at their McCafe's.)

The most important statistic is whether the effort being spent is driving the results your organization requires.

  • If your goal is greater awareness, then track the increase in number of likes, shares and friends.

  • If your goal is increased number of leads, then track newsletter sign-ups and white paper downloads.

  • If your goal is increased sales, then yes, track sales, and do it by source.


Is a billion users a significant milestone? Absolutely. Does it matter? Not in the least.]]> The Social Web is a Golden Cage of Information tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1612295 2012-06-20T15:53:33-04:00 2012-08-20T05:12:05-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/ The Affluent Society, popularized the term "conventional wisdom." It refers to a world-view generally accepted by everyone as fact, without question. He could not have foreseen how the social web could both splinter -- and reinforce -- this concept.

Do you actively seek out different opinions than your own, or unwittingly reinforce your personal conventional wisdom by only consuming "agreeable" content? While we may think it is the former -- who doesn't have a self-image of being open-minded? -- too often, we live in a bubble.

The promise of the social web was connection and communication: it was the great equalizer that gave every voice an ear. Over the last few years, this has been badly eroded, much to our collective detriment. Consider why:

  • Implicit filtering: The flood of data means that social media sites filter the content that appears on our pages. Of all of your Facebook friends, why is it that you see posts from some people and not others?

  • There is a commercial imperative to "help" us make purchases by using technology that personalizes product recommendations. Did you ever notice that the only books you see on Amazon are those that are similar to those you've already looked at? Or that many web advertisements are also suspiciously similar -- even across different sites?

  • We are creatures of habit, and tend to do the same thing over and over. It is simple human nature to do what is comfortable. If you have the same type of coffee every morning, why be surprised that most people check the same sites every day?

  • We seek social approval. Most people avoid conflict and prefer to read opinions that support their world-views, not undermine them. We feel good when others retweet, like, and share what we say. We feel significant as we attract followers, friends, and connections (all who think as we do.)


In case there is a question about whether this is for the good or for the bad, consider these two points:

  1. Exposure to different points of view can spark new ideas: Diversity of thought is critical to creativity and innovation.

  2. Exposure to different points of view helps you understand the concerns and objections of the opposition -- or your prospective clients. It lets you walk in their shoes, and learn how to serve them better.


Finding your tribe on LinkedIn, Facebook, or YouTube might be exciting. Contributing and conversing with them even more so. But when we self-select ourselves into a social bubble, we miss an opportunity to grow ourselves, and the value of our network. Choosing to reinforce our personal conventional wisdom is self-perpetuating, and isolating.

What to do? Shake it up: Get your news from different sites. Comment on posts from different bloggers. And explore what your network is doing beyond what is presented or filtered for you on the social networks. Galbraith would be pleased.]]> E-Books -- Welcome to iCensorship tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1423161 2012-04-14T00:00:00-04:00 2012-06-13T05:12:01-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/
If statistics are to be believed, our eBook purchases on these devices are fast eclipsing traditional print books. This isn't surprising, as eBooks are not bulky, don't kill our forests, and are cheaper.

Despite these advantages, they are not perfect. Putting aside the challenges of sharing books or battery problems, there is the problem of the walled garden. Once you have committed to purchasing an ebook through Amazon, you can only read your book on a Kindle. While you can get a Kindle application (an "app") for your iPad, this would be a different app from Apple's built-in iBooks. Having a plethora of different readers and remembering which book is in which app is nonsensical: Consumer behaviour will be to choose one and stick to it.

This app problem is just one skirmish in a long-brewing war between the ebook distributors. Consumers may not realize that ebook distributors have another weapon -- a dirty little secret actually -- to use in their fight: censorship. Yes, censorship.

My latest book was just submitted for electronic distribution, but was rejected because within the manuscript there were several links to the Amazon web site. Not links to the Amazon store, but to two Amazon services that are important for the target audience -- AuthorCentral and Askville. I was told that if the book was to be sold on a Nook, Kobo, Apple iPad, Sony eReader or others, this content would have to go. Guess what happened?

In the olden days of traditional bookstores, this could never happen. While you may be saddened to see the death of so many independent bookstores (and some large ones), you should be more disturbed by the inappropriate use of the monopoly power by these new electronic companies. Is what they are doing unlawful? Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say. You probably don't care about my specific book, but what about others? Imagine where this slippery slope might take us: Will Amazon only agree to carry a product if the publisher adds only-for-Amazon extras? Will Apple or Kobo only carry the product if an author changes the political angle of their manuscript?

I do support the right of ebook distributors to choose what they wish to carry. But their behaviour imposes yet another burden on a beleaguered publishing industry. It is an attack on the editorial freedom of writers. Why should it fall to publishers, authors (and ultimately consumers) to be the pawns in their high-stakes world of ebook poker? Let the competition be on an even playing field, without iCensorship.]]> If You're a CEO, Don't be a Hypocrite tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1346455 2012-03-16T16:04:31-04:00 2012-05-16T05:12:01-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/
There is an interesting conundrum that many companies face when expanding beyond their borders. A key reason for their success at home has been that they could take advantage of the homegrown business environment. They operated in a framework of laws, competition, and a well-understood social contract.

The challenge, however, is that when moving into a new market, companies are moving into an entire business environment which also includes foreign (to them) laws, competition, and a different social contract. They must follow one of two paths:

  • Stick to their better-from-home approach, and hopefully "disrupt" the market to their advantage.

  • Change their practices (and possibly ethics) to fit: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.


The key benefit of changing to fit is that the organization can truly take advantage of local advantages. The problem is when the local customs are fundamentally in conflict with home country ethics and laws.

The key benefit of bringing your "foreign" perspective is that thinking differently can possibly bring a competitive advantage. And you don't need to compromise your ethics.

While this is all relatively theoretical, there are practical implications to these choices.

Consider, for example, the development of the web and Social Media in China. This market is big, entrepreneurial, and as sophisticated as any in the west... except for their laws regarding censorship. Local competitors (Baidu and Sina Weibo, for example) are thriving under these laws; reportedly Sina Weibo has 700 internal censors on the payroll. It's no surprise, then, when the international search engines and blogging platforms also become complicit in censoring their content. Or when Twitter inserted a back-door "spying" entrance into their product.

Yes, social networks can be used for both good and bad. Witness the Arab spring, or how the police are using the tools to help identify perpetrators after riots. But let's put aside this argument (net good / net bad), and speak to the obvious reasons why authoritarian regimes have problems with the tools: Social Networks are instruments of communication, collaboration, and community building. And when people are unhappy, these 3 C's foment opposition, and sometimes even rebellion. It's in the authoritarian interest to clamp down, control, and curtail (a different 3 C's) the social web in their countries.

Many of the companies that seek to profit from those markets choose to be complicit, and bend to the local laws. They are enablers of the "bad" 3 C's -- shame on them.

How ironic, therefore, that even if they feel uncomfortable with their complicity, many have similar policies internally themselves: closing access to -- and monitoring -- their employee's social web access. For those unenlightened leaders who need it to be spelled out, choosing the right 3 C's means greater connection to the market, greater collaboration internally and externally and a greater community of interest amongst clients and employees alike. This translates into higher employee engagement, better retention, more effective marketing, and higher sales. It's hard to argue "open" in an international market, when their fears are shutting their own social sphincter shut.

Yes, even the most enlightened organizations have concerns over productivity and business risk, so the need to control supposedly solves this problem. These arguments are red herrings: the risks can be mitigated easily through policy, training, and communication. Unlike dictators who fear openness, corporate leaders would do well to embrace it -- and model it -- no matter how scary it may seem.

Is there a conflict between your organization's policies externally, and the ground rules it enforces internally? In today's world of many-to-many contact and community-building, philosophical alignment is no longer optional. And without alignment, there is hypocrisy.]]> Facebook Alert: What You Can Learn from the IPO tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1300765 2012-02-27T15:09:30-05:00 2012-04-28T05:12:01-04:00 Randall Craig http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-craig/
What we can do, however, is learn from this success. And particularly, learn from the Facebook IPO.

The key to this is the prospectus. The prospectus gives a prospective investor all of the information they need to make a knowledgeable investment decision. Too many large organizations have their latest prospectus hidden away so that only the most sophisticated investors can find it. Test this amongst your friends and family: how many of them have personally reviewed the Facebook prospectus, the most publicized IPO in the history of the world? Likely, very few. And of course, only companies that are going to the public markets need create a prospectus in the first place.

If we dissect the IPO itself, there are three items that are highly relevant -- and that most "non-IPO" leaders should consider:

1) Risk Factors: This is a multi-page, open-the-kimono look at everything that might go wrong with the company. Everything from tech trends to competitive threats to internal weaknesses, and then some. Insight: How often do companies openly and honestly share their risks... publicly? (It's easier to believe your own PR.)

2) Financial History: For several years prior to an IPO, the company must run their organization in a squeaky-clean, financially-sound manner, and their audited financial statements must reflect this. Insight: The increased public scrutiny of past financial results is a foreshadow of the financial transparency required of all public companies. Those organizations that are active in social media know that it is impossible to fix the past; the only way to have a great history is to make sure the present is as good as it can be. The same is true with financials.

3) Transparency: If the goal of the IPO is indeed to ensure that all investors have what they need to properly make their investment decisions, then it follows that there can be no "hidden" areas of nondisclosure. Within the IPO, one can find minute details on the controlling shareholders, senior managers' compensation, legal considerations, and more, on 186+ pages. There is complete transparency. Insight: Many managers profess to be open with their employees (and shareholders), but how many are this open? What's the worst that could happen if those around you knew "too much"? Perhaps alignment and better decision-making? (And perhaps management would be more accountable?)

Sadly, these three factors often get sidelined by political expediency, corporate greed, or self-interest. Yet why not more open disclosure on these topics within most organizations? Perhaps disclosure -- and discussion -- can be the first step towards stronger alignment with the public interest - and a more profitable enterprise. We need not wait until a Facebook-sized IPO to start.

Postscript: If you are interested in reading the Facebook IPO prospectus, it's available here.
]]>