Well, not really new. Anyone with an eye on the right sites will know about Pinterest, which has been knocking around since mid-2010. However, it stuck itself seewhatIdidthere into the market late last year. And now - well, now it has 10 million unique users, apparently the quickest ever site to do so.
How did it manage this? In my opinion, because it had superb timing. Facebook Timeline, and the recent deluge of apps and API-created edges that are based around 'self-expression', as Pinterest calls it, are getting a certain group of people pretty used to frictionless hyper-sharing. It's no small group, either. However, none of these apps had really been quite so effective in the way that Pinterest is. Half because they were either focusing on other or too many things, and half because Pinterest really nailed the central conceit, right down to the metaphysical name.
You'll find plenty of people to talk about how great Pinterest is, but what's initially fascinating is its ability to audience profile. Take a look at this:
Image credit: Techcrunch
That's an awfully specific geo-demographic in areas not traditionally considered tech hubs. It's also well-documented that the biggest adopters are women aged 25-44. Pinterest can take well-defined audiences like this and package them whole to advertisers, who in turn can reach those people via channels they may often be blind to, and with all the opportunities that go with digital-specific delivery. That alone wouldn't make it special, though, nor even would the viral element that clever brands may be able to tap in to (depending on what products Pinterest is developing).
No, what I really, really like is the underlying associative patterns. Pinterest might call it self-expression, I (and many others) call it an interest graph. ReadWriteWeb had an interesting article that captured it quite well:
A social graph is a digital map that says, "This is who I know." It may reflect people who the user knows in various ways: as family members, work colleagues, peers met at a conference, high school classmates, fellow cycling club members, friend of a friend, etc. Users send reciprocal invites to those they know, in order to map out and maintain their social ties.
An interest graph is a digital map that says, "This is what I like." As Twitter's CEO has remarked, if you see that I follow the San Francisco Giants on Twitter, that doesn't tell you if I know the team's players, but it does tell you a lot about my interest in baseball.
There are plenty of services that can tell you what their customers are interested in on their own site, such as Amazon. What is more difficult is to deliver that at scale and beyond the confines of your own digital properties. Ad networks do it by embedding cookies, which is good but imperfect. As for social networks, it's a great unfulfilled promise. Facebook, for example, can tell you oodles about the social graph, but interests are rocky at best. Practices such as incentivized ads rapidly make user pools homogenous as everyone Likes the same things in exchange for Facebook Credits. Add to this the problems inherent in categorizing fan-made likes, having certain popular items making rankings top-heavy, and the throwaway nature of Likes in general, and soon it can become difficult to filter interests in a meaningful way. Overindexing can help, but it's limited.
However, the Open Graph (more graphs!) may change that, as apps gain the ability to read other public app activity. One would start with Social Graph data on your customer base, gathered through Facebook Connect, and then twin it with Interest Graph data from an app that itself connects to Facebook. And there's nothing to say that Pinterest will be the only one worth turning to: if you were a travel company, you could access public content from all those 'where I've been' apps. The self-curation element of 'Interest Apps', coupled with the right level of specificity, trumps Likes any day. Essentially, Facebook becomes an open information resource, fuelled by APIs and semi-automated profiling.
The question remains, of course, so what? Well, the promise of the interest graph - which is still yet to be delivered to a market that is more than ready for it - is being able to pre-emptively ascertain associative interests without any testing whatsoever. In other words, you know that x indicates a strong preference for y and z. Sure, stuff like this exists in research agencies already, but not particularly granulated and certainly not automated. It's also siloed: analysts might pick through dozens of, say, holiday destinations, but the framework just doesn't exist to link that information to information about, for example, clothing. It's all inferrance and I bet it misses a hell of a lot of detail.
Couple that sort of knowledge with the Social Graph, which helps you figure out interrelationships, attribution and influences, and suddenly you're looking at something that lets you pick any individual demographic profile and flesh it out in any direction, even the counterintuitive or improbable. This combined understanding could then be used to define media homes, comms strategies and niche demographics. And when it came to delivery, cross-referencing this knowledge with Social Graph connections and live multivariate testing would allow you to deliver content for maximum footprint across both digital and traditional channels.
A few things have happened lately in social, but two in particular are notable. I’m talking of course about #NewTwitter and Facebook Timelines. In both cases, these introductions caused a flurry of QTWTAIN journalism asking one of two versions of the posit, ‘Is X trying to be Y?’
You can sort of understand it, if you don’t bother thinking too hard. #NewTwitter’s edging towards a more socially interactive portal, exemplified by the addition of the #Discover tab and better integration of conversation histories, arguably treads ever-so-slightly on Facebook’s toes in the field of sharing and content discovery. Facebook’s Timeline, and particularly the (still new-ish) ticker, on the other hand, smack more than a little of Twitter’s micro-blogging model.
But that’s about as far as it goes. It really doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to start differentiating the products and their respective functionality. Even Facebook’s ticker, perhaps the most obviously ‘borrowed’ feature, is clearly separate from Twitter both in terms of what it displays and how it displays it. In addition, the reason for the ticker is fundamentally different.
Nonetheless, people asked these questions. And it did get me thinking a little bit. This is what I came up with – on Twitter, natch.
Twitter wants to be a contextual broadcast service. Facebook wants to be an identity platform.
The overlap comes from the manner in which information moves through the social graph.
Cultivating and facilitating the movement of this information often has an optimal means by which to do so – ticker, push notifications, etc.
This creates ‘perpendicular competition’, wherein two entities use the same functionality to the same ends, but with different underlying objectives. In other words, they are starting from two, nonaligned points, yet converging on the same middle territory.
So in a way, this kind of competition isn’t necessarily competition. Just because a tabloid and broadsheet both use the same format of a newspaper, it doesn’t make them direct competitors. If it did, then it wouldn’t make sense for the same company to own The Sun and The Times, right?
But then, flip that point on its head. Perhaps, in social, it doesn’t make sense. Social audiences on the big networks are largely – and increasingly – homogenous. This is because social networks increasingly resemble a utility rather than a destination, in that the audience is so vast and varied that the product (moreso in Facebook’s case) must do its best to maintain universal appeal as opposed to specialist. It’s also interesting because many people, anecdotally at least, will stick with Facebook even if it’s doing stuff it doesn’t like, because the service is considered vital – just like utilities. Granted, people would still surrender their Facebook access before their gas. Well, most people.
So anyway: you have a big, generic audience. You have features that are very similar to another service: they use the same functionality to distribute broadly the same sort of content, in broadly the same sort of way. But your actual goals are different. Does this make you competitors, or not?
To answer this, I think you’d have to have a crystal ball. Because right now, the answer is definitely no. As said before, the differences in what Facebook and Twitter actually want to be are clear. However, in five years time, when social platforms spill into other services, sectors and purposes, then what? For example, what social technology is going to accompany television when that behemoth finally wakes? At the minute, Twitter is way ahead – because it’s a broadcast service, because it has the tools to accompany it (hashtags for shows, retweets etc), and because there is a huge, engaged audience. 300 Tweets vs 74 Facebook Statuses a second isn’t really comparable. Just a few days ago, Japanese masterpiece Tenkū no Shiro Rapyuta absolutely slaughtered the official record, clocking in at an astounding 8,868 Tweets per second.
But then, if Facebook is adding functionality that mirrors elements of Twitter’s functionality, and those elements are the right elements, and social technology is implemented with a fundamentally Facebook view of the world and the market – that is to say, instead of just watching alongside others online, you log in to your television with your Facebook ID – then Facebook’s non-competitive product suddenly sweeps the rug from its new rival.
In other words, it really depends what people – and companies – want from social identities in the future. With their maturing grasp of how to monetize a social identity as a marketing model, I can’t help feeling that Facebook (and Google, of course) have the right approach to this in the long term, much as I love Twitter and hope it sticks around for years to come. Because if I’m a TV guy, and I have the option of integrating something that simply spices up my broadcasts, versus something that accomplishes that and gives me a plethora of incredibly valuable social data, then it seems like a no-brainer.
So I’ve been thinking about the future of news. I mean, what are things going to look like in the next 5-10 years? Everyone knows that print has a lot of questions to answer, not least whether it’s going to survive the next decade. That’s a whole discussion in of itself, and is more about format and delivery. I’m interested in the content – and I think there are some observable trends.
Market segmentation of viewers. This is an idea lifted, in part, from a recent New York Times piece by David Frum, wherein he discusses conservative-leaning media in general and Fox news in particular.
Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment [...] The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel).
It’s true that the American media scene is particularly polarised, and the mere act of reporting has long been near-impossible to achieve neutrally – just because even stating the plain facts is frequently intepreted as liberal or conservative bias according to whichever ideology the viewer subscribes. Nonetheless, it’s a shrewd observation that (some) media outlets have been getting to work monetizing their audience by accentuating their reporting in a certain light. Although, as Frum wryly notes:
As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly [...] As journalism, not so much.
Little point delving into that one too far, I think. People can draw their own conclusions. But it has long been the case that populism has propped up the more consciously intellectual elements of the press: The Times and the Guardian are supported by NI’s red-tops and GMG’s Trader Group and emap publications respectively, even as their print circulation gradually declines. Even in instances where editorial content takes cue from opinion rather than news – which would seem to better fit the business model Frum notes – highbrow print has suffered. At Le Monde, arguably France’s leading paper and an important publication worldwide, sales have been down year on year since 2002 (with a small blip in ’07).
In terms of what this actually means – well, highbrow viewers certainly aren’t going away. Instead, they appear to be specializing. Readership of The Economist has risen sharply to 4.5m globally, in part due to the multiple financial crises, but also because easy online access means more people are discovering it. Which brings me to my second point.
Superstar journalists are going to become even more important. Consider Caitlin Moran, Fraser Nelson, Penny Red, Ben Goldacre, Paul Waugh, Faisal Islam, Neal Mann, Paul Lewis, David Allen Green, and so on. All on Twitter, all with tens, even hundreds of thousands of followers. News outlets themselves, such as @BBCBreaking, number into the millions. Print articles by Twitter titans such as these, as well as other, non-resident objets d’affection such as Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell, bring in a lot of views. A lot of views. Moreover, these articles, in being shared, gather more followers to the author, leading to more shares, and so on. These followers’ allegiances will also often be more to the individual than their employer, granting a mandate of sorts for more license of expression. And make no mistakes, as individual writers continue to bring in the views, they’ll either get more and more column space, or break free entirely. In other words, I think we will start to see more Huffington Post models, wherein a central editorial team handle the direction and draft in freelancers. The brand of the news outlet in question will pivot around how well that direction can be steered and channeled.
Social media will become the leading source of traffic for digital. Given the above, this seems somewhat inevitable. It won’t be for every item, obviously, but where the author strikes a chord, you can expect it to reverberate far and wide. Take this article from The Telegraph‘s Peter Oborne, back in August. His articles normally get… well, looking at his latest three, they have 614 shares combined across four social networks. Now look at the one I linked. 57,000 shares on Facebook alone. When you’re playing with these sorts of numbers, you can bet that you’ll get more followers, more clicks, more eyes. In short, you’ll grow your audience, and that growth will have come from social. This is hardly fluffy speculation: to return to the Guardian, their Facebook application picked up 4m users and grew their pageviews by 1m in under three months.
The irony of this stuff, of course, is that dealing with digital content models – especially when factoring in audience metrics, inevitably begins to lend itself once again to monetization. Therefore, populism. Is it a good thing that an article about David Cameron being a lizard received more views than an article warning of a major food crisis in an African state? The Daily Mail Online held a Gorkana breakfast briefing recently, attended by a friend of mine. When he returned, he flopped down on the couch. It was interesting, he said, but he struggled to see how it was practically useful when considering content. I asked why, and he explained that the people from the Mail had only one goal: to become the largest news website in the world. They were not particularly interested in content beyond whether or not it would deliver traffic. In other words, a purely commercial enterprise – which brings us right back to where this article started.
So what lies ahead? I believe that the struggle is going to be finding a way to balance content models around individual star writers in a manner that brings in views, maintains the brand of the publication, and – perhaps increasingly difficult – doesn’t forget about the goddamn news.
First there was Deus Ex: Human Revolution. An excellent, robust old-school adventure shooter with some really well-executed gameplay decisions. Slightly too tight to feel truly like the expansive quasi-RPG that fans may have expected, but nonetheless a lot of fun to play. Genuinely tricky at times, as well, which is something that has been missing from the genre of late, what with the penchant for regenerating health.
There was also the Battlefield 3 demo, a chaotic hurricane of drippingly beautiful graphics and brutally unforgiving combat. My pre-order is still with the Queen’s mail, but the ‘beta-that-wasn’t-really-a-beta-or-was-it’ seemed to confirm it was worth getting after my fledgling sortie into Bad Company 2. There was also Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood, a game whose loose-weave, unstructured setting was both strength and shortfall. Its strong storytelling and game mechanics were somewhat let down by reptitious set-pieces (despite genuine best efforts to mix it up) and something of a paralysis of choice. Having over 100 markers screaming at you from the mini-map does not a decision help. Hopefully the next installment will prove more focused.
Leisure aside, I’ve also undergone a bit of a transformation in work, moving from PR into Digital Marketing. I say in my preamble that this is not a blog for my personal life, which holds true. However, it may mean that my idle speculation may now be slightly more accurate idle speculation, as I’m really stuck in to a lot of stuff that I was already writing on. This does not happen include AI, but that’s what I’m going to write about now.
So this chart has popped up from Nielsen today, as part of ‘the first mobile media rankings based on audience measurement data from metered Android smartphone usage’. Righto, Nielsen. Anyway, apart from the fact that they need to make their goddamn images larger, what does it tell us?
Well, firstly, that there seem to be a solid 9.5% of people who didn’t even open the app store this month. Assuming that Nielsen have stuck to measuring active users as claimed, there are two possible reasons for this: either these users are downloading all their apps via other means, or they simply have everything they think they need. I’m leaning toward the latter. To me, though, 10% actually seems like quite a low number. This would indicate that people are still downloading apps out of curiosity or boredom long after their core needs – email, browsing, picture management – have been satisfied. Clearly, the attention of the majority is still up for grabs for developers, but the rate of use also indicates a fickle beast: a strong value proposition is more important than ever.
Secondly, use of Facebook among women beats out men by a healthy 14%, albeit with 8.7% of men using Google+ more. Still, that’s not enough to make up the deficit, and if you throw in +3% more use of Twitter, this would appear to indicate that women prefer social networks to men. As this measures basic use of the app, the only way that the numbers could be misleading would be if men were still accessing these services only via their sites, or disproportionately using text-to-Tweet. These both seem unlikely given the ease and single-purpose nature of the apps. The male-heavy early adoption of Google+ follows the trend of previous social networks, which too have since been taken up by women in greater numbers. Whether G+ will mimic or buck this trend remains to be seen. I think it needs time to accrue more users in general. With only 11.8% of the active userbase – which itself is 42% of the entire market – that’s just 5% of smartphone users using the new social network. Google will no doubt be looking to grow that number by weaving it more tightly into Android and Google Profiles.
An addendum to gender. The point about maps, Nielson: it’s not ‘despite the stereotype that men don’t like asking for directions’. Men don’t like to admit they don’t know directions. Maps empowers them to do a good job faking it.
Next, there’s a small bias from men toward utility apps, such as QuickOffice and Adobe Reader, but there’s little difference between the sexes here. What’s more interesting – without getting distracted by gender-typing – is that over a quarter of smartphone user seem to use these ‘work’ apps. I doubt that all these people have the kind of jobs that would make such use absolutely mandatory, and so I think we can probably interpret this as the product of a number of different stimuli: convenience, deliberation and novelty. I imagine there is an element of choice when it comes to viewing documents on a smartphone, as frankly it’s cooler than using a desktop. What does that mean for marketers and developers? Well, it’s paving the way for the consumerisation of IT. The remote office will be a Big Deal in the next 5 years, and will necessitate a new kind of work/home hybrid mobile software with enterprise levels of security and compatability. There’s going to be a lot of money in solving these problems, assuming Google Docs doesn’t eclipse the competition.
Lastly, there are some things that are obviously missing. With the caveat that this is the US and so only just now sampling the delights of Spotify, music services seem underrepresented. Pandora isn’t quite the same. I suppose this is largely because of iTunes being built in to Apple products, but there’s surely ground for expansion here. There’s also a conspicuous absence of financial service software. It’s still a bit early for NFC and Mobile Wallet, though we can expect to see it soon – but there is nothing in the top 20 that hints at finance at all. It seems odd in these economically troublesome times, but perhaps people simply don’t want that sort of functionality. I do also recall that banks in America are a much more scattered affair, with lots of regional and state-specific institutions. It seems as though banks could capitalise on capturing this kind of data, though. Wouldn’t knowing where and when consumers were thinking about money be a powerful bit of information?
It will be interesting to see this again in a year’s time.
Razer reportedly took out this advert in the Wall Street Journal today. The site it links to, laid thick with nostalgia, rattles off a few minutes on the alleged sheep-think and closed systems of console gaming in a tone of synthesized reproach.
Why would Razer put this advert in the WSJ? No doubt that serious PC gamers lean toward the affluent – graphics cards be expensive, yo. But it’s also got the fingerprints of PR all over it: this isn’t just an advert in an obliging trade publication. This is an effort to make this A Serious Thing. What Razer, as a manufacturer of hi-spec, hi-end gaming peripherals stands to gain from such activity is obvious (yes, I have a Razer Copperhead).
As to what this actually is, well. The emphasis on inclusion and condemnation of proprietary platforms suggests to me that Razer might be about to make some serious moves into cloud delivery, or software-as-a-service. This is where the game itself is hosted on some mega-rig somewhere, and delivered to you over the internet. The benefits are obvious: no downloading, no patching, no idiosyncratic crashes. It also supports subscription models, which to me make a lot more sense in this piratical world. Not many people play games more than once, which is why there’s such a booming second-hand market. Furthermore, they’re pricey buggers and the spectre of buyer’s remorse can loom large even with a title you’re pretty certain about (hello, Limbo. And sorry).
I could, of course, be dead wrong, but OnLive will no doubt be watching very closely…
Edit 23/08/11:
It occured to me last night that it would be strange for Razer, as hardware specialists, to move into software. Maybe not as strange as HP selling off their entire PC division, but hey. Kotaku thinks that Razer might be about to launch its Switchblade, a high-powered gaming netbook with modular keys. I kind of hope not. Two reasons:
1) I’ve long struggled with the concept of ‘gaming’ laptops. A gaming notebook seems an even less comprehensible value proposition. Why? Because you don’t need a mega powerful laptop to play World of Warcraft, and FPSes need a mouse. The online RPG and the multiplayer FPS market are by far the largest. I doubt you’d be able to play these games particularly well on such a tiny device (a big deal for the hyper-competitive FPS scene), but taking them mobile just fundamentally doesn’t make sense to me – it’s not like gamers seem to have a particularly big problem with staying at their home PC for hours on end, and laptops can play most online games just fine. Furthermore… tablets? No? If you’re going to land a bunch of money on a mobile device, chances are you’re thinking of a iPad instead. With that comes a host of high-quality games, some of which are hardly casual. It seems to me that market Razer are pursuing with the Switchblade is pretty much mythical – some sort of extreme 24/7 gamer who is also always on the move and has lots of money and doesn’t want a tablet and doesn’t have a laptop and demands hi-fidelity graphics… but doesn’t mind not being able to play them all that well. Hmmm.
2) It would be a waste of momentum. Razer have clearly ploughed some marketing spend into this and chosen to tap into and make public a current of thinking that’s close to gamers’ hearts. To fritter that away on promoting some new hardware – no matter what I might think about it – seems insensitive. It also doesn’t chime with the rhetoric being employed. I hope that they’re not going to squander this hype on something that falls far short of what they appear to be promising.
