Jordan Willms SumoLabs

I like to keep a keen eye on Razorfish to see what they are up to. I have always been impressed with their work and with the thought leadership the company exudes.

Today Shiv Singh and Garrick Schmitt announced that Razorfish filed a patent to measure social media distribution. The patent, which is marketed as a way to measure social influence, is really more about providing metrics for how social media content/widgets/applications virally distribute.

So what problem is this patent trying to solve?

How do marketers identify the key influencers within a social network, and how do you really track and understand how social behavior works?

Let's use a widget as an example (that has an embed code in it so that a viewer can embed the widget again without visiting the source website). You've seen widgets like this before.

The problem is current systems and tracking methods usually only measure breath of widget influence I.e. How many people are out their using the widget. Currently measurement methods do not account for the viral distribution path that a widget takes (which is essentially a graph).

I am going to present a use case to make this easy to understand.

Person A places a widget (a video in this case) on their website "example1.com". Person B visits "example1.com" and views the video. Person B would like to feature it on their own website. They snag the embed code and drop it on "example2.com" (Thus making this the second 'skip' or 'generation' from the domain "example1.com"). The chart below illustrates how this continues to flow throughout a social network ad nauseum. I assume, that this data will be collected and analyzed in some central location.

You can see above that the Action Tag Solution records a generation history for EACH source of a widget. Doing so allows Razorfish (and by extension, their clients) to identify key influencers within a social network AND how viral a widget is for a particular generation from a given source. In the diagram above, Person B and Person D have the most influence. In the future, targeting these influential websites with marketing spend will increase the probability that a widget will go viral and the effectiveness of that spend.

I have chosen to use a widget as an example, but the Action Tag Solution could be used for any media type, widget, application, etc. E.g. For a facebook application, replace 'widget' with 'application' and 'website' with 'user' in the illustration above.

I am very excited to see what type of measurement dashboards and reporting tools Razorfish (or others) will create to visualize this information.

Read more about the Action Tag Solution on Shiv's goingsocialnow.com or on Razorfish's Digital Design blog

Did you know that if you try out the Visa Business Network application you'll immediately get a $100 Facebook Ads coupon?

http://apps.facebook.com/visabusiness/sign_up

What are you waiting for? Sign up, get your $100 coupon immediately and see whether you can get any traction with Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads allows you to insanely target ads geographically and based on user interest. (E.g. I want to target female smokers in Delaware that also are into retro boots).

So far I have "spent" approximately $50, and received over 600,000 impressions (but only 151 clicks). So, not good. However, my results may not be typical (I am advertising another community.... why would anyone click a community ad when they are already in one?)

I suspect that for highly specialized brands Facebook ads will become a very cheap and effective way to reach more people.

How are your ads doing? I'd love to hear of your success.

A hot topic of debate lately amongst my professional colleagues, friends, and fiancee has been concerning whether or not social media technologies are making people less social in 'real life' (and the consequences of less face to face contact). Often times this argument will be solely about youth, and other times regarding any participant of social media.

I am going to present the two main arguments of others, my own opinions, and request your thoughts about where the next generation culture is heading culturally.

Let's get our hands dirty.

THE ARGUMENT: Social Media is decreasing (or will decrease) the amount of face to face time upcoming generations spend with each other.

I refute that this is not the case. More and more research is showing us that not only are social technologies helping people connect in the digital world, but they are facilitating more meaningful connections in the real world. Relationships are now made based on interests and not by convenience. Take for example a young girl suffering from Crohn's Disease. She is now able to use social media to connect with others who share similar disorders and form deeper and more understanding relationships. Or, on the more entertaining side, take the Beard Team USA (http://usabeard.blogspot.com/) which is a place where beard obsessed men of all sorts can share pictures and engage in discussion. The only part of this argument I acknowledge is that without variety and people of different interests getting together, creativity and therefore progress is stiffened (I have no rebuttal for this other than "That is what businesses and corporations are for -- bringing together people that wouldn't normally get along").

My primary counter argument is this: My generation grew up with Television which was a one way medium. The generation before grew up with TV and Radio -- still one way mediums. In the same way our parents worried about us watching TV instead of hanging with friends, we now do the same for the upcoming generations regarding social technologies.

There is a key difference through: This is the first generation since the time of the troubadours and storytellers where the primary form of human entertainment is two way and interactive.

I do think social media is game changing. I think we are just returning to a time when things were more social. The difference is now that our ability to be social is no longer limited to spatial time and place. Are we are moving towards a world wide collective consciousness where borders are only things of government legacy? That may or may not be a stretch.

My secondary argument is this: When mail, email, the telegraph or the telephone became popular -- did people stop visiting their friends and loved ones? Did it make people more social or less social? Social media/networking is simply a communication medium which in my view isn't terribly distinct from mail, email, telephone and the telegraph.

THE ARGUMENT: Social media allows people with social disorders to 'hide' behind their computers and not learn the social rules of the 'real world'.

Recently, I was debating with a smart colleague of mine, Daniel, and he stated that he believed a friend of his has a social problem. She sits at home all day on Facebook (et al) talking to friends without ever leaving the house. His argument (Dan - please correct me if I am wrong) was that -- if not for social media -- she would be out and about willfully socializing with people on the street, in the coffee shop, or at the library. Unfortunately I don't buy it. It is my perception that social media is, in her case, helping her form relationships despite what social disorder or anxiety she has. I believe, that if not for social media, she would be spending more time feeling alone, feeling neglected, feeling isolated, and depressed.

---

To revisit my main underlying argument: I believe that Social Media is this generation's Television. There will be complaints of "addiction", "people losing track of time", but at least kids won't be "anti social" anymore. At least not fully.

Furthermore, I believe social media is helping many people with social problems get over their social fears and become more social via the internet.

I am excited to have you rebuttal these thoughts.

A few of the lads over at Razorfish put together a deck exploring the potential of portable social graphs (albeit through a Facebook Connect lens -- can you tell Microsoft owns a slice of Razorfish and Facebook?).

It is a great perspective on what will be possible in a few years without having to have 'friending' or 'friend importing' built into websites anymore. It will all be automagic.

Let's face it: the Economy is getting its ass kicked. That ass kicking will inevitably bleed into other areas. Consumer spend, confidence and marketing/advertising spend are what we need to keep a close eye on.

Let's take a moment to stop and focus on marketing and advertising.

Social media (or Social Influence Marketing) is a ubiquitous and fragmented landscape that companies have struggled with in order to leverage digital media effectively.

Add onto that the fact that with social media spend it is very hard to measure return on investment (ROI).

We know that during economic (hiccups, jitters and dry heaving) -- that ROI will be watched like a hawk, resulting in only the most accountable and measurable advertising/marketing channels being targeted with spend. Traditional marketing channels will therefore remain somewhat safe from spending cuts in a recession.

Tameka Kee, from MediaPost, presented an article discussing "Old School" ad unit performance.

For more bang for your buck, the article argues, stick to 'old fashioned' text ads. Video units, and other rich media units should be put on hold.

"I think the biggest takeaway from the data is that the current ad formats aren't very effective," said Jonathan Levitt, iPerceptions' vice president of marketing. "Brands are going to have to start looking at things like direct content integration and product placement. There's still a place for things like banners and skyscrapers, but it's much more about brand awareness than inducing conversions."

I was personally amazed that a study by iPerceptions identified that user's will click Google AdWords ads 25% of the time (I'm shocked it is that high).

Other eye openers:

- Display ads were the second-most popular: banners on the right side of the page getting clicked 20% of the time.

- Banners at the top of the page did much worse, only claiming clicks about 12% of the time

- Video or rich media units, which were only likely to get clicked 11% and 7% of the time

So what do this all mean? Two things.

In my eyes it means that either a) video and rich media ad units are such that people are unwilling to engage with them, or b) we need to think hard about how we are actually building these units (i.e. Are we still lost in print type thinking?)

Secondly, it means that your money (or your clients money) is better spent in text links and banner ads on the right than video ad units and other rich media variations. For the moment.

My good buddy Nik informed me about $5M in funding for community focused projects.

We’re giving away around $5 million in 2009 for the development and distribution of neighborhood and community-focused projects, services, and programs.

If you have a great idea that will improve local online news, deepen community engagement, bring Web 2.0 tools to local neighborhoods, develop publishing platforms and standards to support local conversations or innovate how we visualize, experience or interact with information, we’d like to see it! You have the opportunity to win funding for your project and support within a vibrant community of media, tech, and community-oriented people who want to improve the world.

There are three rules to follow to apply to the 2008-09 Knight News Challenge:

1. Use or create digital, open-source technology as the code base.
2. Serve the public interest.
3. Benefit one or more specific geographic communities.

The meetup in Vancouver was last on Oct @ Rain City Studios, so you'll have to try to attend in another city (or get all your info online).

Deadline is Nov. 2, 2008 . Apply Now (Snooze you lose).

Do you think social networks and social media impact corporate valuation?

Let's break down the walls of understanding between social media and the board room table.

I love ChangeThis manifestos. Once per month my reading queue goes from near empty to completely full again. It is well worth it.

I recently conferenced with Michael Cayley, author of Social Capital Value Add: Value Based Management for the Networked Age. The idea seems to be getting a lot of traction.

To simplify: traditional brand value is calculated by polling, surveying, measuring viewership, etc. However, in today's 'networked age' the majority of how the mass consumer market views your product or company, is already out there on the internet. In blogs, wikis, web-zines, forums ad infinitum.

As I understand it, why can we not measure the pulse of that social capital and use earnings forecasts to produce an actual value of what that is worth in dollars?

What is really interesting to me is Cayley's idea of SC*, or the social capital opportunity. It enables you to determine those individuals on the internet whom you are not effectively reaching, so that you can make connections with to increase your bottom line.

I believe that this is something companies would pay for.

I've attached my model of it below.

Basically, it boils down to this:

1. A digital footprint audit (DFA) is produced by analyzing the whole freaking internet to determine all identities (people) and everything they have said. Oh, and it figures out the relationships between entities too. That output is called the Social Identity Audit (SIA)
2. Now the company or corporation takes every correspondence it has ever had with people and cross references that with the Social Identity Audit
3. This cross reference exposes two pieces of information: Those identities you are actively communicating with (who are likely contributing to your Social Value Capital) and those you have yet to make contact with. Those identities you have not made contact are called your Social Capital Opportunity (Big words for: "Go out and make connections with these people and you will increase your social capital)

There is a lot more to learn about social capital. The ChangeThis manifesto is a great place to start.

In my limited viewpoint these SCVA concepts will eventually get rolled into traditional brand valuation methods (i.e. We don't need two measures, just an updated one.)

Great work Michael. Let's keep building on his work.