I wrote Monday about companies advertising their websites as Facebook fan pages. Well I also keep seeing companies plugging their Twitter accounts. I watch ESPN regularly, and both Sports Center and First Take both push their Twitter usernames on a show basis.
I began following Sports Center for a short period, but I was overwhelmed by the amount of tweets that they make. The truth is, if I go to ESPN.com I can see the headline section on the right hand side and get all of the info I want aggregated in one spot. The tweets are just relays of that info. It is great deal for Sports Center, since it is all automated. But I found it is not worthwhile for me since I visit the ESPN website daily.
What I have found worthwhile is the same phenomenon I found with Facebook. Companies no longer push their own websites, they push their social networking accounts. I guess they feel that their own website is so ingrained in the public’s mind that it no longer needs advertising. I find this hard to believe, but at the same time, it is obvious things are changing in how companies get their information across. Twitter and Facebook are just the early evidence.
I keep seeing these websites at the end of commercials. They go something like this. www.facebook.com/”company name”. For example, Volkswagen advertised their only website as www.facebook.com/vw. This is kind of ridiculous to me.
I know the fan pages are the new thing in Facebook, but companies aren’t even advertising their own websites anymore? The truth is, these fan pages content sections look just like a normal website. So why would they copy their content into fan pages? I can see the added functionality of Facebook being a perk. Also, the social aspect of getting fans to virally spread the brand name is powerful. But this just seems kind of sudden to me.
Most company/brand websites are really good. They also spend more money on their websites that they do on FB fan pages. So does this mean that FB is really giving them a better advantage than their primary websites. I guess this new trend kind of leads to a “yes” answer. The only reason I can come up with is to agree that FB is THAT powerful. Companies are spending dollars to advertise a FB fan page (which is advertising FB!), that proves FB is very powerful.
p.s. I became a fan of Volkswagen!
http://apps.facebook.com/colorcommentary
This is the hyperlink to Color Commentary. Please add this application in Facebook. I think you will enjoy it!
Anyways, I thought I would write about my experience with developing an application for FB since it was finalized in the report and presentation earlier today…
I really enjoyed the team development process. I have a great team that has been instrumental in the development of Color Commentary. Rachel, Christina, and I spent lots of time getting everything organized in terms of the idea, marketing, technical specs, etc. throughout the semester. By dividing the team (Rachel and Christina on the idea and marketing, and myself as tech lead) we were able to efficiently tackle this class project. Also, we were able to trust each other on our personal strengths to split up the development and deliver a fully functioning application and plan for action.
Also, Social Agency helped us out tremendously with the technical skills required to get the web application within FB and running smoothly. So, definitely credit goes to them throughout the process.
Overall, this project has taught me the importance of working as a team to deliver a final product. We were successfully able to exhaust the resources of the class to deliver a great application. I feel that this is one of the most important lessons learned from this class. It is not just the application working, it is the experience of working as a developer on a team that specified everything from the idea to the marketing within Facebook. This was not a complex application. Rather, it was a good idea that was easy to implement that has the potential to grow fast. I am most proud of the way everything came together. This was definitely a great experience for me throughout the semester.
After hearing the VC give a guest lecture last time, I kept thinking about how optimistic he is about investing in startups and funding new companies. Granted he has one huge project (Share This) to keep him optimistic about the huge potential, but I thought that a lot of VC funded companies fail. He never talked about the downside much, which would have been interesting to hear. For example, how many companies get funding and go broke? or what is the success rate overall of his portfolio? These might be sensitive areas to talk about (they would for me, at least), but he kind of painted this picture of VC being rainbows and gumdrops.
I found the talk valuable, and I learned alot about how VC funding works and how valuation is attempted. Like we have seen time and again, user base seems to dictate the majority of the company/product. My only question is, how long can this valuation method work? With more and more users coming online, won’t all applications see bigger user bases, at least the good applications. I know this method will weed a lot of people out, and FB, Google, etc. will continue to grow beyond belief, but there must be a ceiling with this thinking.
Scott’s going to give us his take today in class, so I’ll be sure to gather his take. Maybe some of these questions will be answered!
The one thing that stuck out to me about the bRkthRgh presentation was the lack of business model. The guest lecturer kept mentioning how sheek it is to be without a business model (so why should bRkthRgh have one?), but I do not really agree with that. I think if anyone can afford to fly by the seat of their pants, its Facebook, but I do not think that they are doing that. Throughout the evolution of Facebook, the main concern is how is it going to make money. But I think we look at this on a short-term basis. Advertising does not seem to be that great of a model, so what is the upside for Facebook? We have heard time and again about the value of the user base…this is where I think Facebook is going to dominate. Emerging technologies and new media are going to be driven by this user base, and Facebook is on the forefront of anything that could take off.
So as far as bRkthRgh goes. It is a little application in a time when applications seem to be dying. So what next? bRkthRgh needs to decide (like most Web2.0 companies) how to deal and adapt to FB changes. It seems that they all live and die by these changes. I think something mentioned in class that would be great is a move to a site outside of FB that using FB Connect to tie in. That is at least what FB wants, because it loves its user base (wouldn’t we all). There could be definite potential in the idea of using FB Connect to grow the niche market of bRkthRgh. The application platform just does not seem to be cutting it anymore.
The Moximity application was very impressive when introduced by our guest lecturers. I agree that smart phones are only increasing in number, and that the future of social networking seems to be centered around the idea of mapping social networks in real-time. Overall, the Moximity app is impressive and has potential to get huge.
However, I am concerned with the idea (for Moximity’s sake) that other companies will be able to offer this service (frankly) better. Questions raised are: what is keeping service providers from developing an app on top of their infrastructur? what is stopping phone manufacturers from moving into the app business by preloading a Moximity type app on the phone as a standard feature? are there other application developers working on this or threatening to offer functionality that rivals Moximity? The potential answers to these questions prove dangerous for Moximity. I fear that service providers are going to move towards these services as they attempt offering content and services that apps are currently occupying. This is a real threat to Moximity that is going to be hard to guard against.
I am not the most strategic thinker in terms of the application market, but I feel that Moximity must look at (and probably does regularly) the threat of these content and service providers in the application market. I think some of these companies will have huge advantages that startups cannot and will not match. But, the opportunity to be absorbed by one of these bigger companies might be an end game possibility for alot of application startups.
Overall, it depends what Moximity (as an example) wants out of their business. I think they are doing great and have a cool product, and these concerns exist everywhere throughout business.
Just started a twitter…@joelpeabody. Follow me!
I thought I should see for myself what this is all about.
I enjoyed the guest lecture with the guys from DadLabs. They seemed to have a great product and a solid way of attaining their goal of airing webisodes and attaining sponsors. Also, even though I am not a father, I am an uncle and have had some experiences with what they are talking about. These guys are able to add a humorous spin on the topics of fatherhood, which is great!
Anyways, I thought their model of hosting free videos (with dvds and tv opportunities to come) a great way to start getting your name and information out to the public. Also, their plan of single sponsorship seems to be working. However, I am skeptical of the idea of getting all of your ad revenue from one company. It seems like Baby Bjorn could be a threat to content, and DadLabs might be limiting themselves in terms of ad/sponsor relationships. I would think that multiple sponsors or some impression ads on the webpage would be great ways for them to diversify their ad revenue. Also, with upcoming tv opportunities, they seem to be knocking on the door of some bigger and better opportunities, so they will be more attractive to advertisers. Therefore, they can explore some more sponsorships or web advertising with more companies. But, we all know how some of the traditional web advertising techniques are limited as well.
It was encouraging to hear about the success DadLabs is having, and I am sure they are working on more ideas than they let on in the presentation. And, I do think that expanding beyond fathers is a great idea for them. Overall, they have a great product and I would recommend their site to new and old fathers. In fact, I will probably be checking it out in a few years when I decide to start a family.
So…I may not be the best at keeping up with my blog, but Professor Lang brought up and interesting point in class and on the FB group wall. He asked how could blogs be used in courses. This might have been a simple reminder for us to get busy, but really this is an interesting idea.
I think that blogging does allow for an organic flow of thoughts and ideas from students to students that enhances the learning experience. Also, it gives students a chance to explain ideas in their own words. I have found this to be very beneficial in grasping the concepts in a course. For example, I had a management class where we were required to journal. While this seemed like busy work, I found at the end of the class that journaling helped me to explain and solidify course concepts in a greater way than just listening and reading. Which in the end, helped me take away a better understanding of the material. Teachers who like their students to journal could easily transition to blogs. This would also allow for a more social experience amongst the students via comments.
So if blogging has great benefits (which there are many more I am sure), why is it hard for me to continue to blog without needing reminders for the professors? I think that it is because we have never done it before, and we are not as comfortable with the format. This is the first class that I have been asked to blog and comment with the class. Again, I think it is a great idea which could definitely be expanded to many courses. But, it is a new idea to me. I have never blogged on my own, so it is still a little foreign to me. Also, I feel that there is some pressure (which might be just my perspective) that blog entries have to be great and well thought out. (Which I do not think should be the point!) I think we should be free to make bad examples and ideas that spur discussion. Because discussion should lead to a better overall understanding in the end.
This class is giving me the opportunity to learn how and why to blog, which is a very valuable lesson to learn. And, I definitely think that blogging is a very good learning tool. So, consider me back in the game for the MIS 373 blog!
The discussion today on GM’s potential use of social media got me thinking about how businesses are stuck to traditional metrics, especially in traditional (non technology) markets. The McKinsey case gives some examples of the satisfaction felt by Executives about the return from their Web 2.0 investments. A majority of the early adopters expressed their level of satisfaction as “very satisfied”. Very satisfied meaning that the investment paid off beyond expectations and/or faster than expected. And, even if not a first mover, the figures still point to satisfaction by “fast followers”.
While there might be bigger fish to fry for GM right now, I think that the traditional metrics for deciding on investments proves to inhibit the satisfaction and ability to gain first mover advantages. There simply is not enough evidence to base a business case on how to measure social media throughout business models.
The definition of first mover advantage (according to wikipedia) is the advantage gained by the initial occupant of a market segment. SO, what if GM were to dive in head first and adopt some technologies to spark social media and transform their business model completely? Speculation about the role that social media and Web 2.0 will play in organizations seems promising. The problem is risk. While GM is probably not in the position to make this move, somebody will (or is headed that way already).
While businesses are definitely making steps towards the ideas we discuss in class, there is not a clear example of first mover advantages with social media transformed business models. But, I think we all can agree that it is coming. And some company is going to capture the first mover advantage of successful adoption across the business model.