As you probably know, Facebook and Amazon are allowing consumers to connect the two sites. What I find most interesting is the care Amazon is taking to inform consumers what this will mean to them and why they should do it. Given Facebook’s repeated stumbles on issues of consumer privacy, the approach being taken by Amazon is one every marketer should note and consider. What’s important about Amazon’s approach is that it's not simply leaving the communication of important information to Facebook.
CNN, for example, lets Facebook do the talking. Below is Facebook’s standard "Request for Permission" page, which is the message consumers receive when they click the button to connect CNN with their Facebook profile. What does it tell users? CNN can "access my basic information," but what will they do with it? Will they share or sell it further? Will it be made available to marketers or other users? Will my list of friends -- one of the items mentioned in the list of basic information that will be shared -- receive information from CNN as a result of my actions? And what information will CNN send to Facebook -- every page I visit or only the ones I "like"?
Most companies are now building a social media strategy, with a presence on Facebook, Twitter and/or YouTube. At the same time there's much debate over the value of a "Facebook fan." In this whole discussion I was wondering which consumers are most likely to become fans of a brand. Our Technographics survey data shows that about 13% of European online adults have become “fans” of a brand, company, or product they liked recently. About 10% were interested in interacting with companies through social media but haven’t done so yet. The first group we called “brand fans,” the other “aspiring brand fans.” How do the two compare?
Aspiring brand fans have a more mainstream online profile: Half of them are male, and they are older in general. Brand fans, on the other hand, are more likely to be female, and two-thirds are younger than 35 years old. And 20% of these Europeans who are fans of a brand say they are more likely to recommend the brand that they are “friends” with to their network of friends over any other brand. And this is exactly where the value of the Facebook fan lies. As my colleague Augie Ray said in his blog post: "Facebook fans have little actual value until they are activated by the brand."
So what does this mean for CIOs and IT, the custodians of enterprise technology architecture?
It is clear Jive wants to play with the big boys in the enterprise software space. To date, many Jive deployments have not involved IT. This ability to deploy its technology without IT’s involvement has no doubt helped Jive to this point. Of course, having market-leading functionality hasn't hurt. (Jive has featured highly in recent Forrester Wave reports).
At the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston, I sat down with Jive’s new CEO, Tony Zingale, to explore the company strategy. From our discussion, it was apparent that Jive intends to compete for a big slice of the enterprise collaboration marketplace. Fundamentally, this is the right direction for Jive, but I foresee some big challenges for the company along the way.
We humans can have all sorts of addictions. Some researchers believe that addictions may be positive -- such as to jogging or meditation -- but of course many addictions are negative.
What about Facebook? There is no doubt that Facebook is addicting -- according to Nielsen, users spend as much time on Facebook as they do Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Wikipedia and eBay combined. But is this a positive addiction or a negative one? Is Facebook jogging, or is it heroin?
Brands are making plenty of money in social media: Dell Outlet’s Twitter account has generated millions for Dell, the Intel Channel Voice community has decreased costs by eliminating the need for expensive in-person events and P&G used media mix modeling to demonstrate that the BeingGirl.com community is several times more effective at driving sales than the brands' television ads.
Many marketers can draw a straight line between investments in social media marketing and financial results, but many more cannot. This doesn’t mean social media marketing is ineffective; it just means that marketers have to recognize benefits beyond dollars and cents. Facebook fans, retweets, site visits, video views, positive ratings and vibrant communities are not financial assets -- they aren’t reflected on the balance sheet and can’t be counted on an income statement -- but that doesn’t mean they are valueless. Instead, these are leading indicators that the brand is doing something to create value that can lead to financial results in the future.
Microsoft has announced the release of Microsoft Outlook Social Connector, which will bring friends’ data from Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace into users' Outlook 2003, 2007 and 2010. Before anyone says "Buzz" and discounts the value of this offering from Microsoft, I think we need to consider this not from the angle of yet another social platform or social aggregation tool but as a means of making our daily activities richer and more social.
The Microsoft Outlook Social Connector won't change the social networking world, but it isn't designed to do so. The Outlook Social Connector won’t replace any social networking behavior that we already have; you'll still check Facebook.com, use Facebook's mobile site and apps and make status updates via Tweetdeck and Hootsuite. Instead of competing with existing tools, Microsoft’s new plug-in is another step toward a more social experience where social data is organically integrated into our daily habits and activities.
The listening platform landscape is vast, fragmented, and confusing. As a result, I handle more client inquiries around vendor selection than any other single topic. Companies want to track customer conversations, monitor their brands and competitors, measure their social marketing, learn from online discussion, identify customers online, and more. And they need technology help getting there but don't always know where to turn.
To address these questions, we've just published The Forrester Wave: Listening Platforms, Q3 2010. This research is the result of nearly four months of vendor interviews, product demos, lab evaluations, reference checks, client interviews, and customer surveys. All in all, we evaluated nine leading vendors across 76 criteria, talked to dozens of buyers, and surveyed nearly 200 customers to determine the state of the listening platform market today.
This Wave covers vendors that best address an enterprise's Social Intelligence technology needs, through a listening platform's three main steps: social media data retrieval, unstructured text processing, and insight delivery. Each vendor has its own technology platform and professional services team for consulting and can scale to meet vast enterprise needs, both in a large installation-base and between different parts of the organization -- such as marketing, PR, market research, and/or customer support. We evaluated the following vendors: Alterian (SM2), Collective Intellect, Converseon, Cymfony, Dow Jones, Evolve24, Nielsen, Radian6, and Visible Technologies.
You'll have to read the full report to see how the vendors match up, but from my evaluation I uncovered a few emerging trends:
The other day I authored a blog post many found interesting, infuriating or both: What Is The Value Of A Facebook Fan? Zero! I appreciate the great dialogue from the folks who offered feedback in blog comments and on Twitter. Because this is such a hot topic and because the feedback was so thoughtful, this seemed worth further exploration.
In that blog post, I suggested that marketers approach the question of how much a Facebook fan is worth as if the answer is zero. I said, “It is what companies do with fans that creates value, not merely that a brand has fans.” I went on to suggest that marketers should recognize a difference between potential value and real value. Like a coil that is compressed to store energy (an apt metaphor from my Twitter friend, Blair Goldberg), Facebook fans have little actual value until they are activated by the brand, just like releasing a compressed coil.
It is a question I hear several times a week: What is the value of a Facebook Fan? I’ve seen answers ranging from $136.38 to $3.60. I can’t blame vendors, agencies and consultants for trying to answer the question -- the hunger from clients is so great that anyone promising a simple answer is likely to get attention. The problem is that there is no simple answer to such a complex question. In fact, it may be best if marketers approached this question as if the answer is zero -- unless and until the brand does something to create value with Facebook Fans.
There are numerous reasons the question of Facebook fan valuation is problematic:
As an industry analyst, I’m part of the professional class that delights in defining standard marketplace terminology. More than that, many of us spend our working lives coaxing industry to march under marketing banners aligned with our pet definitions.
Yes, indeed, each analyst likes to feel that his or her marketecture terminology should rule school. Last month I did a Forrester podcast on a topic that’s extremely hot right now: leveraging the power of social media and social networks to manage your brand, drive marketing and sales campaigns, and manage ongoing customer relationships. In that session, I discussed the role of analytics in social media for multichannel customer relationship management (CRM).
My initial impetus for the podcast was to spell out the chief distinctions between two terms that, on first glance, appear almost synonymous: social media analytics and social network analysis. During the podcast I also trucked in another related closely related term—social media monitoring—and even alluded to social intelligence and other phrases that have gained currency.
What follows, for those of you who don’t listen to podcasts, or can’t find them, is the gist of what I said on this topic: