So you have some context, there is about a 20-year difference in our ages. He is just at the start of his career as a true techie while I am still figuring out what I want to do when I grow up as a writer, business owner, business development professional, and all around good guy . With that in mind, we represent two very different points in time regarding the Internet and how we use it. Here are some of my observations.

Location based services – While I am barely sticking my toe in the water with Foursquare, Facebook Places, and more, Dave is fully immersed in Foursquare. He is a check-in junkie, though he has to be reminded to do so from his girlfriend more often than not, which makes me wonder just how involved he is. I asked if he ever gets deals and he said “It seems like wherever I check in there are deals all around but never at that place where I am.” Bummer. So why does he check in? He likes the badges. I was floored because I can’t tell you how many times I thought that was a silly idea.

Facebook – I am a medium Facebook user, if you just look at time spent with the service. Dave, on the other hand, not so much. He’s there but he updates infrequently and I think there is a level of “uncoolness” from the tech side about getting caught up in Facebook stuff. In the meantime, he has kept up with my kids’ sports exploits through FB, so he sees the value for certain things. I am becoming less enamored with FB personally, but I am not sure if that is just industry fatigue or a realization that there are other things to do with my time.

Twitter – I spend a bit of time on Twitter, but I am starting to see it almost like TV. There is a lot of junk there, but you can occasionally find something of value that will keep you coming back. Also, it’s a huge time killer, which is something that is not so good. Dave could care less about Twitter. He follows a few things for deals but never updates and thinks that most of it is crap. Interesting perspective and I wonder how widespread that feeling is amongst his generation.

iPhone vs. Android – This was interesting because Dave has an iPhone through his work and I have an Android through choice, due to timing. In other words, I went the Android route to stay with Verizon during the pre-iPhone age. I have wondered whether I would switch, but that’s an ongoing battle. We both agreed that the iPhone is a much smother UI, but he did miss the Android tech factor of being able to experiment. Interestingly enough, it was our talk that made me look at how to really use the DroidX and I saw just how much functionality I had decided to leave unused. Today I am much happier with my Android device but still have some iPhone envy (particularly around battery life).

Texting – This one is easy. He does a lot more texting than I do. I don’t do much at all unless I am forced to, but Dave texts to communicate. Interesting difference and one that I totally chalk up to our age difference.

Research – I was real quick to look up anything that I didn’t know by using my phone. I just like to have answers. Dave was perfectly willing to watch me struggle to “be informed” and stay out of the fray. For being so “connected” I think he enjoyed being “disconnected” as well.

Now, I am not silly enough to go running around proclaiming that I uncovered any secrets about the great unknowns around Internet usage for the masses. I know this was just a few days with someone who looks at tech differently than I do.

What it did do, though, is point out to me just how different each individual Internet user, be it mobile or desktop, truly is. Even looking at groups in a particular age bracket and drawing wide conclusions about their general usage is bad to do. I am not sure if there has ever been a more personalized medium known to man. Not everyone will do one thing or another because of common demographics.

In fact, I suspect that the differences among people in the same age groups are even more pronounced than they are from younger to older. I know how many people my age look at the Internet, especially business owners who have been around for a while. They have built their business a certain way using certain techniques and don’t have the time to invest in the latest and greatest. That’s where they stumble a bit, but I have found helping these folks are the most rewarding, which is why I do what I do.

At any rate, I found this whole insight into a younger Internet user’s mind to be very enlightening. I am not feeling like there have been any “A-Ha!” moments, but there didn’t need to be. What needed to happen was that my eyes were opened to just how unique we all are in our Internet use and, as a marketer, I can never feel like I have it figured out.

Why? Because I don’t think anyone does. What about you?

Comments

That chart, seen below, seemed to show that social media usage in almost all forms had leveled off or even dropped depending on the type of social media in question.

Of the most interest to me was the drop in usage of blogs by the SMB crowd. While I understand why this might be happening, it is somewhat discouraging to see it happening for real.

I understand because maintaining a blog that is worth the time is a drain. It’s a drain on time and just about every other resource at the SMB’s disposal. The trouble is, most things that have a higher cost also have a higher value. Blogging is definitely one of those.

Yes, it’s hard to find time to write. Yes, it can be hard to determine what to write about. Yes, the act of writing itself makes getting a root canal seem like a Caribbean vacation to many. All that aside, I still don’t think there is a more valuable way to express expertise and to support just about every action in your business than through a well thought out and executed blog.

As for the rest of the social media options out there? It looks like people are staying with (although not necessarily increasing usage of) outlets like Facebook. Why is that? I suspect because many people find it easier to post a quick Facebook update than they do to craft a blog post. I get that but I don’t really agree with it.

Here is my quick list of recommendations to the SMB’s that want to win at the Internet marketing and social media game.

1. Offer a strong blog for your business (if applicable) at any cost. It tells the story that supports sales efforts, backs up referrals, gives existing customers another touch point with you and so much more.
2. Use social media for its real strengths, which are customer satisfaction, industry reputation, brand and personal reputation building for the general public. Social media is not necessarily the lead generation panacea that many tout it to be. If you take the pressure off that aspect, then you will still get leads and they may even be very well qualified.
3. Commit the time and resources to research what you need rather than chasing after every suggestion you find when searching Google for “SMB social media” (unless of course you find results that are attached to my activities )
4. Work with the reality of social media for the SMB and not the fantasy of the image of social media as the beginning and end all for the woes of the SMB market.
5. Stick with it and work it. Have you ever heard the phrase “Plan the work and work the plan”? No better advice for social media and the SMB. It’s not easy but it has real benefits when applied correctly.

So while the numbers may indicate that the love affair between SMBs and social media may be cooling off a little, maybe it’s just the lust of the initial attraction that is gone. Now it’s time to see how the relationship will work for the long term and see just what it can mean to a business to be friends with social media and not fall in lust with it.

Comments

What about paywalls on the local level though? How will more localized papers fare when it comes to asking people who do not subscribe to the publication to pay to see the content online? If the results at New York Newsday are any indication its not a pretty picture.
Crain’s New York Business tells us just how bad it is

Here is one paid model for online journalism that isn’t exactly setting the world on fire: Nearly three months after Newsday put its Web site behind a pay wall, Newsday.com has attracted only 35 subscribers.

In addition, traffic to the Long Island daily’s site has dropped by half, according to Nielsen.

Newsday is the local paper for all of Long Island and a good portion of the NYC borough of Queens. Not exactly a small place. In other words, if there are this many people in the area and there are only 35 of them in three months willing to fork out a few bucks a week to access the information online this has to be viewed as a failure. Here’s what readers who do not subscribe elsewhere see when they try to get information from the website

To be fair it’s not like only 35 people read the online content for the paper since the content is literally available to a large portion of the population.

Newsday.com can be accessed free by the paper’s home subscribers, as well as by Cablevision customers and subscribers to the cable operator’s Optimum Online broadband service.

According to the paper, that means about 75% of Long Island households just have to register to have access. Anyone else who wants to read the paper online has to pay $5 per week.

Still, the number of online subscribers shocked members of Newsday’s union—Local 406 of the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—which is in a bitter fight with the paper’s management over a proposed contract offer that would cut pay by 10%.

What this outcome may be telling the industry is that paywalls may very well limit the reach of your publication. Long Island is of particular interest considering just how many people have relocated from the area to parts all around the country. Now, if these people want to keep up with current events from ‘home’ they would have to pay and it looks like those folks are saying to Newsday “Forgetta about it!”.

So if this tactic isn’t working to generate more revenue what is the point of doing it? Maybe Newsday doesn’t want to be one of the first major local newspapers to try this and then be one of the first to drop it all in the span of a few short months.

Whatever the reasons this experiment looks to be a huge bust thus far. Not exactly the success story you parade out to other publications considering the same tactic. So what do you think? Will local publications be able to enact a paywall and have success or is this just a desperate move by an industry that decided to change as a means of survival rather than doing it as part of their ongoing business plan to move into the future?

Comments

As we talk about often it’s not even that Google is on top anymore. That’s a given. In fact, its dominance is what makes the uninformed cry monopoly. Once again market dominance doesn’t mean it’s the only game in town. People just like it better and use it more.

What is interesting is the drop in share of the next three biggest players. Google is up one percent but all three of the others are down 4%. There is no search ‘cannibalism” going on here where they are feeding off each other. Are people looking for other search options other than Yahoo, bing and Ask that are not named Google?

While this is always interesting it is certainly getting a bit mundane. I would love to see true competition for Google if only to stop the silly talk about Google’s dominance restricting others’ opportunity. I just don’t see it happening. Do you?

Comments

Twitter’s pedigree is getting increasingly rich at the expense of Google and other Silicon Valley tech titans. With the holidays behind us, the microblogging powerhouse is starting the new year with more new faces at its San Francisco headquarters. Among them is Bakari Brock, most recently an in house lawyer for YouTube and Google focused on music, video and syndication.

Brock, whose LinkedIn profile shows him as corporate counsel at Google, starting in 2007, was heavily quoted in late 2008 when the video service introduced e-commerce capabilities enabling customers to purchase from partners including iTunes and Amazon, and his comments were included in publications such as the New York Times and GigaOM site NewTeeVee.

Last year Google was the ‘victim’ of Twitter’s need for legal expertise as well. While probably flattered one would think that losing high profile, likely high dollar and highly visible legal talent is not how Google would like to get the new year started.

Some of the background of new hires on the Twitter team include another former Googler, a ex-ning staffer and folks from Cloudera, TiVo, Bebo and VMWare. Add this to an expansion of the Twitter family tree following the acquisition of MixerLabs before Christmas and one would think that “It’s beginning to look a lot like business” (sing that to the tune of “It’s Beginning to Look A Lot Like Christmas” for those wishing the holidays were still here).

So let’s go a step further on this one and see what the bold prognosticators among MP readers are predicting for Twitter in 2010. What does the need for more legal firepower say about what might be next?

Comments

Facebook has built its brand on pushing the idea that members should share real information so real people can connect to other real people, and not to some persona that is covered up in a neat social media moniker. As a result, people have come to trust the site as a place that is safe and exists for the user.

Well, that was then and this is now. Before the new policy took effect, most of the data that was given to Facebook was kept pretty private and there was not a tremendous concern about the data beyond the normal “it’s the Internet and nothing is really private anyway” talk. What Facebook has done now is to turn their backs on the folks that they built their data community on by saying that privacy is so 2005. In order to get your privacy back, you need to manage it yourself because the doors of the barn have been flung wide open.

Well, this move is just puzzling to me. I realize that there is a need to make money, but if this is how the master plan was laid out, then someone was asleep at the wheel. Since when was it good business to build trust with people over years and then pull the rug out from underneath them for your one-sided benefit?

Now the government is being called in, which is never a good thing.

So what may have Facebook done here? Let’s think about it.

1. Pulled a Tiger Woods? Take a pretty good image and do something sleazy and what do you get? Discontent. Lower approval ratings. Nothing good comes of it an act that is disrespectful of others.
2. Shown their true colors? Those true colors may be green, for the money which has been put in front of the community. No one is saying that Facebook shouldn’t make money. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They need to make money to show that social media is a profitable business. Sometimes, how you make the money (like selling out your users) can hurt your efforts.
3. Moved toward MySpace territory? While admittedly a stretch, what if Facebook is simply the bigger version of MySpace and it has made a second or third generation social media business mistake that will make it go the way of Friendster, or even worse, be pushed to the fringes of relevance like MySpace.
4. Shown its age? Let’s face it. Facebook was started by a very young guy and he shows his age more often than not. Maybe he is being swayed by counsel that is not in the best interest of Facebook, but he simply isn’t experienced enough to know differently. Being smart and being experienced are two completely different things. Mark Zuckerberg is definitely smart. The other? Not so much.
5. Created a free monster? Maybe there is no real way to turn the switch on a pay model after being free for so long. Maybe this is just an example of being too big and too ubiquitous. People are used to everything just “being” with Facebook. Now as the company is required to make moves to be profitable (which it has not done yet) it is learning the hard lesson of its model.
6. Assumed people wouldn’t pay attention? This is the most insidious of considerations because Facebook and their terms of service have always been a real PR play. They know full well that most people don’t pay attention to Facebook policies as evidenced by not reaching the required 7,000 comments recently to put a TOS issue to a vote. Maybe they were naïve enough to think that if the users of Facebook are just not paying attention then they could CTA (cover their a%$) with some privacy announcements and never look back.
7. Realized that Google really is in control because of search? With Twitter opening their feed to the major engines, Facebook was up against it to a degree. It was forced to sacrifice one of its pillars of trust (privacy) for the demand to index the entire world in real time.

What’s your take on this? Is it an over-reaction? Did Facebook do any real damage in the long or short term to itself? Will we all forget this in a month or so? I don’t have any answers to this but my suspicion is that this is not the end of this discussion. Not by a long shot.

Comments

Editor & Publisher and the Huffington Post are both talking about the updates. Interestingly enough, I heard about it from @michacha101 who is one of those people that I have no idea why I follow on Twitter but have gained value from doing so. Having said that (and given them a plug) I am learning more about the openness of the social media environment and the value that can be taken from it. Journalists drool over this kind of exposure and availability of information. Trouble is that for the sake of ‘objectivity’ or ‘political correctness or whatever there will always be rules and regs that restrict just how effective the medium can be.

The Huffington Post tells us that some of the LA Times policies include

Integrity is our most important commodity: Avoid writing or posting anything that would embarrass The Times or compromise your ability to do your job.
Assume that your professional life and your personal life will merge online regardless of your care in separating them.

Even if you use privacy tools (determining who can view your page or profile, for instance), assume that everything you write, exchange or receive on a social media site is public.

Just as political bumper stickers and lawn signs are to be avoided in the offline world, so too are partisan expressions online.

There’s a lot of detail that I am leaving out here and here’s why. I have to give the LA Times credit for being on the ball. You see the Huffington Post had only one comment but it was from Andrew Nystrom / L.A. Times social media guy / @AdNys who was completely transparent by saying:

Thank you for writing about our new Guidelines. For the record, here are links to:

- The full text of our revised Social Media Guidelines: http://latimes.com/socialmedia — our original Guidelines were issued in March 2009, before the WaPo or WSJ (and most other major media outlets) issued theirs.

- Our directory of 200+ L.A. Times(@lat¬imes)-rela¬ted Twitter accounts: http://latimes.com/twitter

- The full text of our 2007 Ethics Guidelines (currently under revision): http://latimes.com/ethics

Hope this is helpful. I welcome all feedback.

Nice move.

So let’s recap. As a result of the social media ‘world’ I got data from someone that was of interest, that was about information that can be seen both positively and negatively depending on your point of view but was ultimately made completely transparent by the source which ultimately reflects positively on them. Pretty cool.

So if you really think that people care about where you are walking and what you see it’s likely that you are just really enamored with yourself. What people really want is information that helps. Thanks to everyone who helped here.

Comments

Earlier this year, we speculated on when Facebook would launch APIs for Facebook Ads to allow performance marketers to automate ad management. Well, it appears it’s happening now: recently, Facebook started beta testing its new advertising APIs with just a few agencies around the world.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed the tests, saying that it will “open up to some more advertisers in the next week or so.”

This is the kind of thing that could give larger advertisers the kinds of tools that are expected from real companies. In other words, Facebook is modeling Google and others in taking the necessary steps to make it easier for advertisers to do what they best: advertise. Based on the last post I did which was bemoaning the near indifference of Twitter’s leadership regarding revenue generation this is refreshing.

Smith explains further

Because those tools have never existed for Facebook Ads, performance advertisers have had to either manage their Facebook Ads campaigns manually, or hack their own tools. Now, Facebook is testing simple yet powerful APIs that allow agencies and advertisers to create thousands of ads with different creative and targeting permutations and optimize bids in real time.

So while there is nothing to see quite yet there is at least something to look forward to. We are in a day and age where the changes in the marketing and advertising landscape are outpacing the ability to take advantage of them. Social media is sweeping everyone away with its constant talk of potential but now it is maturing in some areas to the point to start to deliver. We are starting to get past the sizzle and Facebook is looking to finally serve the steak.

Let’s hope this is just the start of this kind of improvement on the horizon. Lord knows we need it.

Comments