Archive for the ‘Socialmediology’ Category

Aardvark following in Google’s footsteps?


2010
02.02
Image representing Aardvark as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase

Today, social search jocks Aardvark published a research paper entitled Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine that looks at the science of how people find things with help from other people.

Aardvark and juvenile.
Image via Wikipedia

According to Damon from Aardvark, the “paper was inspired by the classic Google paper, “Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine”, in which Sergey Brin and Larry Page originally describe the algorithms and architecture of Google. This paper was published 12 years ago in the same WWW conference.”

One of the most interesting points made in this paper is that the subjective way in which we often ask questions is better served by social search than it is by web search. Makes sense to me, especially with those questions we’re trying to answer that

require interpretation of context. Also curious are the findings that the v

ast majority of questions (almost 90%) get answered, with a decent amount of answers (70%) earning a “good” rating…. not bad if you ask me.

So, how credible is the paper? Well, it was co-authored by Sep Kamvar, founder of search company

Kaltix (later acquired by Google) and previous head of Personalized Search at Google, now Professor at Stanford. I’m no academic, but that seems pretty damn credible to me! Think it has anything to do with Sergey and Larry dumping enough shares last week for them to relinquish their majority voting rights? You tell me… ;)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • Share/Bookmark

Did Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis get it wrong?


2009
10.24

[This entry is a repost from Alan Brody's iBreakfast blog]

mahalo_logoEditor’s Note: with all the talk about a re-awakening in the funding market for new ventures, I thought it fitting to re-post this very well-written and insightful article from our friend and iBreakfast partner in New York City, Alan Brody. It’s a rebuttal to Jason’s recent attack on Mike Segal of Private Equity Forums and other forums who charge entrepreneurs for access to investors. Although Jason’s rant appeals to my philosophical sensibilities, I have to say that Alan makes some very good points, and can’t help but wonder whether Jason’s perspective is a little too narrow on this topic.

 I know Mike Segal of Private Equity Forums and we even promote his events. So let me stick up for him in this way: his events bring out-of-town investors and entrepreneurs to New York. That is his strong suit and has been doing that well for years, filling up room after room with investors and entrepreneurs. He deals with what I call pedigreed starts-ups: people who have serious experience in their fields, have put a good amount of money into it and can afford to pay to be in this league. Dotcoms are a small part of his world – most of his Entrepreneurs have biotech, heavy engineering, energy, packaged goods or financial services businesses.

These obey very different rules from the digital world that Jason and his cohort inhabit – so before we get into some version of class war let’s understand that we are dealing with other classes of new enterprise.

As the organizer of the iBreakfast I should state that we run very modestly-priced start-up events and we give our winning entrepreneurs tickets to Mike Segal’s events so they can see what his world looks like. Some of it is familiar but a lot of it is very different – his investors usually look for revenue, tangible assets, assumable debt and a host of things dotcom start-ups are oblivious to.

I can’t argue with Jason or anyone that access to investors ought to be Free. Why not? If Fred Wilson or Steve Jurvetson wants to see you – go ahead. They might even throw in a Vitamin Water or buy you lunch. But unless you’re a serial entrepreneur and were recommended to them, the chances are the don’t want to see you. So events like Mike Segal’s and to some extent, the iBreakfast have emerged put you right in front of investors and get you into the general recommendation system. By organizing it into a marketplace they are entitled to charge what the market will bear. In that respect Mike is no different from a trade show producer or the Wall Street broker that takes his commission and the spread.

If you think he is charging too much – don’t pay. The iBreakfast offers a low-cost pitching event that grooms, educates and gives start-ups access to investors for a nominal $125. We don’t market it like crazy but then we also don’t pack dozens and dozens of investors into one place. So take your pick. As for the groups that do it more or less free, go to them – but they are probably oversubscribed and they’ll make you wait.

So, should one approach drive out the other or should all of these coexist?

If Jason can attract Investors and Entrepreneurs from all over the region – or the country to an event, do it on a regular basis and give it away for Free, I say more power to him. I might have a plan or two I’d like to trot out myself.

But keep in mind a few things. Free often drives out the good. Without a financial incentive there is a good chance the forum will run out of steam. Even if the forum continues, they still have to add some kind of value that makes it worthwhile for the investors to show up and for the best pitches to rise to the top. If they can do that, Free may win. Even so, many companies would still rather pay for all kinds of reasons like speed to the investor market or controlling their destiny.

A big question is why would Jason do it for Free. I buy his “sticking up for the hood” motive up to a point, but the real deal is publicity for his Mahalo “people powered” pedicab of a search engine, he needs to attract contributors, fire up his base them up and make them feel important.

As for the profit motive, well excuse me, Jason had no trouble charging over $1,000 for his Silicon Alley conferences when he could – thereby keeping good information and contacts away from the needy. Tech Crunch 50 is not Free. So why should these organizers behave differently? If Mike Segal can save his Entrepreneurs from traveling all over the country just to see investors and get the word out at once, then there is a value in it. Something like a road show in one place. Plus, many investors take this kind of effort seriously and see this as separating these Entrepreneurs from the pack – those which just can’t afford the effort and therefore may not be as viable.

That’s why these events take place at fancy ballrooms and not at a taco stand – it makes people take these presentations seriously. Maybe the investor should be paying for the lunch but the market dictates otherwise. Trust me, the doctor who just prescribed Jason his self-righteousness pills didn’t pay for his own lunch either if he didn’t want to. The drug company was happy to pick up that tab. More importantly, if an Entrepreneur is flying in from Minneapolis, Free starts to look very iffy while a paid event says “this is happening” and his time and travel costs will not be wasted on a flake out. Likewise, investors realize their time is unlikely to be wasted by people who are not really committed to their new enterprise.

Having said all that, I actually welcome Free because it forces the paid guys to do a better job or else. Plus it gives the posers a chance to discover their real selves before they do something silly like empty their trust funds.

As to which approach is really better – let’s say they are different and serve different purposes that may ultimately harmonize. A free event favors just-out-of-college start-ups with those big moonshot ideas like the next Twitter, iPhone Killer App or Search Engine (know of any?) Few succeed but the ones that do, make it really big. They change the world.

Paid events favor the seasoned player – the pedigreed start-up that has 10 years of experience in a field, often a mundane one where they see the real opportunity in their space, know the players, the customers and so on. There is less pizzazz and few ground-shaking ideas. The payoff is more earthly but to the investor, is also a safer bet.

The true serial (and successful) entrepreneur which includes Jason, only has to pick up the phone. The sensible entrepreneur has to know which category they belong in before they choose their path but they all have their place.

My prediction – a year from now, all these forums will exists in one way or another. All will do a better job and all will charge about the same – even the Free.

- written by Alan Brody, CEO iBreakfast

  

 

  • Share/Bookmark

Is Collective Invention any better than Design by Committee?


2009
09.09
Preakness anyone?

Preakness anyone?

They say that a camel is nothing but a horse that’s been designed by a committee… and given my experience working in a large company with large clients, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the idea that sometimes the best results don’t come from the input of many.

But while it’s true that fewer cooks often lead to more delectable meals, is there any merit to the idea that, although committees often produce a solution heavy in appeasement and compromise and light in innovation and impact, sometimes great inventions come from the egalitarian contributions of a mass of individuals? I mean, isn’t this the ethos of open source development, and the reason that we even have such things as Linux and the Internet?

So why the camel stigma then? Is it just that small groups are a breeding ground for competition and posturing or is there something more to this idea? While you ponder this thought, check out Quirky.com, a great site that came to my attention through  Consumed (trust Rob Walker to find another weird and wonderful intersection betweeen products and people).

signup

Quirky.com

What’s it all about? Well, here’s how it works:

  1. You pay $99 to submit your idea;
  2. The sociosphere votes on your idea and weighs in with suggestions for improvement;
  3. The best ideas are produced and marketed without you having to lift a finger;
  4. The more people weigh in and/or vote, the more “clout” your idea develops i.e. the larger your share of the pie;
  5. 30% of all takings go back to the “community” i.e. the people who contributed to your idea.

So, basically, I can pitch an idea into the collective brain of the sociosphere, watch them improve it, watch someone else make it, and then take in up to 15c for every dollar my idea generates in sales? Hmmm… out of curiosity I ran some numbers on one of the items advertised on their front page:

Quirky.com

The Scratch-n-Roll sells for $14.99 (let’s call it 15 bucks). So, if I made 15c for every dollar, that’d give me $2.25 for every unit sold … or put differently, I’d break even at about 45 units.  If it sold a thousand units I’d make about $2,150, and if it was a hit and cracked 10,000 unit sales… I’m about 22 grand richer! And to make the dreamer in me happy, imagine we could move 100 thousand units… well, then we’re talking North of a quarter million dollars. Doesn’t seem too bad for simply sharing an idea and then sitting on my ass!!

Now, I don’t know whether this product, or even the concept, will be a success. But, the socialmediology wikinomicist in me hopes like hell it will, and I’ll be following this with keen interest.

So, then, how do we explain the success of crowds versus the perceived failure of committees? I’m not sure… but I’ll be scratching my head about it until I am. Any psychology major or consumerist out there with an opinion? Would love to hear from you.

-D

  • Share/Bookmark

Ford’s Social Media Effort Irks the Murketing Crowd


2009
08.10

If you’re a fan of Rob Walker, like I am, you’re probably familiar with the column he writes for the New York Times each week, entitled Consumed. And if you are, you may even be a fan of the Consumed Facebook page, which is where the inspiration for my blog entry today comes from.

Some background.. for all the failures of the auto industry of late, Scott Monty and the folks in his social media team at Ford Motor Company have been doing quite a few things right and, quite rightly, are receiving credit for their efforts, including a recent nomination in the Shorty Awards, which honors the best content producers on Twitter. Among the many accolades Scott frequently receives from those in the know, he’s often praised for having a very natural social media style and embodying all the right traits of someone with a high social media IQ. And I must say I agree… great marketeer and definitely “gets it”!

So it came as something of a surprise to me that the murketing loyalists who move in the Consumed circles were accusing Ford of  “faux grassroots” marketing after their recent Ford Fiesta campaign, which called on Fiesta fans all across the country to submit videos explaining why they should be chosen to receive the free use of a Fiesta for 6 months. I quote from the Consumed FB page:

“Here, a self-identified “YouTuber” explains why she thinks it’s really great that Ford wants to “work with” people like her. Her opinions sound like verbatim marketing-guru talk, which is a little disconcerting. And her (I guess sincere) comments seem so synthetic: hand-waving and jump cuts that signify amateurish, but feel practiced.”

Now, I should mention that Undercurrent were responsible for this campaign, and it’s not clear to me whether or how much Scott Monty was involved, so let’s not start questioning his instinct just yet. In fact, before I go any further, you should take a look for yourself:

Sincere? Or rehearsed? Okay, no, wait… it’s definitely rehearsed and she’s clearly performing (in a sense). Rather, the question should be… sincere? Or contrived? As a consumer, are we offended by this since it is so blatantly a marketing ploy? Or should we take the position of: so what if it seems like a marketing ploy… of course it is! But who cares? Isn’t it enough that one of the worlds largest brands is engaging it’s consumers at the ground level?

My opinion? As a fan of all things murketing, I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed by the over-produced look and feel of what is supposed to be an amateur video, with all it’s editing, cuts and cutesy inserts. I also have to be honest and say that even if she didn’t intend for it to come across as selling out…. it kinda did. And her explanation only made it worse. (You can find more in a related post here). That said, wanting to give Scott and crew the benefit of the doubt I spent a few minutes on the campaign’s website and found that the vibe differed quite a lot from agent to agent. Sadly, there are those who seem like Ford employees masquerading as real people, yes. There are many others who are more believable, however…. more authentic, and who come across as regular people taking part in Ford campaign.  Check out Allison H… is this not great social media, cussing included?

So, what’s the verdict. Well, in my view, if Ford made any mistakes in this campaign, perhaps it was in the judging…. some of it, that is. The campaign itself is great, even if some of the winners aren’t.

What do you think?

-D

  • Share/Bookmark

Japanese Social Media & Mobile Trends


2009
06.18

Today we had a very insightful conversation at iBreakfastLA. Inspired by some of the comments from the panel discussion and Q&A session, I thought it would be good to look East, and highlight the top 3 trends for mobile social in Japan, where mobile is arguably more advanced than anywhere else in the world.

1. Mobile = Social = Mobile

Mixi is the no. 1 social network in Japan and it gets over 60% of its traffic from mobile devices. Gree, effectively a mobile-only social network that gets 99% of its traffic from the mobile platform, has grown 909% since launching a few mobile social games. Check out one of my recent presentations for more:

2. QR Code

QR code is widely adopted as the de-facto standard in Japan. Promotion agencies use it a lot to create buzz at events or conferences without spending much money on ads or prizes.

3. Nintendo DS

The dominant mobile device in Japan. Nintendo DS is to Japan as iPod is to the U.S. It’s now also used in classroom environments for educational purposes.

The system allows students with the devices to receive exercises sent from a teacher’s computer via a wireless LAN. Taking advantage of the console’s stylus-based touch screen, students can also work on math problems involving diagrams, as well as original study material prepared by teachers. At the same time, the system enables teachers to easily monitor the students’ progress, including calculating the percentage of correct answers in groups of up to 50 students.

- Mainichi Japan, June 10, 2009

Kinda makes you wonder… is the US going to follow a similar path or chart a new course? What do you think?

- Woosung

  • Share/Bookmark