Below you will find an introduction on the Hype Cycle and the Priority Matrix and where emerging technologies are in the Hype Cycle.

What is the Hype Cycle?
Gartner states:
“Gartner’s Hype Cycle characterizes the typical progression of an emerging technology, from overenthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain. Each phase is characterized by distinct indicators of market, investment and adoption activities.”

What is the Priority Matrix Graphic?
Gartner states:
“The Priority Matrix is a tool for prioritizing emerging technologies by forcing technology planners to look beyond the hype and assess technology opportunities in terms of their relative impact on the enterprise and the timing of that impact.”

What does it mean for you?
As explained by Gartner it will help you as a company to understand what the trends are, where to look at (be it for internal or business/growth opportunities) and what the “state” of these technologies are.
Jumping bandwagons without solid trend information does happen often, depending on the corporate culture (Innovator for instance) this can be good, for many others an understanding before applying technologies is a sure way to go.

For us Agora Media / AppMarket.tv it means to understand technologies like Augmented Reality, mobile technologies and convergent technologies, what the benefit and mainstream adoption timeframe is.
The latter is important for planning and business development. Too early has its advantages but also challenges, entering too late the market means losing share and a certain brand recognition/positioning.

Gartner provides many Hype Cycles, which you can find on this page.
For this article, three of the Hype Cycles that are relevant for our business are:
“Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for E-Commerce, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for Business Use of Social Technologies, 2010″

Below you’ll find the individual technologies that are mentioned in the “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″ and where they are situated in the Hype Cycle.

You can relate the phases below to the shown first image in this article.

On the Rise
Human Augmentation
Context Delivery Architecture
Computer-Brain Interface
Terahertz Waves
Tangible User Interfaces
Extreme Transaction Processing
Autonomous Vehicles
Video Search
Mobile Robots
Social Analytics
3D Printing
Speech-to-Speech Translation

At the Peak
Internet TV
Private Cloud Computing
Augmented Reality
Media Tablet
Wireless Power
3D Flat-Panel TVs and Displays
4G Standard
Activity Streams
Cloud Computing
Cloud/Web Platforms

Sliding Into the Trough
Gesture Recognition
Mesh Networks: Sensor
Microblogging
E-Book Readers
Video Telepresence
Broadband Over Power Lines
Virtual Assistants
Public Virtual Worlds
Consumer-Generated Media
Idea Management
Mobile Application Stores

Climbing the Slope
Biometric Authentication Methods
Internet Micropayment Systems
Interactive TV
Predictive Analytics
Electronic Paper
Location-Aware Applications
Speech Recognition

Entering the Plateau
Pen-Centric Tablet PCs

Augmented Reality is at the peak, meaning attention is reaching a all high record. Companies like Layar, T-Immersion, Junaio are pushing -with much success- the boundaries of this technology.
Microblogging on the other hand is sliding into the trough, meaning it will have hard times to prove itself within the environment and usage. In case of Microblogging I do see a bright future, but less hyped and much more relevant than in many present cases.
Interactive TV is climbing the scope, it has passed the trough and modified/enhanced offers are globally being developed, making it an interesting emerging market.

What do you think of the Hype Cycle management model?
Do you make use of it during strategic planning and growth strategies?

This week was announced that Google has waved goodbye its all-in-one collaboration tool Google Wave.

On Wednesday and Thursday, multiple sources have reported that Google has acquired Slide, a social application developer for $182 million.
In July, the news was announced that Google has invested in Zynga to form the cornerstone for Google Games.

Are these all indications that Google is leaving the arena of platforms and is focussing on the content, which is being deployed on the Web?

The rumors about a social network experiment called “Google Me” are not in lign with the aforementioned developments, but a rumor is a rumor.
Facebook and others, like Twitter and Myspace have such a large userbase, it would be very difficult for Google to compete.
Like Google Wave, other social experiments have not been succesful.

By investing in social gaming, it will get a better grasp on one of the activities employed by users online, making advantage of the large and established userbases of Facebook, Myspace and others.

Not only for Google but also for other companies trying to get a share in social networking, it is becoming hard. People have established networks, time and attention are fragmented.
The advantages need to be really compelling in order to persuade users to be active on yet another network or leave a present one. If an extra network is added to the users’ portfolio, less attention and time is available per network, which is a disadvantage for both user and the social networks.

Secondly, Google kills two birds with one stone, Google Games and social gaming distributed via Facebook and others.

This development fits to overall approach of Google, the Web as a platform where all sorts of activities are deployed.
Think of entertainment/video via YouTube.
Think of communication via Gmail.
Think of information via its core, Search.
Gaming fits this list of activities very well.

What’s your opinion on the developments concerning Google and (social) gaming?

Below you find a summary of how each type is defined and what their roles are:

As mentioned on the Forrester blog, it’s best when creating an integral marketing strategy based on these three types of media. Easier said than done, but by creating a clear overview and categorizing current media efforts you will be able to approach and define your strategy more structured.

Besides the roles, benefits and challenges, there are implications and applications of this model from a (meta-) marketing point of view.

Here a list of points to think about and perspectives:

General point of perspective
Approaching strategy by the type of media instead of channel or ROI/Branding tactics, offers new insights which can be used to enhance the marketing efforts.
For instance, ROI objectives can be reached through various media types. Taking this point of perspective is more alligned to your goals and strategy, where these media types are the strategic How part.

B2C2C
Understanding the three media types and how they (inter)relate is important to understand on the transparent and reciprocal Web. The amount B2C expressions are relatively low, but serve as a catalyst for further C2C distribution.
Make use of each the channel’s uniquenesses, in order to be as effective as possible and more importantly, to reach the customer in a way which matches their online behavior.

The Buying Cycle
This brings us to probably the most important implication of this model, the reflection on the Buying Cycle / Funnel.
First of all, Social Media is promoted as a solution for everything, which isn’t. Secondly, it’s not always as cost-effective as companies think it is. Of course, direct channel costs lack, but indirect costs can be high. Think of the time consuming character of social media.

Owned media and Paid media can much more focus on the conversion part of the cycle/funnel, let the earned media be for visibility and the retention/loyalty phases.
Besides the unique advantages of each channel, keep in mind  that they’re symbiotic, Search is a catalyst for further exploration and the networks trigger more searches due to peer recommendations.

Brand
The brand is what the customers think it is. Nowadays it is even more than just that, because customers also want to be a part of the brand, think of co-creation and prosumerism.
Find a balance on media efforts that portrays the companies’ view with those from the customers.
The companies’ views are often centralized on the corporate website, whereas the opinions of customers are scattered throughout the Web.

A difference to keep into account when categorizing currently executed media types.

Devices
Society is becoming more digital ubiquitous, are the Owned media adapted to them if it’s neccesary? Think of the mobile device and tablets.
How are the target groups making use of the mobile device, depending on purpose and need, employ the right media type (right depends on goals as well).

Relevancy
Certain channels are less customizable than others, social channels are a good example how to reach customers very relevant, on the other hand, Owned and Paid media are less flexible and relevant (from the customer point of view).
New technologies in the Search Engine Marketing arena have increased relevancy (remarketing, behavioral targeting etc) which in time will decrease the advertising blindness (16% decrease in clicks Y0Y ’09 & ’10).
Social Media advertising can be more relevant in the eyes of the users but are less conversion focused, because of the lacking buying modus whilst visiting social networks.

Strategy
It comes down to the How and Where in strategy. Keep in mind that in the execution of the strategy, the translation of the How in terms of marketing communications/PR/advertising need to match the Where, where is the target audience present, what is their behavior and cycle?

Each media type adds its unique value to the How and Where.
Be mindful in the tactics, don’t follow your competitors blindly and smaller is better.
Hypersegmentation and targeting will deliver more precise and thus more relevant and qualitative results.

Last but not least, goals have impact in the choice of media type, long-term versus short-term, ROI versus branding and so on.
Effectivity is key in the choice because of the unique advantages of each type in each channel related to the target audience and the products/services.

Would you use this model for your planning?
Which media type is most challenging for you?
Do you make use of the C2C extension in terms of branding?

In essence this means you’ll be able to see Recommendations and Like buttons and more, that will enhance your context socially.

In a recent article about Mobile strategies and the three aspects, I elaborated on Location, Relevancy and Immediacy.
When reading the given example by Eric Tseng, Head of Mobile products at Facebook, an interesting application of taking this to the Mobile is of course enhancing geo-centric marketing efforts.

The expansion of Facebook’s Open Graph perfectly fits the “triple play”. By tapping into the opportunities which are provided by location, the large amount of information that is pushed and/or searched by mobile users is contextually enhanced by your network.
How can users differentiate and make choices? Your network can at least help you making that choice.

Facebook is providing the ability to socially augment the users’ experience, instead of augmenting it with extra contents, which only adds more information and no relevant decision-making “mechanisms”.

Facebook’s user base is put on 150 million users, for application developers this could mean a new range of opportunities by the Facebook plugins. Users are already online, are already on Facebook, the extension to third party applications is logical and can fuel the usage of mobile and mobile applications.

What do you think the implications are?

The company will create severeal games based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters.

Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, Judy McGrath, says:

“Social gaming is one of the biggest drivers of the explosive growth in social media – it’s fun, it’s engaging, and it’s shareable,” said Judy McGrath, Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks.  ”Social Express brings us strong experience and know-how in this burgeoning space, which we’ll supercharge with the IP and scale of Nickelodeon and other MTV Networks brands to create great new social gaming experiences for our fans and cool tools for independent developers as well.”

On a conceptual level, it will be interesting to learn if MTV Networks will head towards transmedia entertainment concepts, incorporating television programs, websites and social games to create a full-fledged integral storytelling.
Each medium will serve another purpose and like McGrath already states, Social gaming is fun and engaging, two ingredients which could add a new experience and layer to existing or new concepts.

Transmedia concepts do exists and there are great examples, for instance the Happiness Factory by Coca Cola.
The Happiness Factory is a virtual world of characters living inside a vending machine. The series lives across multiple channels, including commercials, interactive video games, and a musical soundtrack that features a variety of artists. The series provides Coca-Cola with additional revenue streams, and customers with a fun brand experience.

MTV Networks could do similar concepts based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters, taking it a step further, taking the engagement of the viewers of MTV a step further.

What do you think of the potential MTV Networks has with Social Gaming?
Is the Entertainment industry perfect for transmedia concepts?

There are multiple aspects that define the Social TV experience.

Some of these aspects are:

*Changing basic TV experience from lean-back to lean-in;
*Technology factors like Internet-Connected TV adoption;
*Remote controls that support the social experience effectively and
*Broadband access and so on.

These aspects are all external when we look at the social experience itself, namely communication/interaction.
Would (the type of) interaction be a determinant of how the Social TV experience is created?

What if instead of the enabling of interaction being the starting point for Social TV developments, we take the TV content and its public interaction as starting point.

In the Social TV: Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing paper, the type of interaction is being researched.

At a general level, we can characterize the comments exchanged by our participants using five broad types (Table 1):
• Content-based comments directly reference the content that is on or recently shown on the screen.

• Context-based comments are relevant to the show in its greater context, but perhaps not the specific episode or moment that is being viewed.
Examples are references to the actors, past episodes, show trivia, etc.

• Non-sequitur comments are social exchanges such as asking about one’s family, or talking about events unrelated to the TV program. These are usually more common in groups who already have some social connection with each other.

They often take the form of side conversations (usually whispered, or at least toned down) between two participants and rarely follow the structure of the show.

• Logistical comments are relevant to the television watching experience, but are independent of the programming.
Tasks like changing channels, adjusting volume, etc. must be verbally communicated to the group so that whoever has control of the set can respond.

• Phatic responses are almost involuntary reactions from the audience like laughter, gasps, groans, “Whoa!”, etc.

To summarize, our observations reveal that interactions between television viewers are tightly interwoven with the structure of the show they are watching.

Do the types of comments/interaction need to be taken into account when designing the Social TV technologies?

Yes, here’s why:

Depending on the TV show, one- or two-screen experiences can be dynamically created in offering widgets or sites in order to communicate in a way which is appropriate for that TV show.

For instance Content-based comments could be showed directly next to the TV content, whilst Logistical comments can be better displayed on a second-screen, without adding noise and irrelevance in relation to the TV content.

Key is to keep it simple without complicating matters in terms of usage and consistency.

This point of view might also explain why current Social TV widgets only clutter the screen instead of adding additional value for the viewers.  Twitter for instance is so broad it contains any kind of comment that will be displayed by the Twitter widget.  Intelligent systems could detect types of comments and distribute them differently.

Maybe intelligent systems are one step too far ahead, but the offered applications can be enhanced to the most probable or occuring type of interaction related to the TV show.

What do you think, does taking into account the type of interaction, enhance the Social TV experience or not?

Q: Where do these two mutually intersect?
A: On the level of two-screen solutions and applications/widgets.

Wikipedia says on two-screen solutions:

“Two-screen”, or “synchronous solutions”, are a form of interactive TV that enables information about a TV show to be accessed via the internet on a mobile phone, laptop or desktop PC. Unlike one-screen interactive TV solutions, where all of the interactivity is on the television, two-screen applications are typically done from a computer, and are free to the user. In these cases, users are not changing the content on the television, they are accessing supplementary information about the show. The difference between two-screens and normal web pages are the two-screens are relevant to the live programming, refreshed in real-time, and often provide social networking around live broadcasts.

Augmenting the TV experience in a one-screen solution is happening, sure, think of teletext or subtitles for instance.
But the augmentation is up to a certain level, due to the content and focus it has on that certain time.

Two-screen solutions on the other hand enable augmentating of the TV experience to a new level, where it comes into its own.
These kind of solutions are great for multitaskers and the information hungry society we live in.
Social complementary solutions which will connect you with friends and recommendations on the second screen, whilst consuming the core content via TV.
One can ask him-/herself if the TV content is primary or simply the reason for social activity.

The other intersection is with regard to the emerging TV applications and widgets which will enhance the core content on one screen.
there’s a learning curve though, simply cluttering the screen with additional information/widgets doesn’t work according to researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics on NewTeeVee.

Though the potential is present, a smart and enhanced usage and application of widgets is needed, to create and validate relevant and quality augmentation.
Almost anything can be an augmentation of the reality or experience, but as explained in Augmented Reality Semantics it has to be contextually qualitative and easy to use. Technologies are one thing, but if it’s not simple and powerful enough, users won’t adopt due to the high perceived risks.

On AppMarket.tv, we created the poll “ Two Screen or One Screen? What is the Future of Social TV?“.
Do let us know what you think is the future of Social TV.

Again news for the travel industry, last week it was the rumor on a potential Google & ITA deal, now it’s Apple (increasing rivalry between them and Google) which comes with iTravel, Apple’s way of revolutionizing the travel industry.

What iTravel basically does is converging the complete travel process for the iPhone.
A complementary – thus competitive and unique – combination of iPhone hardware and software will enable travelers to search, plan and book flights, hotels, rentals and much more.
At the airport you’ll be able to handle luggage and boarding passes.

At this time, iTravel is in the patent stage, for more information on iTravel, have a look at PatentlyApple.

Two questions arise:
* What does this mean for travel marketers?
A new distribution channel might come available, because it’s Apple, will this mean a next step in disintermediation?

* Is Apple able to disrupt the travel industry, exactly because of the centralized position their device (iPhone) will have?
If Apple is able to penetrate key industries, the usage of one mighty device is in their advantage and reach.

The five game mechanics she refers to, are:
1. Collecting
2. Points
3. Feedback
4. Exchanges
5. Customization
Applying those to the context of social sites is easy to understand, it motivates. Motivation increases usage and usage increases loyalty, traffic, income and so on.

View below the aforementioned presentation:

Yesterday I found a presentation on Youtube of Amy Jo Kim, about the topic of Game Mechanics on Social sites.
Enjoy, it’s interesting.

Her approach to use game words like players instead of users is a start to see sites as games and how you can approach networks with this point of perspective.
Think of Foursquare, Gowalla etc.

What do you think of the gaming approach from a social architectual point of view?

How are these two enhancing Strategic decision making on a business level?
First of all, a short introduction to Game Theory:

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology (most notably evolutionary biology and ecology), engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria. Today, “game theory is a sort of umbrella or ‘unified field’ theory for the rational side of social science, where ‘social’ is interpreted broadly, to include human as well as non-human players (computers, animals, plants)” (Aumann 1987).

When we talk about Social Media, Transparency and Centralisation are key to new social (digital) behavior which influences buying cycles and decision making and where Social Network Analysis gives insights in relationships between (groups of) people.

On the Internet, where quantification on a much more granular level is made possible, and where Assymetric Information supply is being diminished, we can understand that Game Theory is an intersection of all these disciplines which will benefit the business and its strategic decision making. Where the new Local = Global, where competition increases, mathematics like Game Theory will give (large) corporations the advantages to extract important information from its customers and markets.

Why?
Because like the definition says, “Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others.”
An individual can be understood on different levels, be it a business, a target segment or indeed individual people.

The Internet’s real-time aspect which is challenging -again- businesses will add a new dimension to the already exisiting complexity.
(Not-)Reacting on events can be a matter of days and substantiated decision making -on quantified data- becomes a must.

How do you think mathematical approaches like Game Theory and Social Network Analysis will influence businesses and decision making?
How will competition evolve amongst companies?