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?

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?

“We are really pleased to have Agora Media onboard, said Harry Drok, the Managing Director of Moho Internet Concepts, based in Groningen, The Netherlands. “They bring a vast knowledge social media marketing and are really on top of what’s happening both in the social media landscape online and on the emerging market around Social TV, TV apps and TV widgets – due to their work at Appmarket.tv.

Richard Kastelein, the CEO of Agora Media added, “It’s great to work with the team at Sunnywatches and Moho Internet Concepts – and we think they are poised to be a leading independent eCommerce player in the European online industry – mainly due to their excellent network with manufacturers and distributors in the luxury goods market”.

Agora Media will work closely with both companies in both building and executing an effective social media strategy to ensure tapping of the market.

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?

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?

That’s right.  Unbelievable. Even to us.  And it only cost us sweat. Making sure the copy was interesting and well written. Making sure we took a little extra time to tweet and retweet. Making sure we pushed it to Reddit and Digg. Making sure we used Facebook and Linkedin as well to disseminate our ideas to our friends and business partners.

Scroll down to the very bottom of this page and see the dynamic PR ranking.

A check three weeks ago, delivered us a marvelous sign that we are doing well with the Agora Media Group blog. After the Agora Media’s own Social Media case -> 16000% growth we pushed further in order to expand our visibility and expertise.

Corporate Blogging and an attached Social Media strategy to get our opinions and analyses out is practically the only Marketing we did to get the word out of the Agora Media Group.
Surely PageRank is not the most important metric, but what it does tell is that we’re linked back from important sites.

We achieved this by applying the Social Media Framework which we wrote about. In essence it’s about the Content, Context and Social Media Intelligence which enhances both Content and Context.

Content * Context * Social Media Intelligence = Powerful Social Media

TV’s that are ‘app friendly’  come in 42, 47, and 55 inches and start at an affordable 900 euro.

Making waves in the US, the company racked up some impressive stats in 2009.

* VIZIO continues to add new innovative products to their portfolio such as Blu-ray® players, Home Theater Sound Bars with Wireless Sub, Motorized Wall Mounts and more.
* VIZIO launches 40 new HDTV models with sizes ranging from 19” to 55” and including the top technologies such as VIZIO Internet Apps their version of the internet connected TV, 240Hz LCD models and the latest TruLED technology which delivers the ultimate HD experience with less impact on our planet.
* #1 Shipper of LCD HDTVs in N. America Q1
* #1 Shipper of LCD HDTVs in United States Q2
* VIZIO is the official Sponsor of Super Bowl XLIII
* VIZIO HDTVs can be found on more store shelves than SONY in July 2009
* Over 160 employees

Tweet]]> http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/vizio-tv-app-video-goes-viral/feed/ 1 http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/forresters-word-of-mouth-marketing-statistics/ http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/forresters-word-of-mouth-marketing-statistics/#comments Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:30:40 +0000 Gianluigi Cuccureddu SMP http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/?p=1713 Just after having written The super power of Word-of-Mouth Marketing post, Forrester analysts Josh Bernoff and Augie Ray presented statistics on the state of Word of Mouth Marketing.

A summary of the presentation can be read on Mashable, where it also explains the three different Word of Mouth Influencers.
In the so-called Peer Influence Pyramid the Social Broadcasters (at the top), Mass Influencers (middle), and Potential Influencers (bottom of the pyramid) define the three types of Influencers which, as a brand, you need to take into account. First to understand the dynamics how these three types of Influencers spread messages and influence.
Secondly, the create and reach the best as possible these three types in order to address all three.

The article further reports that people are making a staggering 500 billion influence impressions on one another. This is massive, business-driven advertising and influence is being challenged by these outside influences which bypass the brand but talk about that specific brand.
Why?
Because the Web is transparent, it centralizes content which has effect that in increases the influence of comments, ratings and such, much more than the offline equivalent Word of Mouth messages. These are fragmented and not “eternalized”. The Potential Influencers are the group of people where the real trust can be found. It’s also the largest portion of people. Exactly this group of Influencers can create a chain reaction, triggering friends’ friends and further on.

Mashable ends with

In summary, Bernoff and Ray’s advice to marketers includes:

Build a strategy for reaching all three types of influencers.

Allocate your budget in light of a potential 500 billion impressions of peer influence.

Analyze and reach out to your mass influencers specifically for maximum reach.

To make a step back, before building a strategy, reach mass influencers and allocate budget, brands first need to identify their Influencers. Without the identification, it’s harder to effectively reach and empower them.

What do you think of the Peer Influence Pyramid, are there types of Influencers that miss?

There are Word-of-Mouth three forms marketers need to understand: Experiential, Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth.
The Experiential is the true C2C marketing, whereas Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth is a B2C2C marketing, where Word-of-Mouth is being orchestrated and promoted by the company in order to trigger their target group(s) for further viral the C2C distribution.

The Experiential Word-of-Mouth is the most powerful and trusted form, because it’s a direct experience of the product/service by the person, which then is being positively or negatively recommended. If it’s positive or negative depends on the gap between the expectation and experience of the product or service.
Here the thorough understanding must be present that Experiential Word-of-Mouth is forcing a paradigm shift in brand experience, it is what your target audience think your brand is, instead of a push perceivement.

The shift from a produced influence -solely- created by the company to a prosumerist or co-creational or even customer-driven influence can be seen clear in the image below:

A couple of points stand out in the image:

* In a developing market, Word-of-Mouth is the most powerful influencer in the customer decision journey. This has the advantage that the innovators and early adopters do act as evangelists, which trigger their peers to show similar behavior. The second advantage is that Word-of-Mouth is relatively cheaper than advertising tactics, being able to achieve a better margin or lower overall costs in the introduction phases.
Extensive information is not yet available, forcing consumers to rely faster on each other.
* In the mature market, Word-of-Mouth is less influential, this has part to do with the transforming market, also because advertising in mature markets and later phases in product life cycles require lots of advertising and other still “conventional” tactics to be able to compete in the mature market. It could be well that proportionally there were much more advertising touch points with the target audiences than the consumers amongst them, creating a lower percentage which blur results.

The second image below is the equation by McKinsey which shows an interesting perspective which can be applied to understand better how Word-of-Mouth impacts the brand and the causes, be it on any kind of device or channel, which I will elaborate later on.

Because media convergence is rigidly diffusing amongst (mobile) devices, companies need to overthink tactics twice before executing them, the power of consumers is huge, the hyperconnective society is updated nearly in real-time, making the companies vulnerable when actions are not well thought.
The Volume and Impact equals the Word-of-Mouth Equity.
The Impact is determined by four aspects, Network, Sender, Message Content and Message Source.
The Volume is of importance with regard to the reach per message, but it doesn’t determine the quality of the reach. From an utopian one-on-one marketing point of perspective, the smaller the reach is, but the better the quality is, due to personalized or relevant alignment between Sender, Message and Receiver.

Why is it important to understand the impact on media convergence?
Because it offers many opportunities for companies to granulate content (in the Consequential and Intentional Word-of-Mouth) to create a most effective trigger for their consumers per touch point, per channel.
Online communities grow, vertical networks with highly specialized topics and followers do grow.
Networks become interoperable, devices become interoperable, content can be requested via mobile, laptop, TV and iPad, “small” is relative and the impact is and will be forceful.

The advent of Social TV is only going to increase the power of Word-of-Mouth Marketing to new levels, creating new opportunities and challenging companies at the same time to understand, yet another channel used by consumers.
Think of what will happen if TV widgets (Twitter, Facebook and others) will enable real-time direct communication with their network to comment on the content which is being broadcasted?
Advertising, product placements, concepts, lots will be subject to consumer influence, instantly.

I do think the Word-of-Mouth Equity is worth the try in understanding what kind of messages will impact the brand more than others.
What’s your opinion on Word-of-Mouth Marketing?
Is the equation one that you would experiment with in understanding the dynamics of Word-of-Mouth?