I was asked today what I use Twitter for, and that got me thinking...
Over the course of the last few years that I have been an active Twitter user I've had more than a few discussions with friends and family about its merits, often in response to a comment such as "why would I want to know when you brush your teeth?" or suchlike - to which I've had to extol the virtues of the platform and try and explain that Twitter is what you make of it. You create your own experience based on who you follow and what you say, and it is fast becoming my default choice for killing time and exploring the digital.
So what do I use it for? Well, a bit of everything - keeping up with industry news and trends; sharing news and info with friends and family; checking up on news and travel alerts; a bit of inane celebrity watching; keeping an eye on client and competitor activity; and of course smirking at the odd cat gif.
As the London 2012 Olympic Games kicks off, we will no doubt see a slew of stats about the amount of tweeting taking place - no doubt surpassing the 15,000+ tweets per second during Spain's Euro 2012 win (there are apparently over 2,000 past/present Olympians that tweet!). You will also be hard pushed to find a digital destination that doesn't support sharing via Twitter, indicative of the fact that it has become the de facto tool for sharing (and discovering) digital content.
And is is also becoming the Marketers go-to channel with branded hashtags popping up all over over the place. As with any new marketing channel there some pretty good executions as well as some pretty poor ones, as is always the case with bandwagons being jumped on - a few people always fall over the side...
Of course with any communication medium that has such a large number of users, there is the need to take care. From a Marketer's perspective, things can easily go awry as we often see with poorly considered Facebook campaigns (some good points that reach beyond Facebook in this blog by Carat: http://www.carat.co.uk/blog/five-learnings-from-the-femfresh-facebook-debacle/), and for your average-Joe it has potentially more serious ramifications as the Paul Chambers #twitterjoketrial highlighted. Fortunately common sense prevailed and Paul was acquitted on appeal, but the whole fiasco serves as a very real reminder of the strength, and risks, of such a publicly accessible and 'open' Social Network like Twitter.
Twitter's strength is in it's simplicity and the ease with which you can both share and discover. As I said at the start of this blog, you can use it and get out of it what you want. It will no doubt evolve, and I am sure in such a way as to better support an advertising-based revenue model. But I will certainly continue to use it - for enjoyment, information and work - as I am sure many millions and millions of others will too.
Friday, 27 July 2012
Friday, 11 November 2011
Why don't mobile browsers recognise a URL?
Shamed as I am to look at the last time I wrote a blog post, I thought I'd try and get back in the groove on a topic that's been bugging me for a while.
We often talk about how mobile is uniquely positioned as, not just a channel in it's own right, but also as an integrator of channels - able to connect an offline user to a digital destination. I've blogged before about how too much activity that is talked of as "integrated" is often more like "parallel" activity with two activations running at the same time and no real integration.
However, using mobile you can engage with a consumer with a poster while they are walking down the high street; from a magazine ad they see when they are on the bus; or with a TV commercial they watch whilst sitting on their sofa, and drive them to a destination where they can get more information, register an interest or even complete a purchase.
That is a far more compelling capability than it seems to be based on the prevalence of such calls to action.
But there is an issue... There is yet to be smooth and seamless way, a completely intuitive and simple call-to-action, that enables a mobile user to respond and interact. So how do we get users to hit a URL, whether that be to visit a mobisite or download an app, for example?
Well, what have we got now? In truth, there are four credible alternatives available right now:
1. Just show the URL and ask the user to enter it themselves. One benefit of this is that the same CTA can work across desktop and mobile (assuming device redirection is in place). In addition, there is no dilution of the branding on any marketing material - the URL is often included anyway. The downside is that we are asking the user to manually type a URL, beyond the fact that this is not as easy as on a desktop (although not such a chore as it is often portrayed), it is a bit clunky and shouldn't it be easier with a smartphone?
2. Ask the user to "Search". I actually quite like this as a CTA - it's simple and familiar for users and, as with manual entry, is a consistent across desktop and mobile. That said, it forces you to ensure that your SEO is flawless and potentially require you to direct budget at search if you were not already.
3. Include an SMS shortcode/keyword CTA. Familiar for users and requires little effort, with the URL returned via SMS this is clickable and so drives the user to the destination without much fuss. That said, it's generally not liked amongst creatives for aesthetic purposes and, if a brand doesn't already run SMS activity, requires that they get this in place (that's not to say it's difficult or expensive, but it is still a barrier).
4. QR codes (or MS Tags, Shot codes etc. etc.). They have their place, and for some reason some people like them (I received an email with one in recently - ask me about it if you want a 30 min rant on the nonsensical things that some mobile companies get up to). On the plus side, they are the quickest/smoothest way of driving online from ATL. That said, this is only if you know what they are and have a reader app on your device. Oh, and they are also ugly.
So the other day it struck me, why do I have to type a URL into my mobile browser?
My phone has a camera right? Jeez, my phone can translate text so there's no reason that it couldn't recognise a URL and open the URL. So why haven't Apple or Google added it as a feature to Safari or the Android default browser? Surely they can add a button that activates the camera, recognises the text as a URL (think Google Goggles but within your browser, not a different app), and then opens the page, or even performs a search.
Am I missing something?
[Bear in mind that this is possible as it's not a webpage that accesses the camera but the browser itself, which as a native app, of course can do this.]
I may be being immensely naive but having this capability would mean that both of the routes 1 (URL) and 2 (search) above become much easier. In fact, it means that anywhere a URL may appear, it becomes 'clickable' and a call to action. Doesn't this make "integrated" activity even more feasible?
So come on Apple, get a move on Google and pull your finger out Microsoft/Nokia. Why not do this...?
We often talk about how mobile is uniquely positioned as, not just a channel in it's own right, but also as an integrator of channels - able to connect an offline user to a digital destination. I've blogged before about how too much activity that is talked of as "integrated" is often more like "parallel" activity with two activations running at the same time and no real integration.
However, using mobile you can engage with a consumer with a poster while they are walking down the high street; from a magazine ad they see when they are on the bus; or with a TV commercial they watch whilst sitting on their sofa, and drive them to a destination where they can get more information, register an interest or even complete a purchase.
That is a far more compelling capability than it seems to be based on the prevalence of such calls to action.
But there is an issue... There is yet to be smooth and seamless way, a completely intuitive and simple call-to-action, that enables a mobile user to respond and interact. So how do we get users to hit a URL, whether that be to visit a mobisite or download an app, for example?
Well, what have we got now? In truth, there are four credible alternatives available right now:
1. Just show the URL and ask the user to enter it themselves. One benefit of this is that the same CTA can work across desktop and mobile (assuming device redirection is in place). In addition, there is no dilution of the branding on any marketing material - the URL is often included anyway. The downside is that we are asking the user to manually type a URL, beyond the fact that this is not as easy as on a desktop (although not such a chore as it is often portrayed), it is a bit clunky and shouldn't it be easier with a smartphone?
2. Ask the user to "Search". I actually quite like this as a CTA - it's simple and familiar for users and, as with manual entry, is a consistent across desktop and mobile. That said, it forces you to ensure that your SEO is flawless and potentially require you to direct budget at search if you were not already.
3. Include an SMS shortcode/keyword CTA. Familiar for users and requires little effort, with the URL returned via SMS this is clickable and so drives the user to the destination without much fuss. That said, it's generally not liked amongst creatives for aesthetic purposes and, if a brand doesn't already run SMS activity, requires that they get this in place (that's not to say it's difficult or expensive, but it is still a barrier).
4. QR codes (or MS Tags, Shot codes etc. etc.). They have their place, and for some reason some people like them (I received an email with one in recently - ask me about it if you want a 30 min rant on the nonsensical things that some mobile companies get up to). On the plus side, they are the quickest/smoothest way of driving online from ATL. That said, this is only if you know what they are and have a reader app on your device. Oh, and they are also ugly.
So the other day it struck me, why do I have to type a URL into my mobile browser?
My phone has a camera right? Jeez, my phone can translate text so there's no reason that it couldn't recognise a URL and open the URL. So why haven't Apple or Google added it as a feature to Safari or the Android default browser? Surely they can add a button that activates the camera, recognises the text as a URL (think Google Goggles but within your browser, not a different app), and then opens the page, or even performs a search.
Am I missing something?
[Bear in mind that this is possible as it's not a webpage that accesses the camera but the browser itself, which as a native app, of course can do this.]
I may be being immensely naive but having this capability would mean that both of the routes 1 (URL) and 2 (search) above become much easier. In fact, it means that anywhere a URL may appear, it becomes 'clickable' and a call to action. Doesn't this make "integrated" activity even more feasible?
So come on Apple, get a move on Google and pull your finger out Microsoft/Nokia. Why not do this...?
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Google+ doesn't want to take Facebook's current followers, it's their future ones it's after...
So Google+ is a couple of weeks old and having initially only let a few people into the circle (apologies for the in-joke so early in the post), it appears that the doors have been left a little further ajar and there is a steady trickle of users into the network that is far outpaced by the comments, blogs and articles about it.
Based on my first tentative steps into Google+, it does look like it is generally the tech-leader types that are heading onto it first - checking out how it compares to Facebook and the like. How fast, or indeed, how far it will proliferate into the masses it to be seen. Certainly early indications are that it is a bit of a slow burn - applying the Bedford Test, I posted a question on Facebook about it and didn't exactly get a resounding response.
So what are the chances that G+ will head into obscurity the way of Buzz and Wave?
Well, the challenge with any new social network is that unless it reaches a tipping point of users it is destined to fail... I've recently been reading an anthology of mathematical curiosities written by one of my old Maths professors from the University of Warwick, Ian Stewart. Amongst other things, he discusses Conway's Game of Life, in which, given an opening state, a series of rules define how a two dimensional grid of cells behaves over time and generations. Some reach a steady state; some grow, produce offshoots and even move; whilst others simply fade and die. Such as it is with social networks - and in this world, the odds are even further affected by one thing. Facebook.
Both Wave and Buzz are potentially good ideas that struggled to achieve anything approaching a critical mass of users. But if the figure that I saw recently of 750 million active users is accurate, you'd go a long way to compete with Facebook and as we've seen with Bebo and MySpace - if you don't compete, you fail. But there are exceptions to that rule. For example, Foursquare has reached 10 million users (I would love to see the active number mind) - but the differentiator here is the nature of the product. Foursquare is specifically location based, it's very single-minded in its proposition.
So has G+ bitten off more than it can chew in trying to stand toe-to-toe with Facebook?
And have I mixed too many metaphors in that question...? On both, there are certainly good reasons to think so, a good proportion of the Facebook user base are habitual users and maintaining two social networks is more of a pain than most would be prepared to put up with. Given a straight choice between the two, I suspect that G+ would struggle to lure over more that 10% of the active users of Facebook. At a general level, whilst the reviews of G+ are pretty favourable (given it's early days at least), it is very similar to Facebook. However, there are some nice features that are clearly learnings from some of the issues of Facebook, and it takes a more open (and Twitter-like) approach to building your network and "circles". But are these enough to make a user stop using Facebook in order to move over to G+? And of course, that is assuming that a sufficient number of their 'friends' do the same too! For some that are increasingly tired of Facebook, maybe yes. But en masse? I'm not convinced - at least not initially...
And that, I think, is the key point. Google+ may be more of a medium/long term play. And I also think that Android will be Google's MVP.
Based on my first tentative steps into Google+, it does look like it is generally the tech-leader types that are heading onto it first - checking out how it compares to Facebook and the like. How fast, or indeed, how far it will proliferate into the masses it to be seen. Certainly early indications are that it is a bit of a slow burn - applying the Bedford Test, I posted a question on Facebook about it and didn't exactly get a resounding response.
So what are the chances that G+ will head into obscurity the way of Buzz and Wave?
Well, the challenge with any new social network is that unless it reaches a tipping point of users it is destined to fail... I've recently been reading an anthology of mathematical curiosities written by one of my old Maths professors from the University of Warwick, Ian Stewart. Amongst other things, he discusses Conway's Game of Life, in which, given an opening state, a series of rules define how a two dimensional grid of cells behaves over time and generations. Some reach a steady state; some grow, produce offshoots and even move; whilst others simply fade and die. Such as it is with social networks - and in this world, the odds are even further affected by one thing. Facebook.
Both Wave and Buzz are potentially good ideas that struggled to achieve anything approaching a critical mass of users. But if the figure that I saw recently of 750 million active users is accurate, you'd go a long way to compete with Facebook and as we've seen with Bebo and MySpace - if you don't compete, you fail. But there are exceptions to that rule. For example, Foursquare has reached 10 million users (I would love to see the active number mind) - but the differentiator here is the nature of the product. Foursquare is specifically location based, it's very single-minded in its proposition.
So has G+ bitten off more than it can chew in trying to stand toe-to-toe with Facebook?
And have I mixed too many metaphors in that question...? On both, there are certainly good reasons to think so, a good proportion of the Facebook user base are habitual users and maintaining two social networks is more of a pain than most would be prepared to put up with. Given a straight choice between the two, I suspect that G+ would struggle to lure over more that 10% of the active users of Facebook. At a general level, whilst the reviews of G+ are pretty favourable (given it's early days at least), it is very similar to Facebook. However, there are some nice features that are clearly learnings from some of the issues of Facebook, and it takes a more open (and Twitter-like) approach to building your network and "circles". But are these enough to make a user stop using Facebook in order to move over to G+? And of course, that is assuming that a sufficient number of their 'friends' do the same too! For some that are increasingly tired of Facebook, maybe yes. But en masse? I'm not convinced - at least not initially...
And that, I think, is the key point. Google+ may be more of a medium/long term play. And I also think that Android will be Google's MVP.
Google recently announced that they are activating half a million Android devices each day. That is a big number, and it's growing 4.4% each week. Then there is the troubles that RIM is suffering, and the continued growth of smartphone penetration that is resulting in a significant emerging market - the teen and young adult audience, that are active social networkers and a ripe demographic for mid-range smartphones.
And that is where Android comes in.
I am continually amazed when I consider that Google has gone so far as to develop a leading mobile operating system and other technologies such as Goggles and Translate based purely on driving advertising revenue. It's all about data and platforms for delivering advertising (be that display or search). It really does fascinate me.
But anyway... if RIM can achieve what it did in terms of gaining traction amongst a younger, non-corporate, audience as it did based purely on BBM then think what leverage Google+ could have amongst so fertile an audience. These are the next generation of social networkers, those that may use Facebook, but whose usage of it is not ingrained, and equally use IM, SMS and BBM to communicate. By pre-installing the Google+ app on all Android devices and prompting sign-up when the device is activated (for which I have been aware of seriously impressive opt-in figures for something similar previously) there is a ready-made user base.
500k activations a day and rising? Just 10%-20% of that would soon see the registered user count approaching something near critical mass wouldn't it?
And so Google+ does feel different to me. It feels like it may be a little more thought through in terms of features and functionality; it feels like there is a clearer route to achieving a critical mass of users and hitting that tipping point; and it also feels like it may just be the right time.
We shall see of course - and we'll probably do so pretty soon - but I feel the runes are good.
However, just a quick word of caution, Facebook has long had to face complaints about the way that they implement changes to the platform, their attitude towards user privacy and their ownership of "your" data. I for one don't imagine that it will be any different for Google who have, of course, faced similar accusations in the past themselves. Remember, pretty much anything Google does is about driving advertising revenue - and running your social network is a pretty good way of knowing just about all that they would need to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
