famebook™

Google's Big Problem is Sex not Social...

Recent Answer to a Quora Question -

What should Google do to completely overhaul its social strategy?

Google's biggest problem isn't social, it is sex! - Great sex starts of course with trust, but also that simple attraction factor and I highlight the word simple.

So much of what Google does frustrates me, because in many ways they are at least aesthetically becoming the lesser of many evils, especially in terms of their inherent two way financial relationship with users and the presumption of ownership of one's digital identity. (Demand Media gets heavily criticized, but again has a genuinely two way mechanism and is also in its infancy imho.)

The problem is, they can't seem to turn me on. I use iGoogle to create my snapshot stream of news and it's great functionally, but totally mundane in look and feel. I simply wouldn't use any of Google's hosted products for any personal or business activity because as far as I'm aware there isn't any strong enough protection I can buy over the counter to make me feel safe enough and to be honest in the absence of that lustful, churning desire in my tummy to progress the relationship, I see little point.

Thousands of genius minds at the Plex is great, but they are so clearly not representative of the other 99.9% of the rest of us and how we like things and in my opinion they ought to be hiring more stupid people to help convert the back end awesome breadth of technology into front windows that we don't have to work so hard to buy into, can totally trust and benefit from and that have us begging for more. If I were Google, I would also have a whole department focused on how to make Jonathan Ive an offer he couldn't refuse to join them or to find an alternative person. (I would do it for slightly less if you are interested ;-)

I think Joe Greenstein's answer sums up things pretty well otherwise, but I'm skeptical that any are achievable, unless the leadership stops treating their slide as a technical or product failing, rather a blindness to the fact that whilst they may have everything else in abundance, they've never actually had 'it'. The latter being the one thing that would reverse current trends and realize their long held ambitions.

Microsoft has a little bit of it, Apple definitely has it, Facebook used to have it but to the consumer none of them have the whole package and they certainly don't trust any of them, especially the current incumbent. Some are starting to look the part, but there's always this nagging worry that you could decide to get intimate and then have your heart broken when you realize you were just another notch on the digital bedpost or worse!

For more updates please follow me @famebook

If you like my answer, then voting me up is always appreciated which you can do HERE!

Afterthoughts... (Please go wild with your comments ;-)

Extending the analogy:-

If Apple is a love affair, Google is asexual and Microsoft is a teenage crush, then what do you call Facebook and others who keep on cheating on you and who, if any, would the 'digital you' actually marry?

US | Innovation vs. Popularity - What matters most?

I had a 'Called Out Comment' to an article on Forbes by Haydn Shaughnessy the other day and thought I'd repost it to my blog. (Why Facebook Town Hall Shows Obama is Missing the Point on Innovation) I watch with admiration as guys like Steve Case champion innovation with Start Up America and as an entrepreneur have always wanted to build a business in the US; but what value is all that effort if you erode the trust of your foreign markets by turning a convenient blind eye to increasing abuses of digital power or at least allow the implication that your are beholden to those abuses for re-election? Anyway my comment with great sadness was:

"America’s innovation is reliant on sustaining a demand from the global market. On current balance and with Obama stating at Facebook that he doesn’t want bright Chinese kids building the next Intel in China, but coming to the US to build it I believe that innovation isn’t your problem, rather your global public image is what really needs massive investment. Given that Facebook state that 70% of their users are outside the US and they show little or no respect for their rights as digital persona or their privacy, Apple are now found to be stalking every iPhone and iPad owner and Google also not squeeky clean, then it does look a bit like brand US and screw the rest of you whatever the moral cost.

I recognize that innovation is at the heart of growth, but when 70% of users wake up and realize that they are feeding an attitude of domination not free market globalization and integration, then they and the rest of your world markets are going to start ‘unfriending’ you at a staggering rate.

I love America, but what Facebook, Google and now Apple are doing would, in the days of a free media and unfettered journalists, be the stuff of Pulitzers and ‘….gates’ and for your President to stand next to them and imply his endorsement because he’s beholden to the machinery for re-election makes many of us around the world both anxious about the future and very disappointed with brand US. And rest assured we will also innovate twice as hard against it!"

America as the 'beacon of the free world' used to have a nice ring to it, but the light for me is fading... 

Lest my faith is suddenly restored, you can follow me on Twitter or sign up for alerts using the appropriate links.

 

Why Facebook Town Hall Shows Obama is Missing the Point on Innovation

Zuck to Blodget - "You can't handle the truth?"

Prompted by the fact that nearly 800,000 people have read this refreshingly 'against the grain' article by Henry Blodget - "The Guy Who Says He Owns 50% Of Facebook Just Filed A Boatload Of New Evidence -- And It's Breathtaking" (Linked to my take on it in the comments) this amusing image also came into my mind and I thought I'd share it...

Taken from 'A Few Good Men'...

Zuck: *You want answers?*
Blodget: *I want the truth!*
Zuck: *You can't handle the truth!*
[pauses]
Zuck: Son, we live in a world that has privacy walls, and those walls have to be destroyed by stealth. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Obama? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Privacy, and you curse the facebookers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Privacy's death, while tragic, is the only way we can make money with our current business model. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, makes that possible. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you like connecting with people. We use words like fail forward, opt out, plunder. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent building our valuation. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a global population who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the connectivity that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard, and hack away. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Blodget: Did you steal people's ideas and trample over our privacy?
Zuck: I did the job I...
Blodget: *Did you steal people's ideas and trample over our privacy?*

to be continued... (Fill in Zuck's answer via the comments below):

Zuck: ..............................................

*Note: This is my own personal opinion and does not imply statements or comments actually made. I don't hate Facebook, I just think their business model is all wrong and believe their actions on many things are reprehensible and in the absence of evidence to the contrary just don't trust them or the press who are becoming beholden to them. If you read the comments on any articles relating to Facebook, it would seem to me that roughly 60-80% of their users don't either. That's a shame when it's our content which is underpinning it! To that end, I make no apology for poking a little fun at them above!

Increasing Brand Value Through Honour - A Case Study (DFJ Esprit)

A while back I was reading one of my favourite European blogs THE EQUITY KICKER and Nic, the Writer and Partner at DFJ Esprit was asking for some ideas for taglines for their new website. I had a few moments so I gave it some thought and ventured a few modest ideas to the pot. Others too responded with their ideas and to be honest I thought nothing of it afterwards. I'm often generous with ideas and as long as they don't compromise my own ring-fenced business ideas and asset value, enjoy keeping my creative brain alive by contributing to other people's projects.

On many occasions, I've come up with book titles, song titles, band names, movie titles and they've ended up in lights without so much as a mention or note of appreciation. Every time that happens, I mentally write off the people or companies concerned and look at both their ethics and simple good manners with a sense of resigned disappointment but comfort myself that they have lost any opportunity for further value and at least I will go to my grave knowing I've always been original and have never had to 'steal a line'. In some cases especially where that omnipresent spectre of corporate passing off goes unabated, I know myself and many like me (and increasingly these days), look at some big brands with a sour taste in our mouths and the impression that if they can steal the smallest thing, then the overall company integrity must be suspect.

Sometimes though one stumbles across an honourable person and all the negatives described above are transformed to opposite effect. (At the risk of being seen to seek mileage for my efforts which I can honestly say I'm not, I am though seizing the opportunity to demonstrate the point to those individuals and corporations who've benefited from my contributions in the past without so much of a thank you, or worse, lied about the origin of those assets.) So here's my big up for Nic;

Nic Brisbourne is a gentleman and no we haven't even met in person yet. His blog is impartial, engaging and erudite. He publically crowdsourced his call to action for the strapline from the outset, kept his followers up to date and didn't attempt, like Governments tend to, bury the bad news. Some months later, Nic sent me a note asking for my address without explanation and within a couple of days a very nice present indeed arrived at my door, with a note thanking me for my coming up with DFJ Esprit's new tagline of 'fuelling global ambition'. I'm an old fashioned sentimentalist and I was genuinely touched. Now that action alone 'had me at hello', but I have just noted today that Nic also posted a new blog post thanking the contributors to his website and namechecked me as well which he similarly didn't have to do.

And so I find myself, not only further warmed to Nic as an individual, but with a massive feel good factor for DFJ, both in Europe and as part of the wider network. It's the little things that count and this one little thing has prompted me to break my blogging drought and perhaps further contribute to their ongoing success by sharing that good will.

Maybe in this age of increased sharing, one of the eventual net benefits is the ironic fact that the ability for corporations or some of the people who work there, or individuals with a lack of moral fibre, to plagarise without being called to account is diminishing to the benefit of those that originate ideas in the first place. In Nic's case I contributed without expectation, in others more close to my own ambitions, my ideas are just those and have a price or are just not for sale. Either way and without implying we have any other connection currently, I would prefer to be surrounded by the Nic's and DFJ's of this world than the alternatives and to my fellow morally intact entrepreneurs and potential investors into DFJ, both with 'global ambitions' I hope this strikes a cord!

To Nic, I hope this is not presumptuous and put more simply, 'it was my very great pleasure!'.

Response to: Will Facebook Be Tomorrow’s Google, and Google Tomorrow’s Microsoft? - Bindu Reddy

Response to article:

Will Facebook Be Tomorrow’s Google, and Google Tomorrow’s Microsoft?

Bindu this is a nice piece, but I think it isn't timed well for maximum credibility. A bit like doing a human interest piece at the moment on how environmentally considerate BP is deep down

Personally, I also don't buy the advertising thing. To me that advert you've cited actually makes Sony look cheap to me. Show me the same product within an elegant print environment like Vanity Fair or Vogue and I still feel good about it. But Sony alongside cheap adverts for obscure stuff does them no favours imho. The trick is getting brands as part of the 'conversation' but here's where FB are coming unstuck... Firstly, they can't own the conversation and manipulate it, they just provide the platform for where it takes place. Secondly and more importantly, I also passionately believe that for any sophisticated and established brand they have to consider one fundamental problem with this new world order; namely:- 'if they want to stand out from the crowd, they can't become part of it!'

Robert Scoble has recently highlighted the issue too and effectively echoed what I've been saying for some time; that Facebook is a Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' or the 80% of the 80:20 rule. The rich and elegant 'HEAD' or 20% is actually outside the platform and is the place where trad media finally converges properly online. This hasn't happened yet, which is why people like Martin Sorrel at WPP still have a certain disdain for Social Networking in it's current guise. (and he's the guy really writing the big cheques...)

Facebook have created a PR catastrophe recently on privacy and if it weren't for their scale, I think it would have been one of the all time great own goals. They still could prevail as you suggest, but certainly not on the current path they are travelling and probably not unless they eat some humble pie too.

I see Facebook's only route being to accept that it has become inadvertantly another ubiquitious utility like the telephone which carries our private conversations in a new fashion. We would no more expect adverts in our telephone calls than we aren't actually irritated by Facebook ones now and more importantly, we would certainly be incandescent if telephone networks started making our conversations public without permission so as to allow publishers to sell to us during our calls. So Facebook should in my view work to a freemium model and work with the owners of the conversation, perhaps by sharing revenues, then maybe we would be more inclined to open up. Sticking FB flags on content territory and privacy without asking and on the assumption you can then remove them if you want is colonisation of our data and privacy and inherently immoral. I would myself pay a modest fee for an advert free arena to connect socially with people I like. If you then think of them as say a service provider/ ISP, they would have 500 million potential monthly billable Clients and wouldn't need to p**s people off. If they want to utilise my private data from there then they can treat me with some respect and negotiate accordingly...

I assume though at the end of the day, Facebook is ruthlessly tunnel visioned on a sale to Microsoft or IPO and Mark Z is by all accounts only concerned with us DF's if we get in the way of that goal.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/15/facebook-google/#idc-cover#ixzz0o3C5WidC

Hulu Turns to American Idol Creator to Produce New Online Show - #fail IMHO

Re: Hulu Turns to American Idol Creator to Produce New Online Show - MASHABLE ARTICLE

Posted using ShareThis

Personally I don't see this working for two reasons:

Firstly the Idol format on network broadcast still gives the performers, judges et al an implied superiority and 'backstage' cache whereas the internet actually does the reverse. (Now we the audience are the judges as opposed to just the suckers who waste millions in call charges phoning in to vote. Similarly we're accustomed to everything on the internet being free!)

Secondly these kind of shows have so devalued celebrity that the reward of achieving it is being eroded away. When the show fails inevitably to make any of the participants famous (or in the unlikely event that it does but we all know that it is only for the immediate duration of the show and aftermath and is in our wiser viewing eyes an illusion with no material value) then how does it run to a second series or even survive the first? The TV formats still currently have the proven potential for success both in record sales and subsequent careers because the shows are able to garner popular attention and architect the marketing machinery accordingly.

These shows still cost money to produce and I think Simon Fuller is suffering from illusions if he thinks that this show will make ongoing sustainable profits wholly via the internet imho. What I think is much more likely is that Simon Cowell will use the springboard he now dominates to leak some of the Idol/ X Factor asset online in a controlled way and massage it to a successful formula online.

As I've said before.... all roads lead to Famebook! ;-)

Please let me know your thoughts and RT where poss!

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines” - How stupid is that!

Response to nice Mashable article by Barb Dybwad - Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines”

I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance, but what traditional publishers seem to be conveniently overlooking is that there has been a metaphorical earthquake at the foundations of their whole business model and this has nothing to do with Craig's List or Google poaching their classified advertisers either.

Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

A Hulu for Magazines is as ridiculous as Murdoch charging for news content and is in my opinion tantamount to an online graveyard for a heap of publishing brands who, with some lateral thinking, (shown by UK Telegraph, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, WSJ) could actually re-align themselves and thrive. In reality, they'll find that each of them only has about 10% of their normal print content with any sustainable audience appeal and the ad value will be dumbed down and therefore diluted/ shared to boot. If this is their chosen path, why not call it what it is; which is an amalgamation of lots of brands under one roof and into one online magazine brand..... which I suppose may get bought cheap by Google or Microsoft one day anyway... and if they're really lucky, seemingly like so many these days, it will be at a greatly over-inflated price.

Attn: Jeffrey Bewkes @ Time Warner - The answer is right under your nose!

According to Wikipedia today, Time Warner Inc. is the THIRD largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world, behind News Corporation and Walt Disney and I have to confess, (which some may say is a little strange), that ever since I was child, I have dreamt that I might one day build a company which I might sell to one of the above for gazillions and perhaps earn myself a seat on the board, where I may then have the opportunity to contribute on a much bigger scale again, to the kind of magic I grew up on... for my children and grandchildren. I'm afraid I didn't dream of being a footballer or astronaut rather, I have always wanted to make dreams come true for others and be at the heart of one of the few industries that defines and challenges who we as human beings are.

If you write down a list of say 20 of the biggest moments in your life and then think of the music that you associate with those moments; or the news at the time; the hollywood star of the day...etc.etc., it is nigh on impossible that one of these names isn't responsible for providing a backdrop to those moments in some capacity.

So what's the point?

Because ideas are two a penny and execution is king, together with the fact that I have my own agenda for our current business which down the line I believe will realise the dreams mentioned above anyway; I believe it is in all our interests that the dreammakers like Time Warner, Walt Disney etc.  survive, thrive and preserve all that experience and history and not allow the current media equivalent of an ice age to destroy them.

In less than ten years time, it will be the 100th anniversary of Warner Brothers and this year on 4 February 2009, Time Warner posted a $16.03 billion loss for the final quarter of 2008, compared with a $1.03 billion profit for the same three months of 2007. This doesn't bode well for my shamelessly stated ambitions above in about ten years time, so here (finally) is what I think could make at least part of the difference...

TIME - The media landscape is changing at break neck speed and as every day goes by, the previously incumbent positions taken for granted by the old guard of media conglomerates are being eroded right in front of our eyes as the likes of Google, Facebook et al plant their flags on ever growing swathes of the new frontier. Some have tried to buy into this space, but not necessarily in the right places and most importantly, the world's audiences will, especially in brand recognition terms, more and more be thinking Google, Microsoft and Facebook first and Warners and Disney et al as subsequent and hardly recognisable mere content providers, assuming you can still provide that content in such a way  so as to keep your brands visible.

The one thing that every individual on the planet owns and we media creators buy, borrow or steal from them is their 'TIME'. Social networking, communication, entertainment, news, work, play, sleep, love, family, travel etc. etc. is all routed in TIME, and the one thing that noone has yet done successfully is stake a claim on helping 'me' or one of my fellow human beings manage our TIME.

I'm one of those people who, for better or worse, always looks objectively at everything, so to me this seems a pretty obvious opportunity to use a brand you already own to create perhaps the most appealing and unifying platforms possible and cement your future in the process. People will always assume AOL still means America Online only and Bebo, simply can't in its current guise hope to do anything other than spiral in the wrong direction. Imagine however a single online window, which I can log into and work, connect, stay informed, play, buy, be entertained, learn, give, create and so on...but above all be somewhere I can trust to make the very most of my TIME.

Now I know that Time as a magazine format has a long history of its own and so the thought that the brand might be sacrificed for a higher cause will scare many of the old school, but let's face it, losing a brand name in favour of a refreshing new alternative is better than losing their job surely?

I'm not about to describe what this should all look like, because I'd expect to be paid a king's ransom for that, and in a quixotic sense, I'd prefer to see this as a collaboration between otherwise competing content providers or even some of the current enemy too. I can in any event see, as clear as day, a vision for a brand that is right under your nose, defines in itself the necessary journey you so need to take and ensures that on your 100th anniversary for Warners, your wider reputation becomes again one that; my son as he grows up and then his children, still believe is synonymous with trust, magic and that noblest of all things; serving the human condition.

We are not far off our TV's and PC's being one and the same, and all our media will be cloud based and delivered at will wherever we are and whenever we want. Whose name is going to be on the screen when we turn on or log in???... I personally wouldn't mind if 'TIME' was one of the options... but it will take a few phone calls and some pretty radical new thinking before that happens I suspect!....and if you need some suggestions for how to re-align the magazine as well, just give me a call.

Jan