IN SEARCH OF THICKER CONNECTIONS / THE SOCIAL WEB

Nice post from Contagious about the what, where and why of trusted sources

A lapse in trust between friends and peers, and why all social media connections are not created equal

A couple of days ago, Patricia McDonald of BBH Labs in New York put up a thought-provoking blog post entitled 'Will Social Media Eat Itself?' In this post, she responded to the startling finding, by the Edelman Trust Barometer, 'that we trust our friends and peers considerably less than we did two years ago'. Apparently, in the US, just 25% of respondents said that they regarded friends and peers as very/extremely credible - that's 20 points less than 2008. Go here for the full post - it's a great read.

We'll get into the loss of trust in real world environments towards the end, but for now, let's consider the 'media' angle of this social circumspection.

McDonald posits some different theories for the loss of trust with regard to the social web, for example: In times of trouble, we look to more established sources of information. As social media gets older, more commercial players treat it like old media and damage its credibility. Smart commercial uses of social information have been slow to emerge.

However, the suggestion we find most interesting is this:

As the network gets bigger, connections weaken.

BINGO.

We've been pondering this for a while. It is the great fallacy of social media that numbers mean power, and that all online connections are created equal. For example, on Facebook, there are people we communicate with all the time - close friends, family members etc. These we will term thick connections, as they facilitate regular exchange of content and sentiment.

Then, there are those creepy people from school that we agreed to be friends with because...well, that's Facebook, innit. These are thin connections. They are weak. They are barely used. They are breakable. They are there to bolster the numbers. And they were exploited deliciously and notoriously by Burger King at the beginning of 2009 with its Whopper Sacrifice app in which Facebook users were invited to sacrifice 10 thin connections in exchange for a free burger. 234,000 friends were dropped in five days, QED.

It's the different between blood and water. Online connections vary in 'thickness'. It's a fact of the web.

Twitter, too, is equally guilty of the numbers game, giving rise to a kind of hollow activism. Just because thousands of people are baying in 140 characters for policy change in Iran / the head of Jan Moir / Rage Against the Machine for Christmas Number One, it doesn't mean it will actually happen. (In the first two instances, it didn't. In the third, it was only when those people were persuaded to go one step further than retweeting, or adding their name to a Facebook group by actually buying the single that any kind of positive effect was produced).

There is no greater indication of the fact that numbers do not create de facto meaning than Chat Roulette, the random web chat service in which visitors are randomly paired with a stranger on the other side of the world. Acting as a kind of penis media delivery service, Chat Roulette exploded from 500 users in January to 10,000 by the beginning of February, despite the fact that most conversations either last only a few seconds or end in a picture of a scrotum. What does this mean? Nothing, probably. That we're bored. That we enjoy a little dose of unpredictability and randomness from the comfort of our own homes. Nothing that we didn't already know about human nature.

The rise of niche networks populated with enthusiasts and experts on a given subject has been predicted for a while. As McDonald points out, 'for a while this seemed counter-intuitive as I considered the all-conquering power of Facebook and the wisdom of fishing where the fish are.' However, the joy of a niche network is that all connections are thick connections. Information is shared on a regular basis on specific subjects by people who know or at least recognise each other's value, and enjoy interaction.

Dunbar's number is a theoretical number at which a community stops being 'stable' - the number at which people in the group cease to know and understand every other member of the community. The most commonly cited representative of this number is 150. It's fascinating to note that Facebook has more than 400m active users, yet the average user has 130 friends, pretty close to Dunbar's number. Even if marketers are judging the worth of Facebook on sheer weight of numbers, it appears that we know how to limit our social circles to manageable levels, tech or no tech.

It is here, we suspect, that the benefits for marketers may lie. By providing a utility, a platform, a sensitive addition to these connections, they get thicker, and stronger, and so does their association with the brand. Rather than an irritant, another clattering cymbal in the overwhelming noise of a network borne up by a million thin connections, the brand weaves itself into the DNA of a community. It is as much part of the experience as the participants.

Some other points to bear in mind:

In boom times, when we dedicate ourselves to the reckless accumulation of more stuff, it's more likely that purchase decisions will be made on the recommendation of a random peer or acquaintance. When money is less readily available and people are notably spending less, any purchase they do make is likely to be the result of more careful research from a number of different sources, both established and casual. It's not necessarily a reflection on the peer-to-peer relationship, more an indication of overall caution in the marketplace.

And finally - it's worth bearing in mind how exactly the report defines 'friend or peer'. As far as we could tell, the report makes no distinction between 'people that make me laugh on Twitter' and 'John and Sarah next door'. They're all just friends or peers. So - this isn't necessarily just indicative of a failure of trust in the connections that underpin our online lives. It points to something bigger. (Have a look at Richard Edelman's discussion of the results here.)

It's no coincidence that these results have emerged immediately following an absolute nail-biter of a year in which the global banking system came close to collapse, and many traditional sources of authority revealed themselves to be as clueless as the man on the street. Trust is not like energy. It can be both created, and destroyed, with devastating consequences.

According to the report, trust in the government is up, and trust in corporations (at least in the US) is slowly returning, yet trust in ALL information sources is down. Clearly, it takes time to rebuild what once was. So if we have less trust in our governments to protect us and our bankers to look after our money and our media outlets to be objective and our online social networks to be populated by anything other than mildly amusing strangers and old classmates, then what do we have left? The dichotomy of a world in which we are more in touch but less connected than ever before, and a feeling that if you want something doing, you know who your best bet is going to be

Social nets not shaping purchases... or did they just ask the wrong questions?

WARC article on social media impacts on purchase

I totally agree that purchase decisions are based on experience, recommendations and mix of media inputs, but i think this reseracher may have missed a key difference between the nature of the channels here. Of course people go to brand websites in that active research phase (why they hell would i search facebook when trying to compare camera specs?), but i'm sure if they asked the question around the role of recommendations i.e opinion of peers delivered through a social functionality, as opposed to 'do go to myspace for product info', he would have gotten quite a difference result.


NEW YORK: Consumer purchase decisions are informed by a mix of "old" and "new" media, but more traditional forms of communication appear to exert a greater influence than social networking websites, a new study by Harris Interactive has found.

Based on a survey of 2,355 American adults, the research firm argued the most common way shoppers collect information prior to buying a particular product was via a company website, with 36% of respondents adopting this course of action.

"Face-to-face" interaction with a "salesperson or other company representative" was mentioned by 22% of contributors, while 21% of participants spoke to someone "not associated with the company".

A further 19% of those polled found out about a brand from print advertising, with 15% doing so via broadcast ads, while 14% made judgements "based only on my past experience."

In terms of online behaviour, 19% of consumers used independent websites featuring product reviews – like Trip Advisor or Amazon – and 11% accessed internet message boards.

By contrast, just 4% of Harris Interactive's sample turned to social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace, with a similar number visiting "private social networking sites" and “customer communities".

Results varied slightly by age group, with 16% of 18–24 year olds employing social media to conduct product research.

However, this figure was 5% lower than for ads on TV and radio, and 6% below that for print executions among this demographic, and some 24% smaller than the number visiting company websites.

Ads on broadcast media were most widely-used among 25–29 year olds, at 22%, with print ads most popular among 50–64 year old shoppers, on 27%.

Some 57% of the company's panel also said they "communicated about my positive product/service experience to others" after making a purchase, while 41% "recommended" what they had bought to others.

By contrast, just 11% of this group did so with regard to a negative experience, and only 6% "recommended against" purchasing an item.

In expressing their positive or negative experience, 63% of respondents did so when talking to "a family member, business colleague or a friend."

A further 30% used email to do so, while 12% used a company website, 9% employed social networks, 8% opted for online message boards, and 7% added their comments to independent review websites.

Data sourced from Harris Interactive; additional content by WARC staff, 18 June 2009

Twishitter. The name says it all...

Twittering whilst on the can? Yes its true that people do it and now you're even encouraged to by this site.

If you ask me, I think it's all bullshit. Microblogging in general that is. But I'm a hater so you don't have to listen to me which is why I shared this site originally posted on Adrants.

To support my sentiment is this below stat recorded on their site of which the source is particularly questionable.... Fartner? For a toilet site? C'mon people!

"25% of all tweets are twooted via twitter whilst the twitterer is on the twoilet... ~ Fartner Independent Research"

Hmmmmm

Digital Industry Statistics

Thanks Bazaarvoice for this great online stat rundown (mixed markets, dates, etc)

Power of Word of Mouth

• "Person like me" still most trusted source for information about a company and, therefore, products. (Edelman Trust Barometer, November 2007)
• Recommendations from family and friends trump all other consumer touchpoints when it comes to influencing purchases, according to ZenithOptimedia. (AdAge, April, 2008)
• Recommendation is the number one reason for choosing a particular site. (Royal Mail's Home Shopping Tracker Study, September 2007)
• Users who contribute product reviews or post messages visit sites nine times as often as noncontributors do. Contributors also make purchases nearly twice as often. (McKinsey & Co./Jupiter Media Metrix study, January 2002)
• Review users noted that reviews generated by fellow consumers had a greater influence than those generated by professionals. (comScore/The Kelsey Group, October 2007)
• Adult Internet users surveyed chose recommendations from friends as the one type of promotion they consider most worthwhile. (DoubleClick, May 2007)
• Consumers trust friends above experts when it comes to product recommendations (65% trust friends, 27% trust experts, 8% trust celebrities). (Yankelovich)
• Consumers say that word of mouth is still the number one influencer in their apparel (34.3%) and electronics (44.4%) purchases (Retail Advertising and Marketing Association/BIGresearch Study, November 2008)
• According to a global Nielsen survey of 26,486 Internet users in 47 markets, consumer recommendations are the most credible form of advertising among 78% of the study's respondents. (Nielsen, "Word-of-Mouth the Most Powerful Selling Tool", October 2007)
• The two leading reasons people contribute content to social shopping sites are the need to feel part of a community (31%) and recognition from peers (28%). (IBM Institute for Business Value, August 2007)
• Online social network users were three times more likely to trust their peers' opinions over advertising when making purchase decisions. ("Social Networking Sites: Defining Advertising Opportunities in a Competitive Landscape," JupiterResearch, March 2007)
• 86.9% of respondents said they would trust a friend's recommendation over a review by a critic, while 83.8% said they would trust user reviews over a critic. (Marketing Sherpa, July 2007)
• Two thirds of UK social networkers (66%) are more likely to buy a product as a result of a recommendation, compared to 52 per cent of non-social networkers. (Royal Mail's Home Shopping Tracker Study, September 2007)
• Tech decision makers give user-generated sites equal importance to traditional media sources when considering tech purchases. Decision makers consider their personal experience (58%) first when short-listing tech vendors, followed by word-of-mouth and industry analyst reports, tied at 51%. Advertising (17%) and direct marketing (21%) were listed as the least important information sources when short-listing possible vendors. (Study: "Tech Decision Maker," Hill & Knowlton, January 2009)

Consumer Demand for Ratings and Reviews

• Online reviews are second only to personal advice from a friend as the driver of purchase decisions; user reviews are more influential than third-party reviews. ("Web users and web community," Rubicon Consulting, Inc. October 2008)
• 81% of online holiday shoppers read online customer reviews (Nielson Online, December 2008)
• 86% of consumers read online business reviews before making purchasing decisions; 90% of whom say they trust these reviews. (Kudzu.com survey of 600 users, December 2008)
• The Trust in Advertising survey of 26,000+ found that Consumer Recommendations are the most credible form of advertising. ("Social Media Marketing: The Right Strategy for Tough Economic Times" Awareness, 2008)
• Nearly 49% of shoppers have made a purchase based on a recommendation through a social media property; respondents most relied on the following sources when making a purchase decision: 60.53% user reviews; 20.48% comparison charts; 15.41% editorial reviews; 3.58 shared shopping lists. (Razorfish, October 2008)
• Almost two-thirds (62%) of consumers read consumer-written product reviews on the Internet. (Deloitte & Touche, September 2007)
• When asked what sources of information they are "very likely" to consult before making a decision about their entertainment options, 62% named Web sites with user reviews as their top choice, even beating out a knowledgeable friend (59%). (Marketing Sherpa, July 2007)
• 46% of Britons now read online reviews or recommendations on a specific product before buying it and 32% are willing and able to publish a review online - but only 19% would be prepared to write a letter to a retailer. (1&1 Internet survey of 1600 consumers, December 2008)
• Seven in 10 (69%) consumers who read reviews share them with friends, family or colleagues, thus amplifying their impact. (Deloitte & Touche, September 2007)
• As of October 2008, almost half of US online adults read ratings and reviews at least once a month, and 19% post them. Nearly twice as many read reviews compared with 2007. (The Growth Of Social Technology Adoption, Forrester, October 2008)
• Nearly half (49%) of shoppers intend to do their holiday gift buying online (versus in-store), and 72% are planning to research products online prior to purchasing (vs. 65% in 2007). ("Mindset of the Multi-Channel Shopper Holiday Survey," e-tailing group, October 2008)
• 74% agree-including 14% who strongly agree-that they choose companies and brands based on what others say online about their customer service experiences, the survey shows. (Society for New Communications Research, May 2008)
• 58.7% of shoppers said they used product reviews to make decisions. Reviews rated higher than clearance sale pages (56.4%) and featured sale pages (51.3%). (Shop.org, November 2007)
• Compared to a base group that didn't read or contribute product reviews at all, people who read a review were 30% more likely to purchase a product and visitors who wrote a review were 80% more likely to convert, based on analysis across several Coremetrics clients. (Coremetrics, reported in BtoB, March 2007)
• Among the 46% of respondents who had posted or planned to post reviews about their online shopping experience, 88% said those reviews either were, or would be positive. (Nielson, 2007)
• More than eight in ten (82%) of those who read reviews said that their purchasing decisions have been directly influenced by those reviews. (Deloitte & Touche, September 2007)
• 55% of surveyed Internet users consulted other people's opinions online, making reviews the #1 resource for product research. (Avenue A/Razorfish "Digital Consumer Behavior Study," October 2007)
• In a study of 2,000 shoppers, 92% deemed customer reviews as "extremely" or "very" helpful. (eTailing Group, 2007)
• 59% of their users considered customer reviews to be more valuable than expert reviews. (Bizrate, October 2007)
• 63% of consumers indicate they are more likely to purchase from a site if it has product ratings and reviews. (Major consumer electronics retailer/iPerceptions study, January 2008)
• 81% consider the availability of customer reviews to be "very important" (33%)"somewhat important" (48%). (Major consumer electronics retailer/iPerceptions study, January 2008)
• 86.9% of respondents said they would trust a friend's recommendation over a review by a critic, while 83.8% said they would trust user reviews over a critic. (MarketingSherpa, October 2007)
• 84% of consumers earning more than $150,000 annually visit sites where customers review and rate products and services including restaurants. (The Luxury Institute, April 2007)
• 71% of UK online shoppers seek out ratings and reviews. (NetExtract, 2007)
• 70% of online consumers said they use the Internet to research everyday grocery products. (Prospectiv, January 2008)
• 67% of UK consumers research products via the Internet before shopping in a store. (Accenture, April 2007)
• 91% of millionaires say they always or often look at reviews before buying luxury goods; 68% of ultra-affluent shoppers use consumer reviews. (Unity Marketing/Google study, reported in AdAge, October 2008)
• Mobile user-generated content will generate $5.7 billion worldwide in 2012, up from $576 million in 2007. ("Mobile Social Networking: Opportunities & Forecasts 2008-2013," Juniper Research, October 2008)
• Satisfaction for those who recalled customer reviews on the retailers' site is 10% higherLoyalty increases, too: 7% higher likelihood to purchase online, 8% greater likelihood to purchase from the retailer next time they're buying similar merchandise and 11% greater likelihood to recommend the site to others. (30 UK Online Retail Satisfaction Index, ForeSee Results, January 2008) than those who said there were no reviews offered.
• 83% of shoppers said online product evaluations and reviews influenced their purchasing decisions. (Opinion Research Corporation, an infoGROUP company, July 2008)
• In an online survey of 4,000 consumers, 70% said they had done internet research on "everyday grocery products," and 63% said they had done so for health and beauty products. (Prospectiv, 2007)
• 57.2% of U.S. toy purchasers are influenced by product reviews online. (Ad-ology Media Influence on Consumer Choice, Fall 2008)

Marketer Demand for Ratings and Reviews

• 79% of online UK retailers surveyed reported that the main benefit of consumer-generated rating and reviews was that they improved site conversion rates. (eMarketer, 2007)
• 68% of online marketers believe "media is in big trouble and will lose dollars to user-generated content." (iMedia Connection, February 2008)
• 58% of the E-Commerce Guide 100 retailers implemented ratings and reviews in 2008, up from 50% in 2007; 24 percent sell by top-rated products. (e-tailing group's 11th Annual Mystery Shopping Survey, January 2009)
• 84% of marketers agree that building customer trust will become marketing's primary objective (1to1 Media survey of the 1to1 Xchange panel, April 2008)
• 43% of retailers have reviews - double in one year. (Marketing Sherpa, February 2007)
• 76% of US retailers said user-generated content would have a greater impact on their marketing goals in the near future. (SLI Systems/Zoomerang, November 2008)
• Of merchants who adopt customer reviews, 58% said improving customer experiencecompetitive advantage was the most important reason for adding reviews to their sites, followed by building customer loyalty (47%), driving sales (42%), and maintaining a (37%). (eTailing Group, June 2008)
• By 2020, 84% of marketers agree that building customer trust will become marketing's primary objective, and 82% agree that collaboration with customers will prevail over marketing. (1to1 Media survey of the 1to1 Xchange panel, April 2008)
• 11% of retailers reported a 20% or more overall increase in conversions as a result of adding reviews to their sites, 21% reported an 11% to 20% increase and 5% reported a 1% to 10% increase. (eTailing Group, June 2008)
• 81% of marketers surveyed say that their social media spending will meet or exceed their traditional advertising spending within the next 5 years. (TWI Surveys/Society for New Communications Research, November 2007)
• 56% of UK website owners say that user-generated content lifts conversion levels; 77% say it increases traffic; and 42% say it increases the average spend on site.(eConsultancy survey of 360 website owners across all sectors, November 2008)
• Dave Seifert of Bass Pro Shops noted at a Shop.org round table discussion that Top Rated Products were "the #1 merchandising technique ever utilized on their site." (Bass Pro Shops, June 2008)
• After their order, PETCO asked customers, "What online tool most influenced your purchase decision?" The #1 answer was product ratings and reviews, with site search coming in a distant second. (PETCO, June 2007)
• The Shop.org State of Retailing Online study, conducted by Forrester Research, found only 26% of the 137 top retailers surveyed offered customer ratings and reviews, but 96% of them ranked customer ratings and reviews as an effective or very effective tactic at driving conversion. (Forrester, 2007)

Consumer Demand for Ask & Answer™

• 76% of online shoppers surveyed report that content is insufficient to complete research or purchase online "always, most often or some of the time." (eTailing Group, June 2007)
• Online businesses lose as many as 67% of consumers due to a lack of online product information. (Allurent, January 2008)
• 83% of online shoppers would make purchases if sites offered increased interactive elements. (Allurent, January 2008)
• One in four (24.5%) shoppers said they left a store because of a lack of assistance. (Shop.org, November 2007)
• 90% of UK shoppers surveyed said they wish they could communicate directly with businesses - using live chat, forums or call-me-back facilities - via their websites; one in three require it from the UK businesses they currently use. (1&1, October 2007)
• 42% of consumers said they prefer being able to find the answers they need online on their own if they had a question or wanted help while shopping online. (Harris Interactive, May 2007)
• The share of traffic to question-and-answer Web sites has more than doubled from 2007 to 2008 (HitWise, 2008)
• Yahoo Answers had 25.3 million visits in February 2008 (comScore Media Metrix, March 2008)
• 68% of consumers trust "people like me" first for product advice. (Edelman Trust Barometer, January 2007)
• 42% of 1,179 online consumers surveyed have left a site without purchasing multiple products because they couldn't get a question answered about one of the products in their shopping cart; 41% decided not to make a planned purchase because they couldn't readily find a piece of information about the product or service. (JupiterResearch, September 2007)

Conversion Results

• MarketingExperiments tested product conversion with and without product ratings by customers. Conversion nearly doubled, going from .44% to 1.04% after the same product displayed its five-star rating. (MarketingExperiments Journal, July 2007)
• 79% of online UK retailers surveyed reported that the main benefit of consumer-generated rating and reviews was that they improved site conversion rates. (eMarketer, 2007)
• Online shoppers who look at TripAdvisor reviews on the Hayes & Jarvis site book trips at double the rate of online shoppers who have not seen the TripAdvisor reviews, based on first four months after launch. (TripAdvisor, January 2008)
• Shoppers who browsed the site's new "Top Rated Products" page, which features products rated most highly by customers, had a 59% higher conversion rate than the site average and spent 16% more per order than other browsers of products. (Bass Pro Shops, June 2008)
• Shoppers who browsed the site's "Top Rated Products" page, which features products rated most highly by customers, had a 49% higher conversion rate than the site average and 63% more per order than other site shoppers. (PETCO, June 2007)
• Giving shoppers the ability to sort products within a category by customer rating led to a sales increase of 41% per unique visitor. (PETCO, June 2007)

Average Order Value Results

• Consumers were willing to pay between 20 to 99% more for a 5-star rated product than for a 4-star rated product, depending on the product category. (comScore/Kelsey, October 2007)
• Top-rated products site navigation path featuring 4- and 5-star products in each category delivered 35% higher conversion and 40% higher average order value. (Bazaarvoice, June 2007)
• Reviews usage drives higher spending: 27% of users report an increase of 5-10%; almost 7% report an increase of 20%+. (Avenue A/Razorfish "Digital Consumer Behavior Study," October 2007)

User-generated Content Beyond the Web

• 64% of Social Researchers (those who refer to user-generated content when shopping) research products online more than half the time, no matter where they ultimately buy the product (store, Web, catalog, etc.). (eTailing Group, June 2007)
• Online consumers are becoming precision shoppers. For every $1 in online sales, the Internet influenced $3.45 of store sales. (eMarketer, 2007)
• 90% of those surveyed say they have a better overall shopping experience when they research products online before shopping in-store. (Harris Interactive, October 2007)
• 92.5% of adults said they regularly or occasionally research products online before buying them in a store. (BIGresearch, November 2008)
• Nearly one out of every four Internet users (24%) reported using online reviews prior to paying for a service delivered offline. (comScore/The Kelsey Group, October 2007)
• More than three-quarters of review users in nearly every category reported that the review had a significant influence on their purchase, with hotels ranking the highest (87%). (comScore/The Kelsey Group, October 2007)
• 97% of those surveyed who said they made a purchase based on an online review said they found the review to have been accurate. (comScore/The Kelsey Group, October 2007)
• Consumers who shop online for digital cameras and TVs spend 10% more on in-store purchases than consumers who do not search online. (ChannelForce for Yahoo Search Marketing, July 2007)

Email Campaign Results

• Email study: PETCO realized a 5X increase in email click-through rates by including relevant ratings and reviews content in the campaign promotion. (PETCO, June 2007)
• Top rated product email drive 46% higher revenue per email in A/B test. (Golfsmith, June 2007)

Search Engine Optimization Results

• In a study of a major electronics retailer site of 30,000 monthly natural language search visitors, converted 60% more often, spent 50% more, and viewed 82% more pages than search visitors to other pages. (Bazaarvoice case study with major electronics retailer)
• In a study of online UK retailers, 59% reported that the consumer-generated activity leads to better search engine optimization. (eMarketer, 2007)

Return Rates and Customer Satisfaction

• During the 2007 holiday season, consumers who recalled seeing customer reviews on a Web site reported 9% higher customer satisfaction levels, were 9% more likely to make a purchase and 8% more likely to purchase the next time they came to that site. (ForeSee Results, January 2008)
• Reviews drive 21% higher purchase satisfaction and 18% higher loyalty. (Foresee Results Study, January 2007)
• Online UK retailers reported improved customer retention and loyalty by 73% once they implemented consumer-generated rating and reviews. (eMarketer, 2007)
• Products with reviews have a 17% lower return rate than those without reviews. (Bazaarvoice PETCO Case Study, 2007)
• Products with 50+ reviews have a return rate that is half of those with fewer than five reviews. (Bazaarvoice PETCO Case Study, 2007)
• One study from IBM Institute for Business Management shows that while those adults in the UK who use social networking do so to attain a feeling of community, 17% of the adults surveyed say they do so because they like to participate with brands they favor. (IBM, August 2007)

Evolution of Advertising and Media

• 75% of people don't believe that companies tell the truth in advertisements. (Yankelovich)

Search

• SearchVoice study: of 30,000 monthly SearchVoice visitors, they convert 60% higher, spend 50% more and viewed 82% more pages. (Major electronics retailer case study, August 2008)
• The ability to refine site search results by customer rating led to 22% more sales per unique visitor on a same-session basis and 41% more sales per visitor on a multi-session basis. (Bazaarvoice)

Syndication

• RSS study: Burpee measured a 43% higher click-through on RSS feeds with reviews than without. (Burpee, December 2007)

Industry Articles

Positives About Negative Product Reviews. Worried about opening your company to consumer reviews? Don't be. (iMedia Connection)

Getting a Handle on Customer Reviews
These days, what the customer thinks is hardly a secret. Consumer reviews and ratings are popping up on a growing number of Web sites, sites on which users treat brands like contestants on American Idol. (Brandweek)

Online Influence Tied to Search, Social Media Use
According to a new research report by Yahoo! and Comscore, not only is social networking's influence on marketing growing, but particularly vocal individuals are having more of an effect than ever. (ClickZ)

CGM Changes Minds of Online Auto and Travel Buyers
Consumer Generated Media not only influences online consumers, it can get them to change their minds. (ClickZ)

Data "point" of the week: Data alone is not enough

Cheers Forrester for this point of view on data and how to approach it.

by Josh Bernoff

I've been thinking about data lately. This is partly because of Bill's comment on our last Data Chart of The Week (Seniors) and also the responses we got to Part 1 of our recent Webinar series. In the Webinar, I chose to focus almost exclusively on several Social Technographics Profiles -- data about how different groups of people use social technologies -- and while most of the responses were positive, a few people responded that they were unsatisfied with the result.

Confession: I love data. I helped start Forrester's first consumer surveys, called Technographics, in 1997, and I love the idea that we can answer consumer behavior questions around the world now. As an analyst, I love having the ability to dive into data and find the answers to a client's behavioral or attitudinal question. And I find it endlessly fascinating to see how people's attitudes vary with age, or where they live, or from year to year. Having the ability to ask questions of the form "I wonder if people . . ." and actually get the answer is intoxicating. That's why data about People is the first step in the POST method for social technology strategy formation.

But data isn't the whole story. Data looks backward, and answers only questions you thought to ask. Surveys have biases. They have margins of error and sample size issues. I believe our surveys are the best, most comprehensive set of data available anywhere on technology. That said, if you start and end with data alone, you will go wrong.

That's why we always try to provide analysis along with, or driving, or surrounding the data we present, which creates the basis for intelligent decision-making.

There are experts on this stuff, most notably my colleague Brad Bortner. But I've learned a few things myself in a decade of research with consumers. So rather than present more data this week, I will offer up these bits of advice:

• Better to have data than to trust your gut. In the absence of data about your market, youi are driving blind. You intuition about your customers may be right, and it may not. (It's useful to remember that in every stock trade, one side expects the stock to go up and the other does not -- why are you so sure you are smarter than everyone else.) If you can get access to consumer behavioral data about what you're doing, then by all means study it.
• Data is not insight. What does it mean that 40 year-olds are twice as likely to create social content than 20 year olds? That depends on what you want to do about it. Use data to start and bolster your argument. Then ask, "Is there any other way to interpret this?"
• Check the source and the base. All Forrester data charts have a source (typically a survey) and a base (the group of people surveyed). The source will tell you when the survey was conducted -- and data is perishable, since people's attitudes change over time. The base us important to -- is it online consumers, people with mobile phones, or people in metropolitan China? Sample size is also important -- results from 200 people are interesting, but clearly not as as solid at results from 10,000. That's why I can tell you the social Technographics profile of people who own Mercurys, but not people who own Hummers -- we only reach a dozen or so of the latter.
• Protect against bias. All surveys have bias -- most notably, they reach only people willing to take surveys. Another common bias is "social desirability bias" -- people want to believe they are better than they are. This is why PBS gets higher ratings in diaries than when measured with a meter. Always ask "is there a bias here that could reduce the value of this data?"
• Beware of overinterpretation of a question. I will often show survey data in the form of a question and the percent who gave various answers. An audience member will ask "did they mean this, or did they mean that?" It's a hard question to answer, since I wasn't in the brain of the person answering. Strictly speaking, they read the question and they gave the answer -- it's up to you to interpret. Similarly, just because people participate in discussion forums doesn't mean they want to talk about your products. Data gives you a feel for how people are thinking, but it's still up to you to engage them.

I promise to keep showing you data, but always with a context on what to do about it. What bits of advice do you have about working with data?

Glamour.TV

Thanks to Adage for this post.

Glamour Rolls Out Web-Video Platform With Key Advertisers
Conde Nast Title Ventures Further Into Branded Content

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Three years after launching its groundbreaking "Reel Moments" short-film series, Glamour continues to branch out in the realm of branded entertainment.

Earlier this week, the Conde Nast fashion title introduced Glamour.TV, a new web-video platform aimed at expanding Glamour content into bite-sized video clips, customized to key advertisers.

Looks are everything
Dockers, for example, is the sponsor of "Moms Working It," a show that interviews celebrity mothers such as Jennie Garth, Solange Knowles and Nikki Taylor. Revlon is the presenting sponsor of "Beauty Wars," a makeover competition series, hosted by "Entourage" co-star Debi Mazar, in which makeup artists from around the world strive to create the consummate look for the American woman. There's also "The List," a fashion and entertainment news show, hosted by model Molly Sims and E!'s Giuliana Rancic, that is co-sponsored by Estee Lauder and Burberry.

Bill Wackermann, senior VP-publishing director of Glamour, said the model is reminiscent of the TV-sponsorship model of the 1950s. "It harkens back to when advertisers were in the business of promoting their own shows, promoting their brands and having more creative control of the process."

(To highlight the vintage ad model, Glamour this week literally trotted out the vintage by sending waiters to its top ad clients in New York with champagne and TV dinners prepared by Kurt Gutenbrunner, the Austrian chef of uber-trendy West Village bistro Wallse.)

Glamour.TV is the second video site of its kind to emerge from a Conde Nast fashion title in the past year, following last year's late-summer launch of ShopVogue.TV (now Vogue.TV). Both magazines have taken an aggressive stance on owning their own content online at a time when everyone from Elle to Marie Claire is partnering with TV networks for reality TV projects.

An image to maintain
"We've been approached on almost every one of those deals for a reality show. You pick the program -- magazine partners are always being asked to participate," Mr. Wackermann said. "But that becomes about their show and their brand vs. ours, and if you have a small brand you may benefit from being associated with that show. But Glamour reaches 12.8 million women; our brand is larger than the audience that watches those shows at any given time. For us, when we do something to extend our brand into different media, it has to be what is relevant to our consumer and our brand."

Glamour is also experiencing growth in year-over-year web traffic going into the launch of Glamour.TV, an encouraging sign that the site could find a sizeable audience early on. Since July 2007, Glamour.com's monthly traffic has increased 118% to 862,708 users, according to ComScore. Its Conde Nast sibling, Vogue.TV, also reached a viewership milestone earlier this week when "Model.Live," an original series co-distributed by social-networking site Bebo, passed the 1 million view, or video streams, mark after five episodes. In just two weeks "Model.Live" drew enough traffic to Vogue.TV to send its unique viewer stats past the 1 million mark as well, having accumulated 900,000 users since launching in August 2007.

Said Vogue Publisher Tom Florio of the site's economic model, "We want to make sure clients get the print, that we're not giving away the business like everyone else out there. [But if a client] moves 10% of their budget to the internet, we want to show them where the tonnage is coming from. ... You've got everyone in Hollywood trying to suck money out of this business, so we want to work together exclusively with advertisers online, or package together with pages."

Guest stars
Mr. Wackermann said Glamour.TV's first season will carry through October, when the latest installment of "Glamour Reel Moments" will also appear on Glamour.com. On tap for this year's short films are directors Demi Moore and Courteney Cox, featuring stars such as Rumer Willis (Ms. Moore's daughter), Anna Faris and Laura Dern.

Glamour is also actively in talks with the major video distributors to help syndicate Glamour.TV content online. Vogue.TV already has deals in place with Hulu, TiVo, Tidal TV, Veoh and JuiceCaster.

Click on this link for the original article: http://adage.com/madisonandvine/article?article_id=130923

Findings: Why Companies Should Talk to Customers

Thanks again Jeremiah for sharing yet more light in the role fo social approaches in business

ExpoTV recently ran a research study to determine how do consumers relate to each other. While this isn’t Forrester Research, so I will not defend, nor explain their methodology. It’s rare that analysts point to research other than their own, if I put your interests first, you’ll continue to come back to me.

Blog ExpoTV found that:

55% of customers in their survey want to have an ongoing discussion brands

Respondents were most anxious to talk to the product design (49%) department, followed by customer support (14%), marketing (14%) and pricing (13%)

89% said they felt more loyal if they knew the brand was listening through a feedback group (attention insight community vendors)

WOM: Sixty-one percent of survey respondents said that they told at least 10 people about the last brand they liked.

WOM: Eighty-one percent of respondents will tell at least five people.

Despite this evidence, it’s interesting to note that a recent WSJ Article that Most Corporate Blogs Are Unimaginative Failures featuring a Forrester report shows that many corporate blogs (a common way companies talk to customers) isn’t going that well. One common mis-step is that corporate blogs are focused on pushing their own agenda, not that of the readers/customers.

In-Game Ads are ok

Thanks to Media Week for this article:

IGA: Most Gamers Cool With In-Game Ads
Ads pack more wallop for brands than ads appearing in traditional media
June 17, 2008
-By Mike Shields

The vast majority of gamers are fine with seeing ads placed within video games, and those ads pack more wallop for brands than ads appearing in traditional media, according to comprehensive new study released by top vendor IGA Worldwide.

IGA, which works with game publishers such as EA and Activision to insert both permanent and rotation ads within video games played via an Internet connection, last year tapped Nielsen BASES and Nielsen Games to conduct a in-depth six month examination of the impact of in-game advertising using traditional brand effectiveness measures such as awareness and recall.

The report, Consumers’ Experience with In-Game Content & Brand Impact of In-Game Advertising Study, includes responses from nearly 1,300 gamers surveyed using IGA’s proprietary software while playing games in their homes, with participation from the advertisers Taco Bell, Jeep and Wrigley.

The report found that 82 percent of respondents found games to be just as enjoyable if ads were present. Of the respondents that claimed to most opinionated on the subject, 70 percent said that ads made them feel better about the brands involved.

In fact, the brands that participated enjoyed a litany of encouraging results, says IGA. The survey found that advertisers running in-game ad campaigns saw an average of 44 percent increase in recall when compared to awareness prior to their exposure in the game. In addition, participating brands enjoyed an average 33 percent increase in positive brand attribute association.

According to IGA Worldwide CEO Justin Townsend, the research confirms many of the commonly made assumptions about the in-game ad industry. “Gamers like in game ads when done in a contextually relevant way and there is no arguing that,” he said.

But whether or not in-game ads are accepted is one thing. What’ crucial as the medium seeks more acceptance from top brands is whether they work. To ensure the study could that, Chris Morf, IGA’s director of corporate development said it was important that IGA examined campaigns in multiple games for multiple brands, rather than presenting a single case study. Plus, because the matched survey data with real game play, IGA was able to drill down to see the drop off in effectiveness for ads that received minimal exposure during actual games vs ads that received a large amount of impressions.

Townsend believes that the results make clear the medium’s power as a branding vehicle. “One of the key things that for any new industry is to have research like this out there,” he said. “We’ve delivered results that are unheard of in traditional media. This is something that media buyers can take to decision makers and given them the comfort they need to start increasing budgets and frequencies.”

“We’re trying to reinforce in-game advertising as a premium medium,” he added.
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/digital-downloads/gaming/e3i8d91a7147083886bfb91a8ee5978c1a7

Making people pay for Digital Creative

Must We Give away Digital Creative Works?
by: John Caddell. Cheers to FutureLab for this post.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, spurred on by the recent Fran Ten podcast, this David Pogue post, and most recently a thoughtful post by Scott Goodson based on this column by economist Paul Krugman.
The upshot of Krugman's argument, referencing Esther Dyson's prediction from the early '90's, is that digital creative works will become free, and creative artists will have to make their money from "ancillary" projects, such as touring, personal appearances, licensing, etc.

If this turns out to be true (and the music industry is approaching this state right now), then it has a lot of negative ramifications for the future of creativity.

First off is the fairness question. Here is a simplified digital media value chain:

Digital distributors (i.e., ISPs like Comcast) make money through subscriptions
Directories and aggregators (like Google) make money through advertising
Creators make... nothing?

While the structure of technology allows this to happen, it's hard to look at this picture and see it as fair. I agree that DRM sucks, but is the solution "pay what you want"--a virtual tip jar?

Furthermore, if creating a work of art cannot in itself make money, it will then be difficult to invest much in that creation. While that may allow bloggers to continue (though I wouldn't turn down a few bucks for my work if that were possible), it doesn't bode well for musicians or moviemakers, and, soon, book authors.

If I can make money in personal appearances but not by writing, I will have to limit my writing time in order to, you know, pay the mortgage.

If a band can make money touring but not through selling CDs, they will be unlikely to spend much time in the recording studio, or to spend money on studio effects or gear. Perhaps they will instead simply tape their concerts and compile albums from the live sessions.

If a moviemaker cannot make money from her films because they are freely available on the web, she will have difficulty using any approach other than Dogme 95 in order to reduce costs. And do we want to see Dogme 95-style movies all the time?

The irony is that time put into making money takes away from time to create. Therefore, the output from our best artists is less. Is that progress?

Perhaps this is offset somewhat by the "long tail" of creators enabled by new technology. But I would trade 1000 bad "Nude" remixes for one new album by an artist I really like.

(Photo: pro-copying logo from piratbyran.org)

Original Post: http://shoptalkmarketing.blogspot.com/2008/06/must-we-give-away-digital-creative.html

How to connect with teenage girls in cyber space - legally of course!

This is an interesting blog looking at how the fashion industry is using an existing gaming platform to make money, rather then generating content which they hope teenagers will engage with. 

How will other retailers embrace social networking and other interactive technologies to help them build their brands?

Thanks to Forbes.com for this post.

Teenagers are easy to reach if you know how to play their game.

For the fashion industry, traditionally a late adopter of technology, it has been a particularly steep learning experience even though pre-teens and teens directly and indirectly control billions of dollars in purchasing power. But a small Swedish company called Stardoll seems to have cracked the code on how to hook young girls (see Teen Market Overview).

Stardoll is an online community where girls ages 8 to 18 play with virtual dolls. They can make "MeDolls," dolls that look like themselves, or celebrity look-alike dolls. Girls can also dress themselves and celebrities with merchandise from a virtual shop in its virtual galleria called the "starplaza," and they can also network with other users on the site.

Join the discussion: Will retailers embrace social networking and other interactive technologies to help them build their brands? Tell us what you think in the Readers Comments section below.

Stardoll Chief Executive Mattias Miksche admits he didn't completely understand his market when he began heading the company a few years ago. "When I first saw the initial site I didn't really get it--like most men," he says. "But I showed it to my wife, who was 35, and to my daughter, who was 5--and they both absolutely loved it. So I figured there could be quite an untapped market there."

Today, Stockholm-based Stardoll features more than 330 dolls and tens of thousands of virtual garments and accessories. It is also the No. 1 site worldwide for pre-teen and teen girls, according to comScore. The site has over 7 million unique visitors per month and 16 million registered users from 200 countries.

Compare these numbers to TeenVogue, Conde Nast's magazine that targets the same demographic and has less than 3 million readers. TeenVogue's mission statement says: "Style-conscious girls everywhere know there's only one source for relevant fashion and beauty news communicated in a sophisticated tone with the power of the Vogue brand. In a time of expanding media choices, true authority is irreplaceable--and unmistakable."

Is it?

Stardoll, like Vogue, earns revenues from advertising. Advertisers on Stardoll include major fashion and entertainment brands such as Donna Karan, LVMH, Disney (nyse: DIS - news - people ) and Sephora. Stardoll also earns revenues from products sold in its virtual shop. The site sells between 60,000 to 180,000 items per day.

Sequoia Capital and Index Ventures think Stardoll is building an addictive destination for a prized demographic, and they have invested $10 million in the company.

Despite Stardoll's success, the fashion industry hasn't yet figured out how to take advantage of the company to help it build brands. Here's an example of how this might work.

Zara, a retailer based in Spain, launches a virtual collection on Stardoll, which becomes an instant viral hit among pre-teen and teenage girls. Let's say seven designs in the collection bubble up to the top as the most popular, each with an average following of 1.2 million girls. Knowing this, would Zara need any other focus group or market research to figure out exactly what is striking a chord with its target consumers?

If Zara becomes really disciplined, it can pre-launch each season's designs into Stardoll, collect market feedback and provide that data to its stores around the world. Zara can also do geographically targeted research through Stardoll. For instance, Zara's Florida stores can look at data for Florida consumers, while Los Angeles stores can drill down on what teens in L.A. like.

I spent a year working with the fashion industry during the dot-com heydays, and I was struck by how little science and analysis is applied in the fashion business. As a result, the industry remains a nightmare of surplus inventory, which leads to markdowns and unhealthy profit-and-loss statements that precariously balance companies at the edge of life and death.

But it doesn't need to be this way. Other industries, such as financial services, manufacturing and insurance, have embraced technology and benefited tremendously from its infinite potential. Why not fashion?

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/2008/05/29/mitra-stardoll-retail-tech-ebiz-cx_sm_0530stardoll.html

Guest Post: How the Chinese Internet Becomes a Platform for Earthquake Grief (A local perspective)

With thanks to Web Strategy by Jeremiah

Posted: 23 May 2008 08:01 AM CDT

Jeremiah: Paul Denlinger of Beijing is an internet expert on China, and I’ve offered him the opportunity to help share from an insiders perspective. Keeping in the theme of internet strategy and how the web impacts business, (and in this case the world) Paul, a resident of China, shares his perspective.

Although a long post, please show him the same respect that you do for me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese Internet Becomes Platform for Earthquake Grief

-A guest post by Paul Denlinger

The Sichuan earthquake of May 12, which first registered as 7.8 on the Richter scale, has now been revised upwards to 8.0. As of Thursday May 22 in Beijing, the number of fatalities has so far reached more than 52,000, missing are 30,000, while injured are 400,000 and the number of homeless has reached 5 million. The final death toll is projected to be around 72,000. The Chinese government has appealed to foreign governments for aid and assistance, and Russia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong have all sent teams to aid in the search for survivors in the rubble, and for body recovery. With the huge number of refugees, there is also a severe shortage of tents to house them, and many foreign governments including the US, UK, Russia, Germany and Italy have all sent cargo aircraft to Chengdu, the nearest major city, to drop off needed supplies.

The Chinese government reacted swiftly to the tragedy, with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao flying to Sichuan the afternoon of the earthquake. He won wide praise for his swift action, and was photographed and taped talking and holding newly-orphaned children, telling them that the government would care for them, and would be committed to helping them rebuild their lives. He was photographed weeping when the bodies of two young children were removed from the rubble of their collapsed school. After several days of non-stop work directing rescue teams, making sure that they got all the help they needed, the exhausted Wen returned to Beijing, and was replaced by Chinese president Hu Jintao, who in one of the more memorable scenes, was seen holding an 8-year old boy, and telling his family that the government was committed to helping them rebuild, and to finding the bodies of their loved ones.

Military rescue teams from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were dispatched from all of China’s 31 provinces to aid in the rescue effort. The first two days after the earthquake there was heavy rain in the area, and in a few instances, paratroopers were dropped into stranded villages to help the local inhabitants. In one instance a dangerous night drop was made into an isolated village, and the mission was so high-risk that the 15 men were required to write their wills before departure. There continue to be mudslides in the area, and the government says that so far more than 200 volunteers have been killed in mudslides, trying to get supplies to the villagers.

The earthquake struck in a mountainous region of Sichuan, at the foothill of the mountains which run to the west and become the Tibetan plateau. A mix of Han Chinese and ethnic Tibetans live in the area, mostly in small villages surrounded by mountains. The main earthquake struck at 2:28PM, and an estimated 7,000 school classrooms collapsed. Schools were particularly hard-hit since many of the primary school students were taking their afternoon naps, or had just started their afternoon classes. There are many stories of children escaping from their classrooms to their sports field, only to be buried alive when the mountain surrounding the school collapsed on them. For many of their families, their bodies will never be recovered. In other instances, parents rushed to their children’s schools to dig out their children, only to find them dead. In some of the more horrifying stories, the quake was so severe that mountains which were separated by valleys with villages in-between moved together, completely obliterating the villages and their inhabitants.

In most of these village households, three generations of families live together, including grandparents, children and grandchildren, as is the usual Chinese custom. In many of the households, the parents of the children are migrant workers in Shanghai, Beijing and the more prosperous cities of China’s east coast. Upon hearing of the tragedy, and being unable to connect with their families on their mobile phones, they took trains back to Sichuan to search for their families. Many returned only to find that their whole household had been wiped out, or to find that their only child had already been buried in a mass grave. In some cases, there was a single survivor, with no surviving relatives. Most of these people were severely injured, and on learning that their families had been wiped out, said that they too wanted to die.

But then something curious started to happen, something which hadn’t happened before in Chinese society. Strangers started going to hospitals in Chongqing and Chengdu, and started caring for people whom they were not related to, effectively adopting them. All during last week, the news started to spread, not only of the need to send supplies, but also to care for the survivors. Stories of this kind spread quickly though China’s officially-controlled newspapers and television, and spread even more quickly on the Internet, especially Chinese BBSes such as Tianya, which are the most popular community tool for unofficial news. Other popular outlets for information are Twitter and a Chinese version of Twitter, Fanfou. The most popular IM client in China is QQ, which has more than 500 million registered users.

The news spread very quickly about the scale of the disaster, and strangers started organizing themselves online to take supplies to the disaster area. Google China and Baidu, China’s leading search engine, soon created specialized searches for relatives. Then on the weekend of May 17 and 18, some Chinese started designing online memorial sites where visitors could sign a book and give a white flower in mourning for the earthquake victims. These sites were designed and set up by volunteers without any payment from the government or corporations. As of May 22, one site had more than 262,000 unique visitors.

Late on the evening of May 18 Beijing time, the Chinese government announced that there would be three official days of mourning, from May 19-21, and recommending that game and entertainment sites shut down during the mourning period. Robert Scoble interpreted this event out of context and turned a human tragedy into a political event, narrowly framing it in terms of politics and human rights, and suggested that this meant that the Chinese government was enforcing a government crackdown during the mourning period, as could be evidenced from his comments, and those of his followers, on his Friendfeed account.

In fact, the Chinese government’s Central Publicity Department, which is in charge of content on the officially controlled media, was playing a catchup game with China’s Internet population, which is now the largest in the world, as well as the general population of China. As people learned more about the scope of the tragedy, they wanted to do more, and even more, the government sensed that they needed a public outlet to channel their grievance. The problem was that, in China’s long history, there never has been a defined way to remember and mourn ordinary citizens who have been killed in an enormous natural disaster. For this reason, the government prescribed that all cars and citizens would stop where they were on May 19 at 2:28PM, exactly one week to the day from the time of the earthquake, and while air raid alarms sounded, they would stand still for three minutes. They did this on Monday, as can be seen in this Youtube video and this interesting account of the event. Many websites have voluntarily changed their colors to black and white during the mourning period, while some have added the Chinese character for "mourning" to their websites, and many Chinese have chosen to wear black and white during the mourning period. All of this has been done without government orders of any kind; it has all been organized on the Internet through BBSes and people who voluntarily spread the message. Many other sites have set up donation badges to facilitate online donations to help organizations, and there have been blood drives as well. There have also been a few sites, including Google and Baidu, which have created people search sites, so that relatives can look for their loved ones. Most newspapers and magazines, all of which are controlled by the government, have moved to publishing in black and white only.

While younger Chinese have turned to the Internet, older Chinese have devoured huge amounts of TV programming and newspapers, all of which are state-owned and are now fully devoted to reporting the aftermath of the disaster. Unlike in the past, all of this reporting about the disaster is what the audience demands from the bottom up, not what the government wants to give to the people in a top-down fashion. In order to show the people that the government is on top of things and doing its job, state-owned news agencies have been working round the clock to provide news about the situation in Sichuan. When not reporting about rescues, stories detailing the amount of goods and supplies being sent to Sichuan from the various cities and provinces of China form a solid wall of disaster reporting. In keeping with the Chinese affinity for numerical data, precise numbers of boxes sent, trucks dispatched, tons of supplies sent, trains sent, etc. are all reported in these stories. In contrast with the past, Chinese government officials have promised a higher degree of transparency and accountability to the people. Many Chinese have also started openly asking questions on the Internet and on television and radio, including why so many schools collapsed, and if dams in the region may have caused soil erosion.

Whether it is television, print or the Internet, there are endless stories of people living just because they ran a different direction from the rest of their family, or because someone left home on a shopping errand, only to find their home flattened and all their family killed by falling debris. Ever since the end of WWII, China and Japan have had a rocky relationship, but the dispatch of Japanese rescuers to aid the rescue process, has won significant praise and goodwill from Chinese citizens.

Maybe most interesting has been a publicly-driven drive for corporate donations of money and supplies to the earthquake victims. Sina, one of China’s three leading portals, has set up a corporate donation page which lists amounts Chinese corporations have given (minimum amount for listing: 10 million yuan or US$1.4 million). As of the afternoon of May 21 Beijing time, total corporate donations listed on the page had come to 5.58 billion yuan or US$797 million. On the Chinese Internet, netizens have been especially loud in driving corporations to donate more, and in some cases, have publicly attacked corporations for being too cheap in their donation amounts. In most cases, the criticized companies have quickly upped their donation amounts in reaction. Corporations have also looked sideways to see how much their market competitors have donated, and have matched or trumped their donations, sometimes setting off donation bid wars to win praise from the public and favorable PR.

For the past ten days, Chinese have spent most of their time glued to their TV sets or on the Internet, collecting every scrap of information about this huge human tragedy. The outpouring of emotion has been enormous. As the mourning period draws to a close, the next phase will begin, that of reconstruction. Without a doubt, the Chinese Internet will continue to play a major role.

Paul Denlinger is an Internet consultant based in Beijing who publishes his own blog at the China Vortex.

Additional Resources:

Danwei
Shanghaiist Earthquake Special Report
EastSouthWestNorth blog
China Web 2.0 Review
The China Vortex - Let’s See How Many Ways We Can Get This Wrong


http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/05/23/guest-post-how-the-chinese-internet-becomes-a-platform-for-earthquake-grief/

Influentials On The Web Are People With The Power To Link

Interesting look at an alternative theory to the idea of NEO's or influencer consumers

Posted: 28 Jan 2008 03:10 PM CST - Pulishing 2.0

In the networked web era, influentials may not be people with a particularly connected temperament or Rolodex, or people who control and influence monopoly distribution channels (e.g. newspapers), but rather people who influence the network by leveraging the most powerful force on the web — the link. People like bloggers, top Diggers, del.icio.us power users, Facebook users who share lots of links, MySpace users who embed videos, Twitter users who post lots of URLs, or any social network user with links to lots of friends.

This idea jives with a provocative article in Fast Company about a new disruptive Duncan Watts theory. After last year debunking the “wisdom of the crowds” using the theory of cumulative advantage, Watts is back, this time debunking the idea that there is a class of “influentials” who is more likely than others to spread ideas, trends, product endorsements, or anything else that can be spread virally. The existence of unique classes of influencers was the premise behind Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. But Watts, a Columbia professor doing work for Yahoo Research, says it’s all bunk.

The more Watts examined the theory of Influentials, the less sense it made to him. The problem, he explains over lunch in a Midtown restaurant, is that it’s incredibly vague. None of its proponents ever clearly explain how an Influential actually influences.

“It sort of sounds cool,” Watts says, tucking into his salad. “But it’s wonderfully persuasive only for as long as you don’t think about it.” For example, in The Influentials, Keller and Berry argue that trendsetters draw their social power from being active in their communities. Their peers naturally turn to them for advice. Need to buy a new car or navigate city hall? Everyone knows whom to trust. Gladwell, for his part, argues that trends spread like diseases; Influentials are the vectors who amplify and propagate the infection.

Fair enough, as a top-down view. But it’s murky, and for Watts, this is a critical flaw, because precision matters when you’re trying to explain highly social epidemics. Merely arguing that influence spreads like a disease isn’t enough, because, he says, diseases spread in very different ways. Some require multiple exposures; some don’t. Some reward “superspreaders,” and some don’t. (SARS broke out in Hong Kong not because the first victim was a superspreader but because a doctor mistakenly hooked him up to an aspirator–ventilating SARS-infected breath into the hospital air.)

This got me thinking about the dynamics of influence on the web, where in the age of Google PageRank, inline linking, and social applications, the link is the principal driver of “network efforts” and influence.

The reason Google’s search results often contain more blogs than traditional media content is that blogs were the first to harness the power of the link. Blogs linked to other blogs, while traditional media brands remained disconnected silos. Savvy web users — many college age or early 20s — pooled their links on Digg and developed the power to drive server-crashing volumes of traffic, forcing traditional media sites, who still lack such influence, to plaster themselves with Digg This buttons.

Embedding YouTube videos is a form of linking that allowed MySpace users and bloggers to drive the online video revolution. NYTimes.com users leverage the power of links in emailed articles to create a list of most emailed articles whose influence arguably rivals the NYTimes.com homepage.

One reason the emergent Twitter network is becoming so powerful is the widespread sharing of links. Twitter users are not influential because they have influential personalities, but because they are early tech adopters who are excel at figuring out how to use new web technologies to influence and create link-driven networks.

You can explain the power of social networks and the “social graphs” in terms of links — every Facebook profile has links to other Facebook profiles. Same with MySpace. And LINKEDin — get it?

Journalists and PR professionals, the influence brokers of traditional media, have lost a huge degree of influence on the web in large part because they don’t link to anything. While traditional media brands are still powerful channels on the web, they are losing influence everyday to the link-driven web network — journalists and PR professionals can no longer depend on controlling these former monopoly channels to exert influence online.

Whenever I give talks to traditional publishers who have been afraid to link to other sites because it will “send people away” instead of keeping them trapped in the publisher’s own content, my now standard response is to say that there’s a site that does nothing but link to other sites — all it does is send people away. And yet remarkably, people keep coming back. So much so, that this strategy has translated into $10 billion+ in advertising revenue. (Yes, Google of course.)

Anyone can become influential on the web simply by setting up a blog or an account on a social network or social bookmarking site and linking to people and content that interests them. Anyone who is influential offline and wants to retain that influence online needs to start linking — and to leverage those links in a large network.

Influence on the web is all about connectivity — the larger the network, the more powerful the links.