wine on the roof

Facebook has announced that it will be adding filters for photos, so people can retro-wash their pics with that synthetic polaroid saturation, or get all poignant with some black and white pics of their kids putting peanut butter on the cat. This is being billed as a direct response to instagram. I would assume it’s positioned as a defense, and the people prefer instagram because of all the filters.

This misses the true point of instagram, IMHO: instragram is cool not only because of the filters (which are fun), but because it boils down the social interaction to just the photo. There’s no goofy update about the kids’ schooling, no mafia wars, no idiot lolcat videos. Just the photos. There’s a certain artsy-like austerity to it, which communicates on a different (deeper?) level for people.

I like instragram because it’s clean, not because people have dorked with the colors on their pics. It’s my own personal gallery walk: quiet, reflective, and ultimately more communicative than words.

It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

All of the techno “stars” came out in that first 24 hours of Google+.  There was Joi Itoh, Robert Scoble, Seth Godin, Harry Joiner, etc.  Most of them seemed to keep it cool, poking around and commenting here and there.  One of them charged ahead, posting something every 5 minutes, often with some half-baiting question that subsequently invoked a huge chain of follow-on comments.   Because of the way that Google+ is structured, these posts came in real-time, and the page text would automatically scroll down.  It made things very difficult to follow anything else.  In short, we had a blabbermouth on our hands.

This person acknowledged that he was being a blabbermouth, and simply invited people to add him to a “blabbermouths” circle in order to clean up their feed.  Done, and done.  Ah, much better.

Soon after, I found other blabbermouths.  These were people that I had considered “friends” at first (and placed them accordingly), but when their posts came in too often, too self-promotional, and too meta, into the “blabbermouths” they went.  It’s like a garden with weeds, or a party with loud drunks, or a restaurant buffet with someone bogarting all the shrimp cocktail: you’re ruining it for the rest of us.

Tangentially, I went to Klout for the firsts time a couple weeks ago.  From what I can tell (and please let me know if I’m missing something), it’s just a “score”, with the supposed goal of getting a higher score– some sort of substitute for social influence, I guess.  Klout seems to be struggling for legitimacy, but maybe I’m just not seeing it.  I do see one helpful thing they announced this morning: Klout will now count Foursquare check-ins as part of the score.

Excellent.  Here’s why: In my mind, there are two types of online social interaction.

  1. Group-Centric Social Media– is collaborative, centered on contribution to a whole, and serves the overall group. Examples include wikipedia, quora, flickr, instagram, turntable, or any other social network where people’s contributions are shared freely and allow others to manipulate, build, alter or improve as they see fit.  Facebook and g+ likely qualify here, as any contribution by a single individual goes out to all their friends, who can then comment (improve knowledge or clarify a point) as they see fit.  No one is keeping “score” publicly.  Twitter may be in this group, but maybe not.
  2. Self-Centric Social Media– is promotional, centered on contribution to a personal record, and is centered on the self.  Examples include Foursquare, klout, and farmville.  The goals in these are to achieve a higher “score”, a wider farm, or a bunch of badges (that are really just little digital icons, Yeaaay!).  All of these are centered around gratifying the specific user, not the collective whole.  Twitter is in this group if you’re obsessed with number of followers or if you think you’re “promoting” something, and not “sharing” something.

Before you go labeling me a communist, hear me out: I’m not saying one is better than the other (okay, maybe a little bit).  What I’m trying to say is that it seems to me that the users who are rooted firmly in the self-centric models seem to be the ones that end up being the blabbermouths in the group-centric networks.  These are the ones that we tend to turn off, to unfriend, or to relegate to our ‘blabbermouths’ circle.  I welcome Klout now counting foursquare checkins.  If I could only figure out a way to get a script that would automatically filter those high klout score people into my blabbermouth circle.

Sometime in the late 90’s, I ran an Internet development and design studio.  It was the go-go days, where everyone insisted their idea was highly confidential and stoopid amounts of money were being made by migrating companies on to “The Internet” (yes, we actually capitalized it back in the day, and put quotes around it as some sort of foreign object or artificial theoretical construct).  A lot of our potential clients had AOL email addresses, or kept talking in AOL terminology.  One day, I expressed my frustration with these rubes and disparaged AOL to my business partner.  “Feh.  AOL.  Rubes!” I said.

“Ah, are you sure you want them to move from AOL to the Internet?”, my wiser and more thoughtful friend asked.  “Think about it,” he continued, “Do you really want those nimrods asking their nimrod questions on our forums and message boards and all that?”

From an immediate revenue concern, as a design studio owner, yes, I did want them to move over.  I made money moving them over.  On a personal level, as an early-adoptor-techno-snob, no I didn’t want them on my precious Internet.  I am sure the geeks rued the day when ARPANET was opened up to idiots like me (without a comp sci background).

Why am I telling you this?  Because last night, I experienced that blissful Virginia Empty Continent wonder for a few hours.  Google+ went live yesterday, and invitations were limited.  I was one of the chosen select, even before Ashton Kuchter got in.  From what I could tell, there were only a few thousand of us (besides Googlers).  The wonderment and excitement was tangible.  It still is.

Many of my friends have been begging me for invites.  I’ll get them out as soon as I can.  But be warned, you may not want to come over.  In fact, I recommend you don’t come over:

  • There are no games like Farmville or Mafia Wars or anything else with little avatars sporting huge heads and anime eyes
  • There are no corporate pages from Chrysler Motors or Budweiser or Dave & Busters or Touchstone Pictures
  • Your high school friends aren’t there (yet).  G+ won’t suggest people you know, it will only tell you whom you already know (your GMail contacts).
  • There aren’t any lengthy threads debating whether Dancing with the Idols was better than You’ve Got Stars last night.

You really want to stay on Facebook, I promise.  It’s nice and comfy, right?  All your friends are already there, right?  Change is painful, right?  You won’t be able to import your WoW or Zynga character profiles, so why bother, right?

No, G+ isn’t for you.  It’s full of geeks and all texty and complicated.

Facebook has announced major improvements and export agreements for its comment plugin and overall conversation tracking mechanisms.  This may spell very bad news for software providers specializing in reviews and comment threads, such as Bazaarvoice, Disqus, or Pluck.  However, it may actually be beneficial for the mainstream content providers such as newspapers, magazines, and other “wide audience” publications.  If you’ve ever tried to sort through the comments on something like Newsweek or Time or (FSM help you) USAToday or CNN, you’ll realize why: the current comment thread mechanisms aren’t worth a damn thing.

As I’ve discussed previously, when a topic is “too broad” or “too common”, the comment threads or other discussion mechanisms quickly break down into partisan hackery and senseless name-calling flamewars.  Godwin’s Law is in full effect here, but is preceded with an endless stream of poor grammar, juvenile goofs, and spambots.  This is especially true where any subjective topic is in play (which covers most news topics, and anything close to the entertainment industry).

So how might Facebook’s comment regime change things?  Well, for the simple fact that these people’s comments will (should or must, IMHO) be viewed by all of their friends on Facebook.  Would you write that screed against the [republicans/democrats/two party system] if you knew that all your friends would read your poorly worded rantings?  Would you still use all those cuss words?  For most of us, I hope not.  Sure, for some of the giftedly-miscreant juveniles, the ability to post a rant against shoegazers on MTV.com and Facebook simultaneously will only encourage such poor commenting behaviour, but we already know where those places are, and they get what they deserve.

I sincerely hope that more mainstream content sites will adopt the Facebook comment plugin, but only if they absolutely enforce the rule that all comments MUST also appear on the contributor’s facebook wall.  Let the peer-shaming begin!  (After all, tomorrow is National Grammar Day; so sharpen your knives and gerund phrases.)

Sakura view of Mt FujiThe highlight of Springtime for Japanese is “Sakura-mi“, where everyone takes an afternoon off, meanders to the local park with their co-workers, spreads out some blankets, and starts singing ballads while drinking sake and enjoying the pink cherry blossoms that cover every tree in sight.  It’s a great time.

Facebook is rapidly approaching its Sakura-mi in Japan.  Until now it was the dark horse behind the dominant Mixi.jp, and really only used by Japanese students and employees who had spent time in the U.S. or E.U.  But now, with the movie The Social Network hitting it big in Tokyo, and Mixi dying a slow death from no new functionality and a poor user interface, the network effect that accelerates Facebook adoption is taking off.  However, it’s not all sweet rice wine and kara-age.  There are some snags.

Facebook has the following going for it in Japan:

  • The movie is pretty much like a 90-minute tutorial on how Facebook works, and that it’s okay (necessary) to use your real ID and not a fake alias.  Japanese are finally getting used to that point.
  • Mixi always accepted and centered on people making aliases, which seems like a protection of privacy (a big point for Japanese), but ultimately prevented people from connecting with their real-world set of friends.  Everyone had their real friends, and their Mixi avatar strange connection friends.
  • Facebook has its marketing act together: it’s a viable advertising channel which means that companies are looking at it seriously (which they never really did with Mixi).
  • Facebook has a workable API for others to utilize (e.g. Facebook login).  Mixi never got that far in their product roadmap.

However, Facebook may run into some bumps:

  • When we all signed up for Facebook 3-4 years ago, the Facebook viruses and scams weren’t as advanced as they are now.  I see my Japanese friends signing into Facebook for the first time, but many of them are falling victim to the same scams and dupes that tricked my young nieces when she first joined up.  In short, Japanese users are still a bit naive.
  • The “real identity” thing is a big lump for Japanese users to swallow.  If they use their real ID, that means that all those people from High School and old jobs and college can now really find them.  Americans went through that phase, but admit it– if you could do it over again, would you really “friend” all those random people that you happened to graduate at the same time from some school 15 years ago?
  • On-gaeshi.  I’ve described this before as a benefit for short texting like twitter, but I still see it as a small hindrance for Japanese.  Friending one person in a group obligates them to friend all people in that group, and anytime they get a friend request, they feel they MUST return the favor.  It almost puts a compulsory feel to the network effect, and it creates a slight anxiety for users.
  • Lack of shopping benefits: there’s no deal at Starbucks or Takashimaya or Mitsukoshi for participating in a given Facebook promotion, because those large companies are still way behind on the Social Media thing.
  • Work environment: Japanese office workers are pretty much sitting shoulder to shoulder on long bench tables, with the section chief at the end of each row, and the bucho sitting behind him (furthest from the front door, of course).  There are no cubicles, no offices, no privacy.  There’s no way office workers can screw off on Facebook during work time.

I’m sure Facebook will eventually roll through the country.  I am also relatively confident in predicting that penetration will never be as high as it is here in the US.

Most of us have heard about the Goldman Sachs investment into Facebook that puts the valuation at $50B.  Not all of us have divined the subtleties about which part of Goldman Sachs did the investing: their brokerage arm, not their private equity arm.  In other words, Goldman did this deal with the express purpose of selling those shares forward, presumably in the ‘greater chump’ model.

Most of us have also recently seen the movie The Social Network, and however it portrays Zuckerberg as a true geek, just wanting to put together something cool.  If you’ve flown on a plane recently, you might also have seen Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. However it portrays Gordon Gecko, the movie does a pretty good (if not pedantic) job of teaching the principal of “moral hazard“: someone is making a decision about money where they have no moral consequences (financial risk) on the outcome.

Q: Is the Goldman Sachs a form of Moral Hazard, where they are making money and valuing Facebook at a level with the only purpose of “selling” that value to the potential future investors?

Q: By doing these transactions in the pre-IPO private share environment, where prices are arbitrary (artificially set?), somewhate inflexible, and based on insufficient information, is Goldman (and Facebook) creating their own bubble?

Q: My twitter feed from @mashable and others  are becoming  more and more common with “_____ receives $XX.XM in angel investment” announcements.  Congratulations, but how many of these investments are actually sympathetically tuned to the Facebook bubble-of-one?

Q: What happens when Facebook finally does go public, and the share price sinks after 5 months?

I don’t want to be an alarmist, nor do I want to be that snide person that says “I told you so”, I really am asking these questions.  Something seems off here…

Sandstone Strata at Lake Powell

I discussed Quora yesterday, and how it may or may not build itself into something very interesting.  Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch seems to think that Quora will take off this year, having it’s “twitter moment”.  I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment, but Erick pointed out something that I think provides an interesting model to contemplate.  He describes Quora as “layering of an interest graph on top of people’s social graph.”  I suggest that “layering” is the essence of a good mash-up,  and that we might start thinking of these graphs as “strata“.

Mark Zuckerberg defined a graph is any set of relationships.  Facebook is really just a website that relies on that social graph between people.  It’s been trying very hard to build additional graphs, but in the end, it always comes down to that social graph.  Gowalla, Foursquare, and to some extent Google Maps have taken up the geographical graph (redundant?),  while Quora is building out the interest graph– where your relationship is on common interests and not really the people involved.  LinkedIn might be thought of as an ‘experience graph’, but those experiences are so very closely linked to people, that it’s really just Facebook’s more serious older brother.  Flickr is a photo graph.  Other graphs might include color graphs, fashion graphs, meme graphs, and fact graphs.

If we start thinking of these different graphs as strata (the geological term for layers of rocks or soil), then we can start to see mash-ups as the successful layering of two or more graphs.  Layer the social graph with the geographical graph, and we get Google Latitude.  Photo+ geographical = MS Photsynth.  Geographical + interest = Yelp.  If we get past the term “mash-up”, with it’s connotations of random happenstance or car crash (like the Reeses Peanut Butter Cup commercial where we are to believe that one of the greatest candies was really the serendipitous result of hippies with early Sony Walkmans), then we might be able to see new start-ups in terms of the strata that they are layering together to bring us something smarter, something more useful, something synthesized to a higher level.

What other strata are out there?  What companies are exploiting these strata?

Just remember, No matter where you go, there you are.

Multichannel, multichannel, multichannel.  For online businesses, it is simultaneously the New Promised Land as well as The Impending Doom.  I’ve discussed before how I think Amazon will ultimately see its greatest threat come from Walmart, and may actually acquire Target or Sears in order to pre-empt the risk of a competitor that can offer online deals as well as physical storefronts.  The same could be said for Best Buy over NewEgg.com, REI over backcountry.com, or even Dave & Busters over Gamestop.com.

Along the same lines, I think Facebook’s recent addition of ‘facebook places‘ isn’t merely trying to push out fourquare or gowalla for eyeball share– quite the opposite– they seem to be warmly welcoming  those partners into the fold.  All Facebook wants is everyone’s current GPS coordinates, regardless of who tricks the user into surrendering them.  Why?  Because once Facebook has your 10-20, it can turn around and drop a dime on you to all those potential location-sensitive advertisers.  Facebook has the opportunity to beat Google at it’s own game.  Think Multichannel.  Think Mobile.  Think Minority Report, much sooner and much worse than anticipated.

Google must realize this also, hence its mad rush to buy up some social network providers along with location-triggered services.  I fear it may be too late for Mountain View, however– everyone has their personal troupe/network built out on Facebook, and they’ll be loathe to do it again somewhere else.

The other risk here is that the proletariat may rise up in rebellion against constantly announcing their whereabouts, but if there are free lattes involved, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people surrender their bank card PINs.

from the rightcliq website. What's up with the toolbelts?

Ever since Steve Jobs and Woz unveiled their little pet project to bring computing to the masses, we’ve had a debate about where the application should live: server-side or client-side.  IBM always argued that server-side is faster, cleaner, and generally more profitable for them.  Bill Gates made his billions bringing apps to the client-side.  Cloud Computing is really this argument wrapped in shiny new clothing– and has been blargged about ad nauseum everywhere else, so I won’t bother with that.

I mention that debate simply to bring up what might be a parallel argument that is forming now that many sites are becomming socially-aware.  Here’s the topic: is a social network invidivual-centric (client-side) or catalog-centric (server-side)? This isn’t a debate about where the actual software app resides, that’s pretty much invisible now.  For a social network, the core function is the graph– but where is that centered?  Is it centered around the individual (like facebook), or around the catalog (like amazon.com)?

An individual-centric graph has the person at the center, and she is free to add her friends, likes, dislikes, and catalog choices to her graph.  In this model, she will always want to log in with her personal network ID, and then interact or share with a given website.  Facebook is this way.  Pluck offers this kind of model.

A Catalog-centric graph has the products or new topics acting as the currency of the graph, and individuals may come and interact with them as they please.  The individuals may even use their Facebook ID for logging in, but the graph stays with the catalog and is structured in a way to build out the graph between those products, regardless of who or which individuals contributed any given part.  Bazaarvoice is a catalog-centric model

At first blush, it would seem that the individual-centric graph has run the table, but this may change. Faceboook offers a ‘like’ button just about anywhere (any major website) now, and people are certainly participating.  But those same individuals are starting to push back on the flood of information coming into their facebook feed.  Everyone is hungry for peer-driven invormation about products, but very few are willing to contribute content if it pollutes their friend feed.

Can a catalog-centric graph solve this concern for users?  Would you be willing to review more products or “like” more things if it could be somewhat anonymous?  What would you need in return?  Will you want to segment off your personal contacts (all your high-school drinking buddies) away from your shopping guru mentors?  Visa has announced Right Cliq, an individual addon that serves as the bridge between the individual graph and catalog graph.  Sure, we need another social network like another holein the head, but this may actually have some legs: consolidate your shopping peer-driven information with your purchase history, while segmenting it away from your personal contacts.

It becomes a catalog-centric social graph, but it belongs to Visa, not to the vendor.

p.s. if you like this article, please click the ‘like’ button in the upper right. :-P

I’ve often described social media as a cocktail party– there are various types and levels of interaction, and there are some basic rules of etiquette.  As host of the party, facebook has a tough balancing act: give out all that functionality for free while keeping the lights on. Well, it looks like they just sold the guest list.

We’ll see what effect this has, but I think it will be marked as an error after a while. I’ll have to think on this one some more: it’s a step toward a more connected intarwebs, but it also exposes the relationship between company and person. It all comes down to your personal delusion of privacy.

Thanks Harry for the link.

© 2010 Dave Jenkins contact me via twitter @davejenk1ns or via email blog at davejenkins dot com Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha