1. We are hanging out in social sites where relevant content finds us through our friends rather than searching out brands
2. Content is being pushed off-site through mechanisms such as RSS Feeds, Twitter, YouTube Channels and Facebook Fan pages

It's the second part that I'm interested in exploring but first some pretty graphs ...

Car Makers



Electronics



Computers



Media




Okay - it all looks like we're losing interest in the interwebs - but wait, all that attention is going somewhere ...

Facebook & Twitter



Clearly facebook is the huge winner in terms of daily engagement although we may see twitter has made a good start and my overtake MySpace in the next 12 months!

What's a brand to do?

I think the opportunity is for brands to start thinking of themselves as publishers - of useful information for their customers. This means going beyond describing the product to telling stories about how it might impact someone's life. If this content is modular and shareable, it will find its way to social spaces where relevant conversations can happen around it. These conversations are where trust is built and people move closer to a purchase decision.

Rather than pushing out campaign centric content on your timeline, it's now important to be there (wherever your customers are) when they are in the buying cycle.

Recommendations

• Create customer centred content that is modular and has good metadata (descriptions)
• Give permission (and guidelines) for people to take it to other online spaces
• Attach a way to find you (for purchase or more info)
• Put metrics on the important bits and pay attention to what's working
• Monitor conversations and participate when appropriate

Example

Here's an an entry on Adam Brand's (he's a client) web site ...

And here it is on his Facebook fan page where it gets a lot more interaction and social proof ...

So what do you think?

There seems to be a marked shift in adopting basic principles of social media

• they've spent the last few months listening to what's been said about them.
• Now actively asking for feedback on what followers would like to see
• Going transparent: saving to their favourites what they believe are the key issues
• Responding about the intern being the cause of the hashtag spam issue
• Looking at customer service through Twitter
• Responding to people who talk to them on Twitter in a one-on-one

I'm really happy they've got back on the metaphorical horse and have listened and learned. And I'm hoping this will end up being a new type of case study: the best social media recovery for a brand.

As is already the case 'resistance to technology' is melting away enough for Baby Boomers to recognise the amazing social engagement that Facebook facilitates.

It makes sense that this generation of 50 -65 year olds would be embracing the social web now. After all, nearly all the Gen X and Gen Ys are on Facebook and parents seem to have an inbuilt 'nosy gene' (or is it a 'caring gene') for keeping a protective eye on their offspring and their friends.

According to the latest stats, over 300 million of us use Facebook. 50% of us are logging in daily and the fastest growing demographic is 35 year olds and older. By now you would've seen the comparison that if Facebook were a country it would be 4th largest in the world (and nearly the 3rd based on latest figures)!

Courtesy of TechCrunch.com

But this presents a dilemma... to friend or not to friend?

If your parents, or say your girlfriend or boyfriend's parents "friend" you, what should you do? Offend them by ignoring their request, probably not. But if you accept them do you really want them seeing exactly the same Saturday night shenanigans that your closest friends see?

What does this mean for Gen Xers & Gen Yers as our parents' generation crop up increasingly frequently on Facebook? Could it lead to an increase in Facebook abandonment?

I don't think so.

What I do think is that this "friend or not to friend" dilemma will see Facebook evolve to mirror our relationships in the offline world.

In the non-cyber world, we share lots more with our best mates than we do with someone we've just met. Similarly your relationship with your employer or professional colleagues will be different from relationships with your footy mates. It doesn't mean you're a different person around them, it's just that they see different sides of you. Friendships in real life certainly don't come as one size fits all.

What if Facebook introduced functionality that allows us to rate our relationships with Facebook friends as we do in real life.

If a "friend rating" system were introduced then you could allocate 10/10 access for your best mate & say 1/10 for somebody you just met . Or maybe you'd tick a "work colleague" box or "parents" box. As these friendship grow, you would then increase that person's rating so that you share more with them. This is how we treat relationships in the offline world.

Taking this idea further, different friends would have varying access to see pictures of you. For example, to your professional contacts your profile picture could be you in a suit and tie, whereas your lifelong school mates may see a photo of you in a costume from a fancy dress party. Both are equally relevant & appropriate for the person viewing the profile.

How do you see Facebook evolving?

Three simple questions that marketing managers have to be considering at the moment. I am seeing increasing cases of companies who are investing in digital marketing but not necessarily being present in key networking circles where their brand is being openly discussed.

A case in point can be seen in The Observer article reporting on staff of PC World and Currys openly mocking their customers 'stupidity' whilst professing that they are in fact current staff on Facebook Groups. A Google search on PC World brings up two blog listings on the first page of results with strong negative opinions (including one with in excess of 300 comments) with no response from the company.

Another example of a company not being in full control of their online reputation albeit a smaller example is from Postbox, Inc, makers of a popular email client for Mac users. Like many other companies, Postbox have utilised Get Satisfaction (an online customer service community) to power their support channel. As a former user of their service I found it interesting to watch one particular support stream grow out of control. A number of users, including myself, made a request/query of what we deemed an important feature of the software. Soon many other users joined in the conversation but with no official response. Customers soon turned negative in their comments at the apparent ignoring of their support queries in an official online channel of the company.

The above are two very different yet similar issues around online networking and corporate businesses. Companies who invest in digital marketing, whether it be a basic website through to the most prolific corporate digital marketers should pay an interest in all areas where there brand is being interacted with.

Official communication channels such as Facebook Pages, Twitter and (as in the case above) online support forums MUST be monitored regularly. If you do not have the time and resources to manage this then you need to question whether it is beneficial for your brand to launch into the particular service.

For companies (and even individuals), taking an interest in unofficial channels - blogs, forums, social networks, is also an imperative area to monitor and get involved in. Do not ignore bad publicity but rather tread carefully and you may find it an even stronger opportunity to turn it into a positive by your managing of the situation.

The topic of online social networking is only going to grow within digital marketing circles. As the largest of the networks, Facebook, steadily looks to open itself up further to the public to compete with services such as Twitter a lot of companies may soon find themselves facing situations such as what PC World and Currys encountered over the weekend. A lot of companies and their agencies need to be asking themselves whether they have answered the three questions posed earlier or they may find that they are left behind competing brands in the hearts of consumers.

The game is the brainchild of Hasbro’s U.K. agency, Tribal DDB and the concept itself is fantastic. But there seems to be a long way now from the original concept of creating a massive multi-player game to leverage the Hasbro brand and promote the coming 3D version of the board game and what we have.

By all accounts there are 1.7 million unique users and the interest seems to have overwhelmed the servers leading to frustration and disappointment. Further, the game has already prone to chronic cheating. I think people are cheating by creating more than one account and then selling the property cheaply to their main account. I just don’t want to see it turn into a cheating feast to see who can create the most accounts and money launder the most. But Perhaps cheating is how the real world works anyways.

Not surprisingly, what was touted as the “biggest land grab of 2009″ has turned into another online fiasco of overloaded servers and massive cheating. This has resulted in yet another brand damaged by poor execution and consideration for the details. I give the folks at Tribal DDB 5 stars for the idea. 1 star to the team supporting and managing this imploding disaster. To add insult to injury, I believe that they are going to ‘re-start’ the game and those poor soles having invested many hours finding streets, selecting just the right location for that building and even trying build a neat community will loose this and need to it down to ‘a learning experience’. The official blog site is now littered with frustrated posted and company apologies.

Clearly, a lesson in not what to do for a client in viral marketing.