Status Update #39 – Sub-Lion

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Jacob

Status Update #39 – Sub-Lion
Sunday December 2, 2012
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Jared Weseman

STORIES
Click here for links to all of this week’s stories

VIDEO

Connect with Us
Twitter: @StatusUpdateRTM
Facebook.com/StatusUpdateShow
Status Update on Google+
su@redtie.tv
781-733-8436 (781-RED-TIEM) – leave a voicemail
Jacob’s Twitter: @JacobBodnar
Jacob’s Google+
Jared’s Twitter: @JaredWeseman
Subscribe: RSS Feed | iTunes
Status Update is a member of the Tech Podcasts Network

Status Update #28 – OptiContrast

Posted on September 2, 2012 by Jacob

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Status Update #28 – OptiContrast
Sunday September 2, 2012
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Jared Weseman

STORIES
Click here for links to all of this week’s stories

Connect with Us
Twitter: @StatusUpdateRTM
Facebook.com/StatusUpdateShow
su@redtie.tv
781-733-8436 (781-RED-TIEM) – leave a voicemail
Jacob’s Twitter: @JacobBodnar
Jacob’s Google+
Jared’s Twitter: @JaredWeseman
Subscribe: RSS Feed | iTunes
Status Update is a member of the Tech Podcasts Network

Luxury in Social Games

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Jacob

Whew! I’m back!

Maybe that’s not the best exclamation, kind of sounds like I was in the middle of a conversation and just remembered I left the stove on, I ran to turn it off, and now I’m back!

Rather, I’m simply back from a little personal hiatus to get my life aligned (and good news, my stove is current off). I’m working now at Kellogg’s in Digital Marketing IT, I’ve settled into my apartment in Battle Creek, and I’m ready to start doing some regular posts again about social media and technology. Status Update is going into its second week of hiatus, but have no fear, assuming everything works out, we should be back to new episodes next Sunday.

I’ve missed a lot of social media and technology stories, but instead of rehashing them all and offering my two cents, I will leave them alone, and simply move on to some new content.

Which brings me to, social gaming! I’ve been extremely intrigued by the social gaming world and how marketing and advertising is slowly being integrated into not only social gaming, but gaming in general.

For starters, advertising and product placement has always been in games. Racing games particularly have been known to feature billboards on the side of roads with certain advertisements, or various cars that car makers may or may not have paid money to feature in the game. However, it was never in a wide scale, and games that seemed ripe for the product placement picking were seemingly left out.

That tide seems to be turning. I spoke on Status Update a few weeks back about product placement in The Sims; a game which is a perfect fit for some advertising. If you are not familiar with The Sims you are either old and don’t have children, or well, that’s about it. Otherwise, I’m sure somewhere in life you’ve come across this simulation game. The idea is rather simple, you run someone’s life. You tell them to go to work, what to eat, you design their home, control their relationships and try to keep them as happy as possible. It’s like tamagotchis on steriods (confused? click here).

This game is a perfect stomping ground for advertisers. People want the game to be as realistic as possible, so buying products that a real life person would purchase, is an added bonus to the game. Advertisers have taken note and several have worked out deals with Electronic Arts and Maxis, the makers of the game, to feature their products in the virtual world.

And now, we can add a luxury car maker to that list. Mercedes will now allow players of the Sim City Facebook game to add dealerships, factories, and billboards to the game. Just another way to make the virtual world a little more life like, and thus more engaging and enjoyable to play.

But wait? Why would Mercedes advertise in a game that is predominantly played by young people? Don’t old people and ridiculously wealthy people drive Mercedes? The kind of people that probably are not spending their downtime playing Sim City on Facebook?

Short answer. Yes. The younger generation are certainly not Mercedes main demographic. However, that does not mean they should simply ignore them. Brand image is important to build. Mercedes is seen as a luxury brand, they did not build that image by simply running ads in AARP magazine and on CNBC, they built that image by creating a brand and a product that young people aspire to own and drive. It is important to instill and cultivate that image in the minds of young people. Creating a luxury brand within a platform that young people utilize is a low-cost and engaging way to do that.

Overall, I’m intrigued by what some brands are doing within social gaming. Mercedes in particular has done a very good job of integrating into the gaming environment. Facebook friends partake in the entire Sim City neighborhood, so by placing a Mercedes dealership or factory within the game, all of the participants see and interact with that factory or dealership, not just the player who built it.

We are seeing similar integration in Draw Something, where brands can buy space and have users draw their branded products. Players don’t mind because it is within the bounds of game play, and brands should love it because it forces deep interaction and thought about the brand. It is not simply seeing the brand name and registering that it was seen, it is seeing the brand name, thinking about what it means, and then outputting media that visually describes that brand. It is deep interaction. All without feeling like an advertisement.

Which should raise some legal red flags, and I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers in enterprises right now raising those flags. There is a whole litany of laws about advertising to children. Ever wonder why children’s programs explicitly tell viewers the program is “taking a break?” That’s federal law. Children have trouble discerning between entertainment and advertisement, so there are laws protecting them and forcing brands to take extra measures to make sure their advertisements are labeled and understood as such.

Which makes this whole social gaming product placement discussion murky. Children aside, there is a robust discussion about labeling advertisements to adults. Product placement has always been accepted in movies and TV shows – media in which we simply consume, not interact. Will consumers find the same apathy towards product placement in games they play and think about? We’ll see. But it is an interesting discussion none-the-less.

Either way, if a brand sees an opportunity, I think looking deeper into social gaming as a marketing tool is constructive and healthy. Get out in front of what is certainly a meaningful interaction with potential consumers, and I think it will pay off.

–jb

The Timing of Social Media

Posted on June 26, 2012 by Jacob

A new study from Buddy Media shows that brands are not tweeting at the right time.

I recommend you go and read the entire article about the study, but here is what you need to know. Brands are missing out on weekends and evenings.

According to the study, Twitter engagement is 17% higher on Saturday and Sundays than on weekdays. This makes sense, people have free time on the weekend, and some of that extra time is spent interacting on Twitter. Many brands are MIA on the weekends.

But it is not just Twitter, according to the study the most active time on Facebook, or Facebook’s “busy hours,” is from 8pm to 7am, when engagement is 17% higher. Again, brands are not around for those hours.

Why?

Because most brands interact on social media when it is convenient for them, not their audience. That is a problem.

Let’s break social media use down into two categories to explore this further; customer service and marketing. Most brands argue about the role of social media. The marketers believe it is primarily a marketing tool, and the customer service people believe it is primarily a customer service tool. It is the job of a Strategist to negotiate those two groups. Either way, we can all agree that is has benefits to each department.

Let’s start with customer service. If you are a large brand and you are answering many complaints and questions on Twitter or Facebook, what is the advantage to silence on the weekends and evenings? Internally the advantage is you don’t have to pay someone to monitor the feed. But externally, for your customers, it is probably driving them nuts. I’ve been there before, complaining to a branded Twitter account about an experience, and not receiving a response until the next business day, when it no longer mattered. If a brand is serious about social media as a customer service platform, that is unacceptable.

Most brands have at least some call center hours on the weekends and evenings. Very few just completely shut down the operation for those 48 hours. So why shut down social media?

Obviously, a brand has to look inward and determine if keeping social media channels active during these times is feasible. Analyze your Twitter and Facebook and see when people are complaining. If there are a decent number on the weekends and the evenings, someone should be there to answer their queries. Social media does not close for consumers, it shouldn’t for brands either.

Now let’s take a look at the marketing perspective. Does your brand stop running ads on the weekends? Do commercials go dark, print media run dry, and radio ads fall silent? Of course not. Just because you are not in the office, does not mean you stop marketing. That would be absurd. With modern technology, your social media presence should be active as well.

Brands should schedule tweets and Facebook posts for the weekend. And if the data shows people are active and engaging during the weekend and evenings, which this study suggests, someone should be there to interact with them.

Imagine, for a moment, that your brand caters to college students. Does it make sense to interact with them from 9am to 5pm? Absolutely not. Students are in class, working, and studying during those hours. But imagine a college targeted brand interacting with students when it really matters, at 2am. That would build some serious brand loyalty.

If brands are seriously investing in social media, they must seriously consider how to allocate that investment. In other words, if your brand sees little engagement from 9am to noon, why have your Social Media Manager come in from 9am to 5pm? Why not have them work from Noon to 8pm instead? If that is your “hot spot” time, have someone there to answer questions and interact with customers.

Brands run TV ads when their target audience is watching, why not run tweets and Facebook posts when your audience is most engaged?

–jb

How I Learned to Love Google+

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Jacob

I feel like I’ve committed a social media sin.

I need to go into the church of Facebook, find the confessional, and confess my sins to the priest. He will then give me a penance of ten Facebook posts and ten Twitter updates, and I will be absolved of my wrong doing.

My sin? I’ve been constantly using and engaging on Google+.

Forgive me father for I have sinned.

Over the past two or three weeks I have had great engagement and conversations on Google+. I have talked with like-minded people, I have talked with people that don’t agree with me, and I have found the discussions to be well-rounded and meaty.

Yes, this is the same platform that I have made fun of over the past year. I laughed at their smoke and mirrors user count, I made fun of people that claimed the engagement and conversations were great, and I even complained about the massive white space newly minted on the right hand side of the screen. But I’ve gotten over all of that. In many ways, I think Google+ has replaced Twitter for me.

Before you all roll your eyes and scoff at that notion hear me out. I’m not leaving Twitter, it is too populated for me to just pack up and leave. But I’ve found myself using it less. Here’s why.

I categorize the purpose of Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ like so…

Facebook – It is a walled garden where people are apprehensive about who sees their content and what content they see. It is very much so a personal social network, you connect and interact with people you know. That is to say, there is little discovery on Facebook. You can subscribe to famous people, but there’s so much going on in the Facebook interface, discovering content and people is not an easy task. Furthermore, I don’t believe that’s the purpose of Facebook. It has been, and probably always will be, a tool to stay connected with people who you have previously connected with. Therefore, when I’m posting content that interests me, I rarely post it to Facebook. I want to have discussions about this content, and Facebook is more personal and private for me.

Twitter – It is Texas; wide open. The ability to discover is rather high, the site will recommend people to follow, sharing other people’s content is easy, and the ability for content to go “viral” is high. However, the discussions are lack luster. I’ve found that having conversations on Twitter is an exercise in futility. Sometimes it is downright frustrating. It is great for sharing and receiving links and articles, but if I want to have an actual discussion I’ll probably have it on Google+ and publicize it on Twitter.

Google+ – It is the best of both worlds. The ability to discover is high and the ability to converse is high. I can follow very influential people in the technology space, and have really good discussions will the other people that follow them. I can even use the platform for short form blogging. Google makes it easy to see what is “hot” on the platform with the “Explore” tab, and that gives me the ability to find people that I might be interested in. Furthermore, those great discussions I’m having in the comments on posts give me the ability to find average everyday people that I might be interested in following. Therefore Google+ can expand my reach and consumption to levels that I rarely get on Twitter or Facebook.

Yesterday I had Google+ opened at work. I usually open my three social networks; G+, Twitter, and Facebook. I routinely check all of them for the latest information. However yesterday was different, I forgot to open Tweekdeck. And ya know what? I didn’t even notice. I have sufficiently supplemented my Twitter consumption with Google+ and it was more enjoyable because there wasn’t as much noise. I have to do so much mental filtering when reading my Twitter stream it is maddening. On Twitter it might take four tweets to complete a full thought or conversation. On Google+ it all goes into one post. It makes it so much easier to consume the same information.

People who find no value in Google+ are using it incorrectly. I’m sorry, it is the truth. You cannot be a watcher on Google+. On Twitter it is perfectly fine to sit back and watch the tweets go by. Pick up some information here and there and get your fill. You probably aren’t getting the most out of it, but it works because there’s so much information. If you are just watching Twitter, you will not find the same experience on Google+, mainly because there is information overlap, but also because Google+ users have oriented their posts and their experience towards conversations.

I learned this by diving in and commenting, sharing, and +1ing people’s posts. I discovered a more gratifying service that was actually worth my time. It fills a gap in my social media. I was having conversations on Facebook, but they were mainly with friends and family and they were mostly shallow. Twitter, I was retweeting, posting, and engaging, but it was hard to convey my thoughts in 140 characters, often less if I included a link. Google+ gives me the opportunity to no only express my thoughts, but to also find new people that have similar thoughts or opposing thoughts. In other words, the chance of someone seeing my comment on Google+ is higher than someone seeing my tweet on Twitter. Furthermore, there’s a greater chance they’ll respond and engage on Google+. Even better, because that comment is attached to a particular person and post (i.e. topic), it is even more targeted than Twitter.

So to the social media gods I may have sinned. I like Google+ and I shouldn’t. I should hate it and think it is a wasteland. I should believe there are no conversations and no people.

But even the gods know that’s not true.

–jb

UPDATE: Well good morning to me! I woke up this morning and my phone was blowing up with feedback from this post, thank you all! Special thanks to Mike Elgan on Google+ who originally shared this with his followers. I wanted to post a little update to expand on this Google+ topic because already I’ve seen some awesome additions to the original post.

Kavit Trivedi in the comments below wrote, “See, +1s are more than Facebook Shares.” Which is absolutely true, and I think this post proves the value of Google+ shares and +1′s and the value of Facebook shares and likes. Again, this all depends on how you are using Facebook, some people have a huge following on Facebook, and sharing content on that platform starts good discussions and conversations. But again, you are just sharing it with your group of friends, and even big names on Facebook like Robert Scoble have commenting turned off unless you are a friend of a friend.

Google+ is more open, allowing people to comment on anything and share anything. On Facebook your post navigates a maze, hitting walls and stalling from time to time. On Google+ it’s like a dog in an open field, running in any direction and rolling around in the dirt. Things can spread faster and get more discussion going, this post proves that.

Also in the comments of this post, Suannlim21 made a great point about the deepening of conversations on Google+, “…conversations deepen/expand from posts, to chats (voice/video) to real time video hangouts with many regardless of their multiple geographical locations. Oh yes, and how posts are archived for future easy search/reference and that you can edit them anytime.”

This is also an important point. Oftentimes it seems like Twitter is hurting conversations by limiting them to 140 characters each. I understand the market they’re going after, and it works for some people, but it has almost forced Twitter into amplification only, instead of meaningful conversations. Google+ has taken the opposite approach, open up the opportunity to communicate, and provide new avenues for communication. This is an important part of social media – a part that Google+ is doing right.

Iain McFadyen on Google+ likened the platform to the old message boards, “I think Google+ has bought the old Message Board ethos to social networking, that is, it doesn’t matter who, what or where you are…valid input is always welcome here…and it’s a brilliant thing.?”

I’m not sure how many of you were active on message boards in the early 2000′s but I certainly see his point. Back then people were very loyal to their board of choice and would actively sift through content and add their two cents. This was welcomed and encouraged. You got very little out of a message board by simply looking at the content. I remember getting in Mac vs. PC debates on the old TechTV message boards. Good times. There are similarities between those boards and Google+. The openness, interactivity being more important than passive reading, and the community. I sense more loyalty among Google+ users than users of any other social network. That is important when fostering discussion.

Keep the feedback coming, I’m loving hearing how everyone uses Google+ and their thoughts about how it compares to other social networks.

The Clash: Facebook’s Battle Between Users and Advertisers

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Jacob

It is safe to say at this point that Facebook’s IPO was a dud.

That is not to say they will not bounce back, or beat estimates on earnings, or make boatloads of cash. But their Initial Public Offering certainly left something to be desired.

Maybe these investors are more keen on the value of Facebook than we gave them credit for. Maybe people outside Silicon Valley realize that Facebook has an incredible amount of holes in their business plan, chief among them the fact that their “mission” runs directly into the face of how they plan to make money.

The biggest black mark on Facebook heading up to their IPO was GM pulling out $10 million dollars in ads from the social media platform. At the time I wrote how it was no big deal, and I continue to believe the story is more fluff than substance, but this week we got some new details.

We previously knew that GM and Facebook had a meeting to discuss GM’s ad buys. Previously, all we knew was that Facebook had pushed the free services it provides (brand pages) to GM, and we were puzzled. Facebook was going public, they needed to push not the free stuff, but rather the paid stuff. This made little sense. Well, recent news cleared up some things. Turns out GM wanted to buy more ad space, but not the pathetic little Facebook-looking squares, rather they wanted something bigger, spectacular, and unique to GM. Facebook declined.

I saw one comment about this story that bashed GM for wanting to turn Facebook into “TV advertising.” Hardly. That completely misunderstands what’s happening here. GM wanted to spend more money to reach consumers, no problem with that. Facebook wants to maintain the integrity of their network and user experience, no problem with that either. GM already has a plethora of free brand pages where they interact with consumers, and I’ve interviewed an executive at GM who handles their social media and digital strategy, I assure you, they get it.

This story does not present a GM problem, it presents a Facebook problem. Facebook is now public, they generate money from advertising. Yet at the same time, they seem opposed to advertising. The truth is, paid advertising on Facebook is no better than TV or print – it interrupts and clutters the experience. However, Facebook offers no other options. That needs to change, and fast.

Facebook’s mission is “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.” That is a great textbook mission; short, concise, and to the point. However, it forces Facebook to walk a very fine line with advertising.

There is a knee-jerk reaction, that certainly has truth, that when corporate dollars begin to invade a platform, it is no longer open and free. Facebook did not want to give GM more visible ad buys because their platform would no longer be viewed as “open and free,” it would be viewed as “sponsored by GM.”

To many of its users, open and free means unfettered by major corporate dollars. It means that no corporation has such a large advertising stake that they can make critical decisions about the platform. To be fair, I don’t believe GM has any interest in making key Facebook decisions, all they care about is selling cars, but user perception is what matters. Facebook does not have users locked into a long-term contract, they can leave en masse at any time.

Furthermore, there’s a chasm within the company between business and changing the world. It is very clear Mark Zuckerberg has little interest in business affairs; he ruffled feathers in the investor community by wearing his signature hoodie and jeans during the IPO roadshow, and he couldn’t even travel to New York for the the first day of trading, opting to “ring the bell” from Menlo Park, CA. Zuckerberg is 100 percent focused on the user, their experience, and how they can use Facebook to make the world “more open and free.”

Sherly Sandberg, on the other hand, is focused 100 percent on making money. Facebook is now a public company, if investors are going to put up money, they need to see returns. Especially when Facebook’s stock price is over 100 times their earnings. Sandberg is committed to making sure Facebook stays in the black, very high in the black.

At face this is not an issue, it is not unusual for a company to have someone focused completely on business and a separate person completely on the consumer. However, Facebook is different. Their desired path of monetization directly affects the user experience.

Consumers are inundated with advertising everywhere, furthermore they are tired of advertisements that interrupt – taking away from the experience of consuming media. Facebook understands this, so they’ve done their darndest to make their advertising targeted and cohesive – thus limit the interruption. Visually, Facebook ads look like any other Facebook post, except they are on the right hand side and marked as an advertisement. Anything above and beyond this might be deemed too loud and interrupting.

Thus, GM’s ambitions of having a more grandiose advertising presence on the site, could run the risk of turning off users. So Facebook turned down what was likely millions of dollars and sided with the user.

Totally fine for a private company, not so great for a public company.

If Facebook is going to succeed monetarily with advertising as their primary income they will have to expand its scope and size. They cannot continue growth with blended in ads that are poorly targeted. They need to go bigger. It does not have to be huge banner ads on the top of the site, it could be a host of tools for brand pages that increase visibility and performance, but something must be done to break the mold of the tired ole’ “targeted” ads.

Missing the Target: The State of Google’s Targeted Ads

Posted on April 21, 2012 by Jacob

Targeted ads have become the sweet nectar of the internet advertising industry.

It is what made Google and Facebook billions of dollars. It is the go-to model for nearly every internet startup, and recently Google expanded it further by allowing all of their services to communicate with one another to provide more information about each user.

The purpose of that convergence? Feeding you “targeted ads” of course.

But is it really working? Think about the ads you see on Google, in your Gmail account, and on your Facebook page; do they really reflect you? How often have you clicked them?

Just this morning I was reading an email within my Gmail account from my geography professor. I read the email, but then I looked to my right and saw the targeted ads for the email. Initially I was not surprised to see ads for the University of Phoenix and ITT Technical Institute, after all the ads are based on the message content, and the content of the message is academic in nature.

But then I remembered Google’s privacy policy shift earlier this year, all of the information on all of my Google services can now communicate with one another. With that infrastructure in mind, why was I receiving an ad for an academic institution?

For starters, the email was from a professor to a student; however, the way the message was worded would not make that abundantly clear, so I’ll give Google a pass on that one. But look at my Google+ profile; it clearly states that I “attend” Michigan State University. That’s present tense; furthermore I entered my graduation year in my Google+ profile as well.

So Google knows I currently attend a university, and yet they still decide to offer me ads for other universities in an email from a current professor? That’s not targeted to me at all; it’s targeted to the content of the email. That is all well and good, and in some instances it might be applicable to me, but their ad services can now grab information from my Google+ profile and use it when displaying ads in Gmail, so theoretically I should be receiving better ads.

But I’m not. So do targeted ads really work?

Let’s take a look at Facebook, the platform notorious for targeted ads. Facebook takes a different approach than Google and Gmail. In Gmail the ads are much like the advertisements AdSense would show me on a third party website; which is to say they are based on content, not the receiver of the message.

Facebook is focused on the receiver. It would be impossible, and downright silly, to serve me ads based on the content of my newsfeed. There are a thousand topics being discussed in that newsfeed, there’s no way to tell which ones I’m interested in unless I “like” a post. So, Facebook gives me ads based on me, and from what I can tell, they do a pretty good job.

Currently, I’m getting an ad in my newsfeed that reads, “Social Jobs Partnership. How can I make sure my profile is appropriate for potential employers?”

That is incredibly relevant to me. With the data I’ve posted to Facebook, they’ve been able to discern that I’m almost done with college and searching for a job. Based on that information, they’ve given me a relevant ad that is timely to my life.

Now back to Google, they have to know I’m in the job market, all of my job correspondence and leads are coming into my Gmail account. They know a lot about my job search.

Yet when I open up an email from a job search website I get ads that aren’t exactly targeted.

The email includes a listing of available jobs that I would be interested in, all of the jobs have something to do with either marketing, social media, or digital communications. Yet the ads are The University of Phoenix, PNC Bank, Clairol Hair Color, CDL Truck Driving Jobs, Generic Job Search Ad, ITT Tech, African American Jobs, and Senior Services (old people) jobs.

With all of the information Google has about me they screwed up two very important demographics. Seeing as I’m a male and white, I should not be seeing ads for Clairol Hair Color and African American Jobs. Furthermore there were no ads that related to media jobs, digital media, or social media, which was the brunt of the content in the email.

Meanwhile, over on Facebook, I’m getting ads on several pages for, VW DriveGear (I own a Volkswagen), a band coming to Grand Rapids, Michigan (I live 45 minutes away), SchoolCraft College alerting Michigan State Students they can get transfer credit (I go to Michigan State), and WordPress hosting (all of my websites are hosted on WordPress).

In the battle of targeted advertising, Facebook is running circles around Google. But why?

Facebook is at a unique advantage when it comes to targeted ads, every piece of information they retain about a user was provided by that user with complete knowledge it was being provided. In other words, I literally gave Facebook my information and I knew they were taking it. Did I initially believe it would be used for advertising? Not at first, but that was made abundantly clear years ago, and I continued to give them information. And the only reason I provide Facebook with information is so other people can read it.

Google, on the other hand, gleans information. Before Google+, they would gather details about you, based on information you used to search for something or read in an email. The information was provided for purposes of gathering search results, not for someone to read.

According to Read Write Web, a Pew Study of targeted ads found, “Search engines are increasingly important to people in their navigation of information spaces, but users are generally uncomfortable with the idea of their search histories being used to target information to them,” said Kristen Purcell, Pew Internet associate director for research and author of the report. “A clear majority of searchers say that they feel that search engines keeping track of search history is an invasion of privacy, and they also worry about their search results being limited to what is deemed relevant to them.”

Google has to walk a fine line because people are not welcoming of their search data being used for advertisements, let alone their private emails. Facebook is different; you provide information to their service for the purpose of it being read by others.

That is why Google+ is so important to Google, it is a platform where users willingly provide information for other people to read, therefore Google using that info for targeted ads is less egregious. It also helps explain why Google’s latest privacy policy change was so important to the company. Without the ability to share that valuable Google+ information across all their platforms, it would essentially be useless.

It will take time for Google to fully implement that information sharing. As far as I can tell they’re still working on it. Right now in the war of targeted advertising, Google is simply missing the target.

Status Update Beta Test

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Jacob

This is the beta test of my latest podcast, Status Update. It’s a social media and social technology show. We talk mobile tech, apps, Facebook, Twitter, and anything else in the social media world. Take a listen and let us know what you think!

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Status Update Beta Test
Sunday January 8, 2012
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Jared Weseman

STORIES
CES is Looming
Acer Announcer Worlds Thinnest Ultrabook
Acer unveils cloud services, looks a lot like Apple
Acer also announces new 1080p, Android ICS tablet
AT&T Galaxy Tab being announced, is it a phone or tablet?
Social Media Companies Consider “Nuclear Option”
Would shut down services for a day in protest
Google Might Announce Nexus Tablet
Study finds iPhone 4S uses most data of all iPhones
Siri is the Culprit
Innovative Ways to Use Social Media
Cab Driver uses Twitter to get repeat customers
Quick Hits
Twitter Verification comes under fire after fake account gets through
Pantech to release a “waterproof” tablet
Rumor Mill: iPad to be announced in January, with new screen technology
App Drawer
Jared: Pocket Casts
Jacob: Wunderlist

This episode, while being a beta test, provides a good idea of what the show will feel like and cover. If you have any suggestions or feedback, please let us know.
Twitter: @StatusUpdateRTM
Facebook: StatusUpdateShow
Email: su at redtie dot tv

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Why I Like the New Facebook

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Jacob

It has become a tradition.

At least once every six months, Facebook makes a major change, their users hate the change initially and complain. Then after about a one week grace period, they’re fine. The users get use to the change, realize the intention, and eventually it’s difficult to envision the social networking website without the the latest implementations.

However, this latest set of changes from the company are the most jarring yet. All users have seen the redesigned newsfeed. Instead of sorting through stories by “Most Popular” and “Most Recent,” Facebook now determines the most important stories since your last visit, and then gives you the option to view the most recent stories if you wish. Personally, I hated the change initially, as of course if tradition, but then realized Facebook did a good job of picking important stories and posts that I wanted to read.

The new Facebook profile, coming in the next few weeks. Click for a larger image.

But that’s not even the half of it. As most people have already seen, Facebook profiles are getting a major face lift. Instead of the traditional wall that includes your status updates, recent activity, and friend’s posts, you get a timeline that has all of that information and a whole lot more, ordered chronologically in two columns.

Technically speaking the new profile is no different from the old profile. You still have a wall, it’s just visualized in a new way. Instead of a “toilet paper” roll of information from most recent to oldest, you have navigation on the right side where you can select which year you’d like to view. Information is displayed in two columns with an emphasis on pictures. You can now add various life events to your timeline including illnesses, buying a new house or car, and even when you got your drivers license. When you add a new “experience” Facebook asks for a picture and then prominently displays that picture when they add the event to your timeline.

There are various other visual changes including the “cover image,” the ability to add a large image at the top of your profile that has your profile picture on top of it in the bottom right-hand corner. There are also visual changes to your “likes” and friends list, putting a emphasis on larger, richer images.

This is easily the most profound change Facebook has ever made. But why did they do it?

I bought a new car, uploaded a picture, and the image if the focal point of the post

Some people will claim pressure from the new social network Google+ caused them to make stunning changes that would engage users in different ways and keep people around. I’d call B.S. on that. For starters, this is such an overhaul that it’s difficult to imagine them putting this together in the short couple of months that Google+ has been around. This vision for a new profile and new way to display information has probably been bouncing around the walls of the Facebook offices for at least a year.

Put simply, this change is more thought out than any other change we’ve seen, leading me to believe the idea has been around much longer than Google+ has been active.

In the past, Facebook changes seem to have been implemented simply because it was “time to change.” Without keeping the look and feel fresh, people would flee (see MySpace). So they would put the chat in a sidebar (which is annoying and meaningless), they would make minor tweaks to the profiles to make them look more updated, and they would integrate the chat and messages (which is terribly confusing). Facebook fiddled with changes to keep things lively and fresh. But this change shows the social network is looking in a completely different direction.

Facebook wants to be your one stop shop for everything. Not unlike Yahoo has tried to do with sections on sports, music, movies, etc. Facebook has integrated music streaming, they’ve integrated video chatting, and with the new profile, they plan to change the network from just a site where people can post funny stories or posts on people’s wall, into a network that stores rich, meaningful information that tells your story to anyone you want.

Facebook is becoming the network where long-lost friends reconnect, where family members keep tabs on their cousins across the country, and where friends take a peak at what each other did on Saturday night when they split up after that party.

Imagine this scenario: you’re in college, you are randomly searching Facebook and come across an old friend from elementary school, you befriend them on a whim. They accept your friendship. But what kind of a connection is that? You don’t know anything about them, you’ve simply confirmed that you recall their existence.

In the old Facebook you could scroll back in their life and see what they have done in the last few years, but that would require a lot of clicking “view older posts” and a lot of sifting through posts. With the new Facebook, just click a year, select a month, and see what they’ve done. Is it still creepy? Maybe, but it doesn’t feel nearly as creepy as having to literally dig through thousands of posts in the old Facebook to find what you want.

The old Facebook was you breaking into their house and going through their personal items to gather information. The new Facebook is sitting down to dinner with them and having a conversation. They are willingly giving you this information, with the new profile it’s not hidden at all. (Side note for older readers: I don’t actually believe Facebook can replace face-to-face communication).

Life is a story, it’s a story you routinely tell your family and friends, the new Facebook is just an easier and more intuitive way to tell that story. For those that think the new Facebook is too invasive and creepy; leave, or turn up your privacy settings. And don’t forget, you have control over the information you put online about yourself, if you don’t want certain people to know it, don’t post it. Although now Facebook has taken a page out of the Google+ book and allows you to share information with only certain groups of people, so that should help some.

The new profile is coming in the next two to four weeks. I’m sure there will be the typical backlash, until people start playing with it. Once you click the oldest date available and reminisce about your first Facebook post and old photos, you’ll see the story telling power of the new look and feel, and just like all the other changes, you’ll learn to love it.

Not just live with it.