Thoughts on informational velocity and the near-future of twitter. With references to @Oreo and @NNTaleb

On Optionalities[i] and Perpetual Betas[ii]:

Twitter and ‘Bursts of inconsequential information[iii] 

            Twitter is fascinating for many reasons. When you think about it, its founders – Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams and Biz Stone – have one true perpetual beta. It started with traditional blogs through blogger, which they sold to Google. Then they moved to podcasting with Odeo. Then you had twitter. Shortly after, they added integrated photo sharing. They acquired Posterous last year, and rolled out Vine early this year.

Long-form, audio, short-form, pictures, long-form, short-video. These are fundamentally all experiments with form and style in communication. Where Facebook is the summation of yours, your friends’ and families’ thoughts and experiences, twitter is more like Google – a vast open mindscape that forces the communicator to likewise condense both the profound and the banal into 140 characters.

Twitter’s business model, however, can’t mimic either – at least, not in its current design avatar. Facebook is where you go to see what your friends are up to. Google is where you go when you need to find something specific, or general information about something. What is the behavior that twitter elicits? One might argue that twitter is where you go to have a conversation. A river you dip in and out of from time to time. We know a river is ever-changing, but twitter has not only speed but also informational velocity. Without any form of algorithm to slow down the feed, there is no flavor of the month, week, or even day. The informational velocity on twitter can change by the hour or minute.

Now I would argue that what advertisers – the business-model of choice in social – pay for is fundamentally predictability. If you look at the ad metrics of old you will see that the reason ‘soap operas’ exist is because TV dramas with a high probability of housewives watching them became the preeminent contact point for FMCG firms selling soap. So how does that work in a system that thrives on randomness and chaos? Well, maybe we can take pointers from two unlikely sources – Nassim Nicholas Taleb – Professor of Risk Engineering at NYU, and, umm, Oreo.

Taleb’s life’s work has centered on the principle of philo-stochasticity – or, that which gains from chaos – which he today calls ‘the antifragile’[iv]. How can twitter gain from chaos? Well, in my opinion, creating a deeper ‘search’ function within the network (currently tweets disappear from search after a certain point) may allow for twitter to better position its promoted tweets to maximize clickthroughs – they already do this with trending topics – but this is not quite it.

What I believe they can add is what we’ve learned from Oreo’s hijacking of the superbowl blackout[v] on twitter: create a two-speed advertising network – one that allows advertisers to promote tweets/promos around topics, and one that gives advertisers data for changes in informational velocity that can help them make more responsive campaigns harnessing relevance in current events. Trending #tags do this somewhat for users, but it needs to be better visualized, and flagged earlier to be of use to marketers. That may well be where a successful future of twitter lies. Volatile. Adaptive. Philo-stochastic.



Endnotes and References

 

[i]The value of additional optional investment opportunities available only after having made an initial investment.’ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/optionality  

[ii] The open source dictum, “release early and release often” in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, “the perpetual beta,” in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=4

[iii]Twitter creator Jack Dorsey illuminates the site’s founding document’ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/twitter-creator.html

 

[iv] ‘Taleb on Antifragility’ [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4MhC5tcEv0?wmode=transparent]

 

Google’s Plus Paradox

I was in the middle of the Rajasthani desert last week, and something occurred to me about Google’s product strategy, which I figured would be good to note down. 

Now, this is a completely intuitive reading, so bear with me.

Now, for the average user, the core proposition of Google is its search algorithm. 

When you think about it, Google (its consumer-facing side) works best in a client-server / 1-1 relationship with its consumers.

You ASK Google to find you something.

You ASK GMail to save and store your email.

You ASK Google Maps how to get from point-A to point-B.

You ASK Google Translate what “I love you” translates to in Spanish.

Even looking at products like Android/Chrome OS, Chrome or YouTube – they are all primarily consumption/use-focused.

At a corporate level, Google is fundamentally still a search company. Their vision, one should keep in mind, is “to organize the World’s information and make it universally accessible and useful“. Their revenues are also derived by-and-large from their core search product.

Google’s purpose, its relationship with us, is to keep our data organized, to answer our queries, to help us do stuff. And Google does this better than anyone.

Which brings us to Google and social, and its two initiatives – Google+, and +1.

Now, with Google+ none of the features I have seen, certainly, seem particularly intuitively “social”.

I would argue that they are designed rather for computers to keep things organized than people. We know that (a) the algorithm does a good job in understanding what kinds of data-sets are privileged in what kinds of contexts (perhaps too much?), and (b) that Google has a strong belief and foundation in machine-learning/statistical-learning.

Having used Google+ for a bit, I found that stuff like Circles, for example, was not particularly intuitive. (I have three lists on FB, and data shared is pre-set, and almost never customized. If I need to communicate with a smaller group, there’s groups or old-fashioned email for that — people like to segregate behaviors across networks when it comes to dealing with various groups, not aggregate them onto a singular network.)

But Circles, with the numbers using Google+ for the first time (regardless of the fall-off) gives Google new “connections” / “groupings” to work with in understanding what data is valued in what context.

And how does Google+ tie into Google’s “business” side of things? — i.e. Search Revenue? It doesn’t quite, especially if, as a few Google executives have said, it’s not directly competing with Facebook at present.

What then, is the utility of + to Google? I believe it’s two things.

1. Google+ gives them new relationships between data-sets to parse and understand (via Circles), and 

2. And this is the big one – +1.

I don’t post much to Google+ any more, it’s extra effort for nothing — I have an established behavior on Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Flickr, Instagram; and Google+ doesn’t unearth or prescribe any new need/behavior/desire to connect.

But I’m more than willing to add a +1 to articles I like (which I may not necessarily RT, because it’s worth the read, but not important enough to share — same with Like.) 

And this of course ties into machine-learning. +1 gives Google a more qualitative feedback on what data-sets (sites/pages/stories/products/etc) work, and what don’t.

And it ties into how Google has transitioned, over the last decade, from showing you top results based on what everyone was searching for, to showing you top results based on what your friends are searching for.

Which, when you think about it, is the social recommendations (that you might otherwise post to facebook asking) but in the client-server model, with Google still your gateway to whatever you might be searching for.

Google+ may well be a broader reorganization of Google, the backbone linking its various products to its core product – search. Not so much a social network. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Well that’s my 2c on the subject. Comments, feedback, inputs, suggestions much appreciated. You can drop me a line at aditya dot anupkumar at gmail dot com, too.

 

die, birdie; birdie, die!

Media_httpwwwadweekco_sfazi

The difference between Twitter and Facebook – and the reason why Facebook will likely be scalable and why Twitter likely won’t – comes down to the medium.

Twitter is ultimately a broadcast medium. Whether 1-1, 1-many, or many-many it invariably stops at just that – the exchange of data. Facebook on the other hand, is an ecosystem. Apart from communication it also creates interaction via “apps”.

The idea of paying real money for symbolic (virtual) value is nothing new – and the latest to pick up on it is Zynga.

On Facebook, people have been, for three years now, encouraged to pay $1 to do a variety of things, from “sending someone beer” (a beer icon, on their facebook page) to feeding your virtual dog (foopets) to buying some designer crop on Farmville.

Zynga is the firm behind Farmville and other games such as Fishville and Cafe World, and is positioned to make a lot of money on Facebook.

I stumbled across this short note discussing their business proposition and model (see below)

In the meanwhile, you can also read this Adweek article, titled “The tweet hereafter”.

I had a real shocker when Farmville published that they managed to raise more than half a million dollars for charity. How did they manage that?

So I did a little research and found amazing things about their business model:

1) Low cost
Creating an application in Facebook is relatively low cost compared to high capital investment industries like infrastructure and manufacturing. You’d just have to outsource the programming to an IT company or even individuals to do so. Moreover, the games are played on a repetitive basis so lesser development goes into building a complex game engine or storyline or graphics (unlike WOW).

2) High Margins
Games like Farmville sell items using a virtual currency. Items are sold on a per item basis. Having an intermediate currency disassociates the buyer from the real price of the virtual good/item bought but at the same time, creating the same level of joy of obtaining as a real item. Essentially, Zynga sells “happiness”.

3) Sticky games
Games developed by Zynga keeps you coming back for more and entrenches you deeper and deeper as you progress. No one wants to lose an empire after spending so much time invested in it. A

4) Customers are the sales force
This has become so much apparent that the feeds on profiles have become spammy in a sense. However, it is tolerable as it works on a permission basis and friends do not mind something if it is posted by yourself. In fact, with the trust set already, the friends looking at the profiles would tend to want to get involved as well.  There isn’t a need to even place an advert on Facebook to get more customers. Users do it for Zynga by putting such ads on the highly demanded real estate on their profile page. Another indicator of a strong sales force is the number of reviews outside Facebook itself.

5) Repeat Customers
A facebook user does not only play one Zynga game but several of them at the same time. Essentially, Zynga upsells when they can as well as seen by the ads in the games.

6) Huge base of Customers
Not everyone will purchase something. Just like me. However, you can see that Farmville alone has about 60 million active users. There are more than 10 games and still more coming up I believe. To make a rough estimation. If 1 in every 600 people makes a regular purchase of $1 daily (really a pinch of salt for many of us), it is already a daily revenue of $100,000 for Farmville.