ImpactWatch Blog

Since its creation in 2003, Facebook has since become a household name, a verb, and a social medium by which millions are people are connected.  With unique visitors of upwards of 70M, it shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon.  In those years, several updates have been made: some good, some great, some…questionable.  Below is my opinion on what succeeded and what should have been avoided.

August 2006 – Notes (Never really that popular to begin with)

One of the first major additions was Facebook’s attempt to mirror blogging.  Using Notes, users could write their inner-most thoughts and feelings that a standard user profile couldn’t hold.  However, Notes have one major flaw: they mirror blogging, the most popular and widely competitive Web 2.0 nonsense.  Most users just stick to their own blogs and share the links in their profile.

September 2006 – News Feed (rose in popularity)

Ah, yes!  The controversial News Feed!  This baby started a riot when it was first introduced over two years ago.  People couldn’t stand that select private information from their profile was plastered for all to see.  The cries didn’t go unnoticed, and customizable privacy features were added.  Today the News Feed stands as a portal to the rest of Facebook; it’s the best page to look at when you’re just bored.

February 2007 – Gifts (Nosedived in popularity)

These cute little buggers above are called Facebook ‘gifts’ and when originally introduced, purchases of them automatically donated a portion to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.  Initially, these proved very popular, but in time the donation aspect ended and Facebook Platform (which I’ll cover in a bit) dominated virtual gift-giving with free options.  Most gifts rest stagnant in profiles as remnants of the once popular gimmick.

May 2007 – Platform and Applications (Declined slowly in popularity)

One of the biggest changes to Facebook was its attempt to give more creativity to the users.  With the new Platform system, any user could create an application for near-immediate use.  (For more on applications, feel free to check out my study on them located here)

These haven’t lost as much popularity as gifts, but they have certainly declined in interest.  What was once fascinating to users soon became irritating as invitations to new ’snow ball fights’ bombarded inboxes.  Jesse Farmer of 20Bits writes about the decline of the Platform and how the developing forums are falling into disuse.

May 2007 – Marketplace (Stagnant)

There’s not much to say about the Marketplace other than it was overwhelmed by the same-month introduction of the Platform.  It’s simply Craigslist with one major difference: only users in your networks can see the listings.  Whether that’s an advantage or a disadvantage is up to you.

July 2007 – Attachments on Wall (Smart move, high popularity)

Facebook got it right this time!  Allowing users to add video, links, and more to friends’ walls was a brilliant and timely move.  I have no complaints about this, and I’ve discovered some great videos thanks to it.

April 2008 – Chat Features (Low popularity)

It was an interesting move for Facebook to add SMS-ish features to the system, which are now implementable in popular freeware programs like Pidgin.  Did Facebook users really need the ability to chat while they were checking in?  Not really, but Facebook hadn’t made a big update in a while, and nothing’s ever stopped this social network giant from updating just for the sake of updating in the past.

July 2008 – ‘New’ Facebook (Mixed popularity)

Eric wrote an extensive review of the new Facebook format when it was new.  It pretty much sums up what everyone thinks: meh.  It’s got a lot of good, but some bad.  Overall, users have adjusted to the new format well, and I personally like the less cluttered look.

December 2008 – New Signup Process (New!)

Facebook is currently testing a simpler signup process.  They’re hoping to close the gap between Facebook and MySpace by making it even easier to get a profile.  After the riot that resulted from the new terms of service agreement, it’s a wise move to offer something new/good.

As you can see in the graph below, Facebook is definitely closing the gap.

A few days ago 2009 – News Feed Facelift (Too soon to tell)

It’s a pretty controversial move to change the News Feed’s layout, especially since (as I stated above) it was one of most disliked changes when it first debuted.  The new feed layout is similar, except way more “Twittery” with real time updates and changes.  Also, in order to cram more information onto the feed, updates that used to say “Noah wrote on Anne’s wall” now simply say “Noah -> Anne”.

It’s also much easier to update your status with an obvious content box fitted snuggly at the top of the feed.  Yep: it’s Twitter-tastic.

I don’t care for the hyper-abbreviated notices for things like wall posts, but I do like the new organization of the fan pages, events, and birthdays.  Also, now all the thumbnails have rounded edges.  Now that’s just safer!

If you haven’t logged into Facebook recently, go ahead and take a nice gander. Things have changed quite a bit with their most recent design. Drawing quite a bit off of Twitter, the site is now truly up-to-the-second with updates, wall posts, messages — all of it merging into your homepage in a glob of real time conversation.

There are a lot of non-Twitter users on Facebook — and redesigns of Zuckerberg’s web portal are often met with passive aggressive resistance, such as the formation of anti-Facebook Design Team groups and status updates ridden with complaints against the change. Alas, once the masses use the new format for long enough, they accept that it won’t change back and even the late adopters hop on board.

This set of changes will challenge some users to think outside of their user experience comfort zone, in a way that is more drastic than previous redesigns. It changes the dynamic a lot.

That said, the changes are pretty logical and in the opinion of this daily user, a long time coming. This is the kind of change that will inform millions and millions off people on the ways of socially driven media, forcing them to become part of the real-time conversation.

Facebook's Original Homepage

#followfriday is a phenomenon in the Twitter community. Essentially, people are tweeting about interesting people that they follow on Twitter to promote and share them with their own followers. In doing this they’re helping to promote and grow their own network.

So you’re following all these new and interesting people, and many of them are probably following you back to find out what you’re all about which leads to an email from Twitter telling you about it.

The email is pretty basic. Here’s an example:

Hi, Chuck Fitzpatrick (chuckfitz).

RedCross (American Red Cross) is now following your updates on Twitter.

Check out RedCross’s profile here:
http://twitter.com/RedCross

The first thing you’re probably going to do is click on the profile link to learn more about who that is. That’s where Twimailer comes in. It’s a middle-man replacement for the basic email that you normally get from Twitter directly. Check out this screen shot of the email I get now.

The Twimailer email has all of the info you were going to go look up anyway right there in front of you.

• Profile picture
• Full name
• Last 10 tweets
• Number of people they are following
• Number of followers
• Their bio information

Plus it still has the link to their page so you can follow them back. Of course, that’s if they don’t have crazy following and follower counts and their last 10 tweets were about the get-rich-quick plan they want to sell you.

Check out Twimailer and let me know what you think in the comments. And if you want to celebrate #followfriday you can always follow ImpactWatch or me!

Yesterday I was walking through Mexico City and I snapped a photo of a tanning salon. I thought that, coupled with a witty comment, it would make a great tweet. Selling sun to tan people in one of the world’s sunniest cities seems like a pretty funny business to be running in a global recession.

But I haven’t posted it.

I haven’t fully embraced the new ability to embed photos in Twitter with Power Twitter. They distract me. I feel like they are encroaching on other tweets’ personal space. And I’m assuming other users are noticing this too – making the addition of a video or photo a new tactic for making your tweet stand out from the rest.

So I have to get used to videos and photos in my Twitterstream and probably lots of them: photos of your cat, your recorded marketing pitch, any even-slightly-humorous video you find on YouTube.

I’ve made my peace with that. But would it be too much to ask for Twitter to add them a little more discreetly? How about a thumbnail with mouse-over to enlarge? Or as @pugofwar suggested on twitter this morning, a Lightbox* image on clicking.

What do you think of the new “Post Photo” feature? Are you using it? Are you loving it? Do you long for the days of links and Twitpic?

Check out Hannah’s photo-free profile on Twitter.

*That’s the script that makes images appear “over” the web page, then you click to close them.

How do you know what you know? It’s a question worth asking that seldom crosses people’s minds. When it comes to media literacy, few people stop to critically analyze the sources from which their news originates. After all the prestige and organization is stripped from it, mass media boils down to a story written by a biased individual.

One of the widely recognized normative goals of journalistic media is to remain “objective” and “unbiased”, a lofty and impossible goal. Unavoidable forces such as deadlines, ownership, the author’s personal worldview, editorial influence, and story selection all contribute to media bias. What I’m trying to get at is that news isn’t always fair, and anyone with a vested interest in their publicity should be wary of their perception in the media.

Take, for example, someone recently familiar with media coverage: Sarah Palin. Without speaking to my personal favorability, what comes to mind at the mention of her name? Does the term Malibu Barbie, the popular appearances of Tina Fey, or opinions about wardrobe selection come to mind? In reality, many people were turned off by Sarah Palin. Over her campaign for vice presidency, the media chose to zoom in on certain aspects of her personal life, imagery, and political history (as is the media’s responsibility for anybody vying for a spot as prestigious as she was). Whether you felt Sarah Palin was treated fairly or unfairly is irrelevant to my point: the picture you saw was painted entirely by the media.

Some wisdom can be drawn from this. If revenue is driven by consumers, and consumers are informed by an inherently biased media, it is necessary to “maintain” public image with the public. This is nothing new. Public relations firms have been around since the days of Edward Bernays, and before that in other forms. Building relationships with the public, networking with relevant (and influential) members of the media, and responding to negative criticisms are all key qualitative elements to maintaining desired public perception.

Somewhere along the way, a little thing called the internet came along. It took some time to catch on, but it is unstoppable; a TV-killer. Please take advice from this youngster: Do not underestimate its influence. While traditional media personalities have come to terms and accepted the internet as part of their toolbox (see our newspaper study), nobody could predict the overall influence social media would have on media relations. Tweets and blogs and spaces of all varieties have popped up anywhere and everywhere I seem to be looking. For the first real time in history, a medium with virtually instantaneous feedback has become the norm. Opinions from virtually anybody have the potential to go viral.

That’s where we come in. At IW, we take care of that for you. There is simply too much noise out there to maintain relations the way one could in the golden days. Harnessing the vast scanning capabilities of machines and the sentiment of living, breathing people, we deliver information about brands to people who get it. If you think I’m wrong, you’re probably missing something.

What is media monitoring?

Media monitoring is making sure you know everything that is being written about you and read by others.

Until recently, media tracking was really only employed by big companies who wanted to know which print and broadcast outlets were mentioning them. With the explosion of the internet, much smaller companies began generating greater coverage via websites and blogs, so online monitoring became commonplace.

Social media means that even the Vacant Video Store by my house is being talked about online (see, that was a media mention right there). So even small, local businesses now have an interest in tracking their brand.

Why should I track my media coverage?

The first thing we need to get squared away is that a one-size-fits-all approach is not going to work here.

Every company, from Krispy Kreme to Vacant Video, must sit down and evaluate their individual needs, resources and objectives. Don’t worry, don’t worry! I’m going to tell you how to do that, too. Jeez.

There are lots of strategies for using media coverage from passive to proactive.

Under-the-radar B-to-Bs may want to:
-Keep track of competitor press releases/coverage.
-Monitor industry developments and technology.
-Follow relevant regulatory action and legislation.
-Quickly identify emerging issues.

Companies looking for growth can:
-Analyze reporter/publication trends to target pitches.
-Place/track public relations message tags.
-Use media monitoring to find/target market segments.

Businesses ready to engage will:
-Thank customers for mentions/recommendations.
-Reach out to solve problems and provide support.
-Connect with potential customers to form pre-sale relationships.
-Become thought leaders in their industry.

The main reason to track media coverage is control. You will be aware of what reporters/customers/competitors/analysts are saying about your company and it’s products. You will know if you have an existing, or developing, reputation problem and will have as much time as possible to formulate a response.

If appropriate, you can also use your coverage as a basis for outreach initiatives: to increase brand awareness, expand or grow markets, and improve customer service.

What media are we monitoring exactly?

It depends.

Generally, the bigger the company, the more traditional media mentions (print and broadcast) it gets. So, your Fortune 500ers will have plenty of newspapers and tv shows talking about them, whereas my beauty salon – The Chop Shop – will not.

It works out well because monitoring traditional media costs $$$ while monitoring online media is cheap or free.

Depending on where you are getting mentioned (and where you’re trying to be mentioned!), you can track:

1. Print media

Is the Wall Street Journal constantly trashing your debt buyback programs? If so, you may be interested in monitoring your print mentions. This and broadcast coverage can actually be quite costly, especially if you want to distribute the information to all your friends on the Fed.

2. Broadcast media

The other pricey content. There are many broadcast monitoring companies that offer transcript and audio/video clip options. You can pay per clip or per month, so you’ll want to start out by determining the frequency of your mentions.

3. Online media

These are websites that are run by media organizations online – newspaper and magazine websites, and web-based news services. This content is either free (DIY or through free service) or can cost up to a few hundred a month to buy a coded feed to your monitoring software (this lets you sort and organize easily).

4. Blogs

Same deal as the online media. You can get your blog coverage free or pay for more data flexibility.

5. Social Media

Aren’t blogs really social media? Is there such a thing as social media?

Questions for another day, kids. We separate them because aggregators and content providers tend to do the same.

Social media such as Twitter, Flickr, YouTube and others are often the most important platforms to monitor because it’s where a lot of customers hang out to spread their opinions of your products and services. Even the smallest of business can be talked about (and get heard) on social networks.

Like the other forms of online content, social media mentions can be mined by hand, by free service or by paid service.

Do I need media monitoring?

I don’t know.

Is the media talking about you? Do you want them to be talking about you? Then yes.

The best thing about media monitoring is that it’s very scalable. You can start out with some keyword searches and automated emails. When you get more media success or decide to start a publicity/PR/outreach initiative, your media monitoring efforts can grow with your program.

If you have an advertising budget that could be someone’s salary or your company has a known reputation issue and you’re not tracking your media, you need to call the ImpactWatch emergency hotline. Stat!

What should I be monitoring?

No idea.

This is the most customized part of media analysis. Basically, you need to determine what you want information about. Who/what might be the target of a media discussion that you want to know about?

Some common themes:

1. Your company: who is talking about your company and products?

2. Your competitors: what coverage are your competitors achieving?

3. Your industry: what are the trade pubs talking about?

4. Your efforts: are your PR/outreach efforts reflected in your coverage?

How much is this going to cost me?

Another good question…that I don’t have the answer to.

I would say the two most important variables in cost are quantity of coverage and level of analysis.

If your company is getting a few dozen mentions a month and you just need to read and respond, your investment can be easily limited to time spent. If you’re Krispy Kreme and you get 500k mentions per month (made that up), it might cost you $50k per month (made that up, too).

My point is that monitoring budgets are all over the place. You can get the Pinto (Google Alerts) or you can get the Ferrari (custom software solution). And guess who has to figure out what model you need? It is you! You’re going to be good at this.

Media tracking costs depend on:

1. Time: More mentions + more analysis = more time expenditure.

2. Staff: Do you have a large family or lots of idle interns? If not, you may need to shift resources or hire help.

3. Data: Copyright for print, transcripts/clips for broadcast and quality of data for online are potential costs.

4. Software: How organized do you need to be? Do you want to send coverage emails or generate reports? Do you want graphs or a searchable archive? There are more than 150 media monitoring software products in the market to suit every need and budget.

How do I get started?

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First, you need a plan.

Follow Hannah on Twitter. If you dare.

PHOTO CREDIT: annnna