Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Poke, Nudge, Hump

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

Social networking sites are full of different features. Some of these are useful, others are completely irrelevant. Two of the most popular social media sites have little things that sound similar, and playful. If you are a Facebook user, you are likely familiar with the “poke.” On Twitter you have the ability to “nudge” people. Both of these are things that don’t serve much purpose, but can be fun to play with. 

The poke on Facebook means different things to different people, and there have been a number of sites that try to answer the question, “What does it mean to poke someone on Facebook?” On the Facebook site itself, it answers the question as so. 

The poke feature can be used for a variety of things on Facebook. For instance, you can poke your friends to say hello. If you poke a user who normally does not have access to your profile, they will be able to temporarily see your Basic Info, Work Info, and Education Info. When you poke someone, they will receive a poke alert on their home page.

This is actually a newer answer, as when Facebook started, they said that a poke basically meant nothing. From what I remember, to early Facebook users a poke was basically a flirtation, or a way to get someone’s attention. Now it seems like there is a whole myriad of different meanings for a poke that people have come up with. In my mind, it has always remained as more of a flirty thing (probably why I never poke guys). 

On Twitter, you can nudge someone. This is described as being a friendly way to remind someone to update their profile. If they have a phone registered, and notifications turned on, they’ll receive a text message telling them that you want them to update their status. 

Perhaps it is just my mind, but all this poking and nudging got me thinking…

Why don’t we just go ahead and cut to the chase, and just have the ability to hump someone. I figure that if I ever have my own social network, that’s going to be the little thing that you can do. This can lead to all sorts of fun things. Do you only hump someone you’re attracted to? If you just hump everyone, will you get a bad rep? Will having the hump be so easily done mean that it means less? Will you only do it on Wednesdays? Will people get into humping wars? What about when someone releases an app that allows you to super hump? Really, the possibilities are endless. And given the typical mindset of a social network’s userbase, I really think that the hump thing could really take off. So the next time that you’re about to poke or nudge someone, just think about how nice it’d be to be able to go all the way.

Better Wording of My Point

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

I’d never heard of Judi Sohn before today, but I really like what she has to say about the Scoble/Plaxo thing.  She wrote four days ago what I wrote last night, only she did a better job.  I didn’t read much about this before so I missed her post.  Being out of the loop for so long drives me nuts.  Check out what she has to say, though, because it’s right in line with my thoughts.

Who Owns Your Email Address?

Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

For the last month or so, I’ve been pretty out of the loop in terms of news, both online and off.  I normally read a few hundred articles a day, but during this time I read maybe a dozen total.  The holidays just kept me pretty busy, and I didn’t have much time to read my feeds.  That being said, I’m a little late to the party on this particular piece of info.  Robert Scoble decided to test out a utility from Plaxo that would basically screen scrape information from his Facebook friends list and put it in a Plaxo database.  If you’re familiar with the Facebook ToS, you already know what happened next.  That’s right, Scoble got his account taken away.  After raising a big fuss online for a few days, he eventually got his account back.  I was completely unaware of any of this until today.  Had I found out earlier, I probably wouldn’t have waited so long to unfriend him on Facebook.  I try to limit myself to not friending the "celebrity" type people on there, but I did have him, Leo Laporte, and Amber MacArthur.  Now I just have the latter two.  I had contemplated removing him earlier, but decided against it, as it was fun to see his updates.  After this, though, he’s off my list. 

That isn’t really what I’m writing about, though, as who I have on my friends list doesn’t really matter.  What I find interesting is the debate about owning your social graph, and an open system that you can move that information around freely.  I am a bit split on this.  First, I agree that if I want to use a certain system for all of my contact management, I should be able to conveniently get that data from one thing to another.  However, is that data really mine to do that with?  Do I own my friends’ contact info?  If they upload their information into Facebook, that doesn’t suddenly make it my information.  Their information is still their information.  Does that mean that I should somehow be restricted on how I store this?  No, not at all.  But don’t confuse the fact that you can find my email with the notion that you own that piece of data.  On that note, you aren’t restricted on where you can keep my info once you have it, but I still have a choice of where I put it.  Keeping my email in your Outlook address book and keeping my email in your Plaxo account are two very different things.  One is only an address book, the other is significantly more.  If I wanted my information in the Plaxo network, I would have put it there myself.  The same can be said for the concept of social networks.  I am a member of Facebook, and I put all my information in there with the intention of it only appearing in Facebook.  I don’t want my information in some other social network.  If you want to use some new startup network as your social network of choice, go right ahead, just don’t expect me to join you.  Furthermore, don’t stick my information there either.  I want to put my information in a network and have it stay there.  Sure, there’s nothing stopping you from writing all my info down and then re-typing it into so other system, but I’m working on the assumption that you will be reasonable enough to not go sticking it in every social network out there.

Remember the fiasco that was Quechup?  A new network came along, asked you to upload your friends’ contact info, and them spammed them like crazy.  That’s a bit how Plaxo used to be.  Once they had your info, it was spam central.  I would really rather not risk having this happen all the time.  I know that we should be embracing the freedom of data portability, but let’s not forget that not all of us want our data to be portable.  Just because we put it in Facebook doesn’t mean we want it outside of Facebook.  And like I said, I know that it can be done manually, but that manual effort is exactly enough to keep most people from bothering.  If it’s so easy to do manually, why do people want portability?  I’m uploading info with the assumption that it’ll stay where I put it. 

I don’t think that I’m being too unreasonable here, but if you disagree, please let me know.  Dare seems to agree with me, so I know I’m not completely nuts.

They’re After You

Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

There has been some noise lately about Facebook’s potential new ad service that could display ads targeted to you based on your Facebook information while you’re on sites outside of Facebook.  The way it would work is that Facebook would stick a cookie on your machine and when an ad they sold sees you on another site, it knows that you’re a fan of goth-punk gospel music.  This is, of course, causing all sorts of concern over privacy issues.  People seem to find it scary enough that Google shows you ads based on your search results, to think that they might see ads based on their Facebook profile is of great concern to them.  To me, this isn’t a big deal.  There isn’t some person somewhere sitting at a computer, pouring over Facebook profiles, and matching those people up to ads.  There is just some algorithm that sees I’m a fan of Sprite, and shows me an ad for Sprite instead of Coke.  Well, they would attempt to show me an ad, but I wouldn’t see it.  That’s not the point, though.  The point is that is there really a big difference between seeing an ad on Facebook that is targeted to you because of something you have in your profile, and seeing and ad on MSN targeted to you because of something you have in your profile?  The site you’re visiting doesn’t see this information.  They don’t know what you have in your profile.  All of that information stays within the confines of Facebook’s network.  When Facebook introduced the ability to target flyers using specifics in profiles, people said it was great, and wondered why it took so long to get here.  This is really the same concept, just showing it to you somewhere else.  Also, all of this is contingent on you having that cookie on your machine.  Lastly, there is the fact that if I see an ad telling me about something for 50-Cent, I really don’t care, but if I saw an ad for something Sarah Brightman related, I’d be interested.  As a consumer, this would actually work in my favor. If I find the ads of interest, they no long are such an annoyance.  Instead of being considered ads, they move into that long sought by advertisers position of being "value-adds."

Perhaps I am too lenient about all of this.  What are your thoughts?

Experiment Part 3: El Fin

Monday, October 29th, 2007

In case you somehow missed it, I ran an experiment this past week on Facebook.  It stemmed from wanting to play with the new controls you had over targeting flyers.  They now let you get very specific, right down to targeting people that mention certain things on their profiles.  I took that idea, and applied it to writing up an ad to offer a dinner date to someone.  Let’s take a look at the numbers.

I had a click through rate of 1.073%, which I think is like half as good as what others reported as average, if I recall.  It is actually a bit higher than I was expecting given the nature of the flyer.  This translated into about 2.05% of the total population targeted.  Looking at it as being that 2% of girls were willing to click on a flyer on Facebook for a dinner date it is quite amusing as this is the same percentage of girls that say grabbing their breasts is an ok way to say hello.  I wonder if there’s a correlation. 

My total impressions were about twice what my total population was.  Given that there is probably some amount of people that were in my population but didn’t even log in this last week, I’d guess that anyone that saw it did so at least twice. 

The clicks were fairly well distributed throughout the period the flyer ran.  I didn’t receive a ton at first then nothing, they came at a pretty even rate.  I thought that was rather interesting.

My final average cost per click was 64% of my max CPC.  The total amount that I spent was only 8% of what my maximum cost could have been.  All in all, this was a cheap experiment.

So, after all of this, did I get anyone that actually responded?  Nope.  Not a one.  While I did have people that actually clicked through, no one felt like responding to the ad.  When I told my friend the results she commented that it was rather sad.  I asked for me or the people that clicked through, to which she said, "Both."  I guess that pretty much sums up the whole experiment, though: sad.

As a final note, I don’t actually see any ads, so I don’t know if these types of flyers are commonplace or not.  In the past, you could target your flyers to a specific network, so if someone were to put something like this up, everyone would see it.  Now, though, since you can be so specific, I would think that your money could be used much more efficiently.  By targeting a very specific set of people, you would cut out anyone clicking on the ad that doesn’t meet your target audience. So, has anyone seen an ad of this type before?  Do you think you might start seeing them now?

Experiment Part 2

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I started an experiment on Monday to test out Facebook’s new flyer targeting tools, and as just a social experiment.  It entailed making a flyer offering a date that was targeted to a specific set of girls in my area.  It’s been running since Monday night, and will be up until next Monday.  Here are the results of it so far.

I’ve had a .96% click through rate so far.  This is about what I was expecting, if not higher.  I’ve seen a ton of stuff about how bad the click through rates on flyers are, and coupled with the topic of this flyer I didn’t expect many takers.  I have yet to receive any responses, though, so the clicks I’ve received are probably just the curious. 

I know that each impression is not a unique individual, but the total impressions I’ve received so far equal about 85% of the total population.  Watching theses impressions increases has given some insight to when people get on Facebook.  For example, during the day time, the impressions increases fairly slowly.  However, once night comes, they rack up quite quickly.  This is to be expected, as most people are probably logging on and spending time on the site at night.  This seems to be later in the night, too, such as after 8.  Another interesting thing is the rate at which the impressions have increased.  At the beginning of the campaign, the impressions racked up rather quickly.  Now they seem to be increasing more slowly.  I’m not sure if this is related to how Facebook displays them, or if it is based on usage habits of my target audience.  What is interesting is that this mirrors what I’ve seen happen on Google ads I’ve run (those weren’t for dates, just FYI).  In the beginning, they got a ton of views.  Then, as time progressed, they tapered off.

I’m paying based on how many clicks I receive, and the rate I pay is determined by the system based on how much they used to "bid" for my placement.  I set a maximum per click, and a maximum per day limit.  So far, the most I’ve paid for a click is 72% of what my maximum is.  Also, the average of what I’m paying is 60% of my max.

I’ll probably have an update this weekend on how things are going.  I still am not expecting to actually hear anything, but I’m a bit surprised at how many clicks I’ve received, so who knows.

MSFB

Wednesday, October 24th, 2007

So it looks like Microsoft was the one that won out in buying a minority stake in Facebook, paying $240 million to be able to say that.  Microsoft was fighting with Google, and somewhat Yahoo, for the stake.  The approximate value placed on Facebook with this investment is $15 billion. Along with a small stake, Microsoft also grabbed the rights to be the exclusive advertiser for Facebook overseas.  This is in addition to Microsoft’s exclusive ad deal with Facebook for the US until 2011. 

I’m not too surprised that Microsoft won out on this one.  If for no other reason than the history the two companies have.  Despite Facebook constantly being likened to Google, they have worked closely with Microsoft for quite some time, and have shied away from dealing with the search giant.  Also, just looking at the employees that are on Facebook, Microsoft dominates there too.  Even Billy G has a Facebook profile.

Facebook says that it plans to use the money for additional people and possible acquisitions.  It will also try to expand its reach in the international market.  Today it is fairly large in North America and Western Europe, but little elsewhere. 

One pretty interesting part of all of this is that it lends that much more credibility to Facebook.  While it has become quite popular with online media, by being able to establish such a large valuation, it really sets itself up as a big deal.  To put things in some perspective, JC Penney has a market cap of $12.1 billion, about $3 billion less than Facebook’s valuation.  Pretty neat, huh?

Experiment Part 1

Monday, October 22nd, 2007

I was talking to a friend of mine about Facebook’s new flyer advertising options when an idea for an experiment came up.  To give a quick overview, you can now get very granular with in your selection of who sees your flyer. In the past, it was based solely on which network would see it.  Now you can target based on any number of criteria.  What is interesting is that it gives you a real time number of how many people your ad will be hitting.  This can provide for some fun time killing (just how many men between the age of 18 and 29 like The Notebook), or for some legit marketing information. For fun, I can choose to target only single females in my city that like Family Guy.  Pulling that info up is when the idea came.  What if I tried making a flyer for an ad to get a date?  Facebook’s flyers are known to have abysmal click-through rates, so odds would be against me before even beginning.  Second, lets be honest, how likely is someone to actually click on and respond to an ad for a date on there?  To be honest, my hypothesis is that I won’t get any responses from this, but I figure this gives me something to write about for the next couple days. 

I’ll be running the ad for a week using competitive rates for maximum visibility.  It will give a quick blurb saying that I’m looking for someone to take to dinner, and have a link to a page with who I am and contact info.  I’ll post an update to how it’s going later in the week, and will have final results at the end.  Like I said, I’ll be surprised if anyone responds, but who knows I might meet some new people.

Why on Earth Would You Email from Facebook?

Monday, September 10th, 2007

I have seen a lot of complaints by people about Facebook’s messaging not being as feature rich as they would like. They are really wanting something that is more like email than a typical intrasite messaging service. I’m a bit in the middle on this one. On one hand, sure it’d be nice to have messages work more like email, but at the same time, if I want something that works like email, I’m just going to use email. It’s been said that the messaging is hardly ever used (I have no idea if that’s correct, but empirical evidence supports it), and that usage would likely increase if it were more feature rich. I’m not sure if I agree on that part. If Facebook had a more robust messaging system, would people really use it more, or would they still rely on email? I’ll be real honest, I rarely send a message on Facebook. If I do, it is usually to someone that I know, but don’t know their address (either they don’t have one shown, or they aren’t on my friends list yet). If I know someone’s email, that’s what is going to get used to contact them.

What brought this topic up at the moment is Facebook’s new ability to email people using the messaging. Just start a new message like you would otherwise, and type in an email address. Type your message, hit send, and you’ve sent your email. Two quick things. First, if you put in the email address of one of your friends that they have listed with Facebook, it will detect this, and instead of emailing them, you’ll simply Facebook message them. Second, if you put in someone’s email address that’s on Facebook but not your friend, then it will still email them rather than just send them a message. Now, here’s the little part about this that is a bit annoying. The person that you email doesn’t actually see the message in the email. Instead, they get the subject of the message, and then a link to go read the actual message.

As I’m sure you can guess, the page with their message on it has all the “sign up now” sort of stuff on it for Facebook. While I can understand why they’ll include something in the message about signing up, making the recipient have to click a link, go to a page, see their ads there, and read their message is a bit of a pain. I think that that will kill a lot of usage right there. Just in case, by some chance, someone actually did decide to just send an email via Facebook rather than an actual email (I really don’t know why you’d do that), once the receiver got it and complained it’d likely be the last time. Also, sending an email this way means that you’ll have to know the person’s email in your head, something that fewer and fewer people do as emails become like phone numbers. On top of that, if you’re going to be emailing your friend, they probably are already on Facebook, which means they won’t get an email that’s just get a message. Which might be exactly what Facebook wants. Anything they can do to keep you on their site longer is good for them.

You Can’t Get Rid of Me That Easily

Sunday, September 9th, 2007

Hello again, boys and girls. First, some meta stuff. I’m aware I haven’t posted in a month, and I’m sorry about that. Things have been crazy in all parts of my life. Work has been really picking up lately, and I moved into a new apartment mid August. I’m finally getting some stuff settled, and will hopefully get myself back on track. There hasn’t been near as much news reading because of all of this, but I have been able to read a number or articles in the last couple days, so I’ll give some brief thoughts on those.

First, the one that has been making all sorts of news lately is the Apple event from the fifth. The big news includes completely redesigned Nanos, bigger HDDs in the “Classic,” and the release of the Touch. As anyone that knows me knows, I’m not really a fan of Apple, for a few reasons. That said, I can always appreciate cool stuff when I see it.
The Nanos, in my mind, are finally worth the money they cost. Up ’til now, I’m not so sure they were. A quick side note, why the heck do people act like Coverflow is so great? Does it do something magical that I just haven’t noticed? Isn’t it just a navigation method, that when you think about it is really not the most efficient one there is? Sorry, just curious.
The newly dubbed “Classics” are pretty much the same as they were before except for the space and UI, so not much to say about that.
The Touch is where all the cool stuff is. A lot of people had been begging for an iPhone sans the phone, and this is pretty much the answer. Personally, I think this thing looks spiffy, but still has too many shortcomings for my taste. First, the most obvious, is the lack of storage. Jobs has this stupid obsession with things being thin, but when it comes to a device that is supposed to become your primary portable media device, you need to stick more than 16 gigs in there. Especially when you charge that much for it. Aside from AT&T, everything else that’s bad about the iPhone is bad about this one too, so I won’t rehash it. It is pretty, though.
Speaking of the iPhone, it has now reached a price that resembles something reasonable. Steve’s closer of dropping the 4 gig model altogether, and bringing the 8 gig to $400 instead of $600 has generated the most coverage. The reason that so many people are talking about this, in case you’ve been out of it this week, is that those close to a million people that bought an iPhone in the first two months of its release are feeling pissed. Jobs’ answer to this is that technology moves fast and that early adopters pay more. I can tell you from my HDTV purchase that I’ve felt the early adopter cost first hand. However, it’s an entirely different thing when you’ve been able to experience the device for close to a year before seeing huge price drops happen. In this case, it was a first of its kind. Just two months after release, the price came down 33%. That’s just absurd. To me, this says that the people who bought early really got gouged. Now, there are all sorts of arguments that come in response to this and defend Apple. One of them is that the people obviously thought that it was worth $600, or else they wouldn’t have paid that. That is absolutely correct. However, does it look like Apple thinks it was worth $600 when they drop is so drastically so soon after launch? Has anything ever dropped that much that quickly before? That’s not rhetorical, I really am wondering. While Steve is right that tech prices come down quickly, I think that this is a bit of a stretch. I think that the reason they dropped this much is because Apple doesn’t value the device at $600 so it blatant, “We overcharged you,” to all of the people that bought one. If there was something you really wanted, and would gladly pay $1k for, would you still do it if you knew that the guy selling it would be charging less than $700 two months later? Most people, no probably not. That’s why I think so many people are pissed.

Lets see, what else has been going on…Oh, Facebook announced that they will start having profiles indexed and searchable by search engines. This means that when you type someone’s name in Google, that their Facebook profile might come up. This is something that I think is a neat idea, but I’m agreeing with everyone saying that it should be an opt-in, rather than opt-out service. Facebook was built around the principles of privacy, and keeping everyone out except those you let in. Now, though, the default is that everyone can see you, and you have to tell it otherwise if you don’t want that. Well, poo on them. I joined Facebook back in 2004, and have loved it ever since. That said, I’m not happy in the direction that they are heading. I feel like each new feature they release is bringing them one step closer to MySpace. I say that only half-jokingly. While I know that they will never (probably) fall into the pit of despair that contains the likes of the ugly as sin site that is MySpace, I do think that they are on the path to pissing a lot of people off. Even moreso than they did with that newsfeed fiasco (I actually defended them on that one, the info was all already available). This time, though, it’s not just opening you up to your friends, it’s opening you up to the world. Get with it, Facebook, make this an opt-in feature and don’t risk having the users complain. It’ll be really easy to do. Really.