Valuing online networks – is big really better?


An individual’s network may well be worth more in ROI terms than them, say smartFOCUS. Are you valuing the networks of your customers, as well as individual customers?

To value your own online network why not try the ‘Facebook Visualiser’ tool created by Sebastian Van Sande below to to graphically explore your Facebook connections?

“You can use it to see how all your contacts are connected to each other, and in the process disclose unknown common friends. Other FOAF (friend-of-a-friend) disclosure would be interesting, but unfortunately, the Facebook API doesn’t include this important bit of data.The tool allows filtering your network by Gender and Relationship Status (single, engaged, etc). You can also choose to see the inner connections of your Facebook network and play with the distance between nodes (friends), ” says Sebastian.

There’s also some fun tools out there for Twitter, such as TweetValue. Sadly my profile wouldn’t even buy me a second-hand Buick!

Twitter Value

I see the social network for business Xing has created a Facebook api which also helps you value your network, though with only 136 fans that hasn’t really caught ‘fire’.

Of course if you get bored of these tools you can get serious and look into some of the theories about network value in a wider sense, as in the case of the Forbes article ‘How To Value Your Networks’ which gets into “Beckstrom’s Law”:

“Here’s an example: Say you purchase $100 worth of stuff from Amazon each month over the course of a year. You could probably buy that stuff offline for about the same price, but you might pay extra for gas to drive to the store and an opportunity cost for your time. If the brick-and-mortar commerce cost amounted to $50 a month on top of the $100 you spent on books, then the value of Amazon’s network to you would be $600 a year. Subtract from that the cost of connecting to Amazon’s network, perhaps $40 a month for an Internet connection and computer hardware, and you have a value of something like $120.

“That’s the value you get from Amazon’s network. Add up that amount across all Amazon users, and you have the total value of Amazon’s network.”

And here’s the catch – at some point more network members actually negatively impacts on the network’s value:

“Beckstrom says that network value should be a big concern for social networks like Facebook and Twitter, which all want to scale to massive numbers of users. Since users are typically concerned only about how much the network is worth to them, there can be an inflection point where suddenly each new user makes life harder for existing users. That’s where Bill Gates comes in. For him, the value of Facebook’s network decreased with every new user who sent a friend request his way. The idea contrasts with a popular assumption called Metcalfe’s Law that values networks based on the square of the number of users.”

Does this predict the eventual demise of Facebook? Let’s suck it and see, I think. In the meantime if you are in the business of online social networks check out some of the ideas already patented thanks to the Xyggy Patent search engine. For example, check out Jaime Solari’s invention which provides a method, system and program product for calculating relationship strengths between users of a computerized network.

Connecting Facebook status updates and fighter pilot tactics


Really liked the link made in the fourth programme of the BBC’s The Virual Revolution between Norbert Wiener’s feedback loop for anti-aircraft gunners in WWII (ie breaking down the division between people and systems, to allow gunner’s to hit their airborne targets) and the radical impact of the status updates within Facebook (and the likes of Twitter…) on driving the internet revolution.

So here’s my question. What would happen if you applied fighter pilot military strategist John Boyd‘s concept of “the decision cycle or OODA Loop, the process by which an entity (either an individual or an organization) reacts to an event. According to this idea, the key to victory is to be able to create situations wherein one can make appropriate decisions more quickly than one’s opponent” (see wikipedia page) to understanding of how *we* interact online?

I wonder if anyone’s applied this to produce an effective counter-cyber warfare strategy, as I can see the ‘fit’ from a theoretical point of view? [pause while *we*make a quick check..] oh yeah, see here for example as part of the University of Washington’s resource page on cyberwarfare.

More practically perhaps I wonder what would the OODA loop mean in explaining differing peoples’ actions online in the context of the BBC programme’s ‘Web Behaviour Test’ experiment?

Of course on a more practical social media level I have already blogged recently, thanks to HP Labs paper, on the value of creating good feedback loops with your top contributors:

This paper demonstrates that submitters who stop receiving attention tend to stop contributing, while prolific contributors attract an ever increasing number of followers and their attention in a feedback loop.

We demonstrate that this mechanism leads to the observed power law in the number of contributions per user and support our assertions by an analysis of hundreds of millions of contributions to top content sharing websites Digg.com and Youtube.com.

Download:  Feedback loops of attention in peer production (PDF; 0.5 mb).

Re-launching as a community of practice?


Below is my slideshare presentation of what I’d do in the first four weeks in the way of putting together a community strategy for the National Strategies community, which currently has little in the way of peer to peer discussion to enable it to function as a community of practice.

Talking about community champions…


I’ve noticed there’s been some debate about the role of community champions, leaders and moderators on the online community managers’ group e-mint recently. If I was going to write about it in depth I’d highlight the good use of champions by the TreeHouse charity on their online community ‘Talk about autism’, assisted by my ex-colleague Elena Goodrum. (In fact she links to them in the first paragraph of the community landing page). I think on a more informal basis a champion system worked well on the ICAEW’s IT Counts, where top contributors would usually chip in on a conversation. So two ways of approaching it, one formal and one more informal for your consideration.

Telligent Community is on the move!


Telligent has announced the availability of Telligent Community 5.5 and Telligent Enterprise 2.5.

The new releases include enhancements around extensibility, performance, flexibility and ease of adoption and represent the company’s ongoing commitment to innovation in the areas of community and collaboration software.

  • Telligent Community is an external-facing community application that enables organizations to listen to, learn from and improve conversations with customers, partners and prospects.
  • Telligent Enterprise is an internal collaboration software application that promotes a productive and efficient corporate culture. Collaboration between employees is kept private and secure

Both products are built on Telligent Evolution, an award-winning collaboration and community platform that enhances integration and allows organizations to create applications to meet specific business needs.

In addition, the following will be released in March 2010:

  • Telligent Analytics 3.5 provides dramatic improvements in performance and ease of use to our comprehensive analytics software that allows organizations to quantify user engagement both inside and outside of their communities.
  • Telligent Evolution Platform SDK provides development capabilities to extend the existing applications and build new applications on the Telligent Evolution platform. It enables customers and partners to easily integrate the Telligent Evolution platform with enterprise systems, such as Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (SharePoint), which organizations already depend on for content management, document management, customer relationship management and other specialized functions.

Telligent will host a FREE live webinar and product demonstration featuring Telligent founder and chief technology officer Rob Howard on: Thursday, February 18, at 11 a.m. Central US time (5pm GMT).

You can register for the event here: http://tinyurl.com/telligent-webinar

On another note I am also pleased to let you know that Telligent was recently named an InfoWorld 2010 Technology of the Year Award winner!

Each year, the InfoWorld Test Center picks the year’s best hardware and software for business and IT professionals. The winners represent the best and most innovative products to meet the test bench each year, leading the way in the data center, in the cloud, on the desktop, or in software development, security, collaboration, or mobile computing.

InfoWorld named Telligent Enterprise 2.0 ahead of both Jive and Socialtext, praising Telligent’s integration with SharePoint and ability to meld collaboration features with community sites both internal and external. Another high point according to InfoWorld was Telligent’s social analytics capabilities. In addition, InfoWorld predicts big things for Telligent in 2010.

You can read the full article here: http://www.infoworld.com/d/infoworld/infoworlds-2010-technology-year-awards-458?page=0,8

Accenture’s three tips to successful monetization


This just popped into my inbox, and thought it worth sharing. Reminds me of a workshop I did last year about changing the relationship of member organisations to its members from one based on transactions, to one based on conversations & relationships. Anyhow, easier said than done I’m sure…

If companies are to effectively monetize the digital relationship with consumers, they must get three things right.

Engage consumers through relevance and dialogue. Companies need to improve their ability to engage and influence consumers through relevant and timely experiences based on their interests—engendering loyalty and profitable behaviors. This means adopting a truly digital mindset. The age of push marketing is behind us. What counts now are dialogue, engagement and relevance.

Use technology to deliver a customized digital experience with a more predictable cost structure. Companies must adopt more flexible and scalable technology platforms capable of creating a tailored experience for consumers over both online and mobile channels, and they must do it with a more predictable cost structure over time.

Establish revenue models based on the success of relationship building. The ability to engage consumers with relevant and customized experiences becomes, then, the basis for monetization. Instead of focusing on inputs such as numbers of banner ads or page views, companies—especially media and entertainment companies—will be able to focus on relationship-based outcomes: a known quantity of consumers whose interests are well understood. Digital channels that can deliver consumers with established interests can charge handsomely for that capability.

In short, engagement, relevance and customization lead to longer-term relationships. And those relationships are the key to digital monetization.

Measuring E2.0: evolution of Hello.bah.com


I’ve just had a good start to the week listening to the Virtual Enterprise 2.0 Conference presentation regarding Booz Allen Hamilton’s internal collaboration tool, hello.bah.com. The one thing that struck me was the conversation around how to measure its value. Though they demonstrated this through the significant reduction in time  it took to find the right people for a project, especially useful for a company with a lot of off-site employees as community manager Megan Murray said, the need to prove ROI is ongoing.

To paraphrase the discussion, the metric for value was arrived at as a result of a benchmarking   as a consulting firm the challenge was to see how long it tool to find the right people to staff a project. Comparing the E2.o tool against Outlook and the phone it took an average of 1.5 hours less time to find individuals you required for a specific project. So as senior associate Walton Smith said that over 23k people you quickly see a positive return; but he added he was still looking for a great answer to the question of proving ROI.

I’m sure the 2.0 Adoption Council has plenty of possible answers to that question. I have a few ideas of my own too which I shared with the good folks at Webjam the other day. I was thinking of Vanessa DiMauro of Leader Networks White Paper (pdf) on the subject of creating professional peer-to-peer communities and measuring usage by the majority of ‘readers’ as opposed to active ‘contributors’. The point being that enabling this method to measure E2.0 could be part of the answer, IMHO.

In the 90s, a colleague and I
did a really interesting study3 to answer the research
question “What do people, who don’t actively post
in an online community, do with
the information in the commu-
nity?” We so commonly use the
term “lurker,” which has nega-
tive connotations. But if you
look at the statistics of online
community behaviors, only one
to four percent of all community
participants actually post a mes-
sage, and only about 20 to 30
percent of all private community members make
themselves visible by taking a poll, posting a mes-
sage, being interviewed, or showing some sign of
active presence, so that leaves a really large percent-
age of people who repeatedly visit. They have use
patterns that are sustained and predictable. What the
heck are they doing, and why do they keep coming
back?

So my colleague Gloria Jacobs and I decided to
study what people do who aren’t actively and visibly
participating. Are they just reading and lurking, as
that negative word connotes? What are they doing with
their repeated logons?

What we found was a really robust usage of the
information and connections that people make in
professional online communities, even if they never
make themselves visible. They actually have a ten-
dency to use the information that they learn in their
real life, in some cases more actively than the active
posters or participants.

We were able to track behaviors such as printing
out information or emailing it to others (when it was
appropriate); using information in meetings; con-
necting with colleagues or people that they met in
the online community via phone or at conferences or
through email. So the silent readers are very active
members of the community. They just make deci-
sions not to make themselves visible in the perma-
nent online space.

That was a really interesting finding for us, be-
cause it rounded out the great question “Why are
these people coming if they’re
not doing anything?” But they
are. They are choosing to mani-
fest their connections in the real
world, in the public-facing world just not online.

Download the presentation slides (pdf, 3mb) here: The Evolution of Hello.bah.com

Comparing US patent search engines


I quickly put together this short animoto-video showing the beta Google Patents, US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and new Xyggy patent search engines, entry page followed by advanced search page. How do they compare in your view, focusing on US granted patents from 1976 onwards?

You should notice a difference with the Xyggy engine. Why? It runs an item search which it claims provides substantial advantages and additional information over text search.  Also, the makers say that with multiple items in the query, Xyggy discovers what they have in common to return better results.

Testing out a new Android app


Forgive this short post I just wanted to check out how easy it is to publish from the Denmark Arms watching Kilmarnock vs Celtic using the new Android app for WP. Once I’d got the xmlrpc.php trick sorted it seems fine!

Yes, I did add the image above from the comfort of my PC!

User centred design


Bumped into a nice guy from Directgov (‘website of the UK government’) at the launch of Social Media Week in London last night, talking about plans to make it more relevant to its users. When I woke up this morning I recalled hearing an excellent presentation from Directgov’s Andrew Lamb at the BCS in late 2008 which opened my eyes to the value of user centred design. Fortunately I tracked down the past event with a link to the full set of Andrew’s presentation slides (zip file) for your consideration.