Unlocking the real value of community profiles


Why are profiles important?

The way profiles works reflects the fact that the quality of communities reflects individual members’ actions, which is the prime driver of the success of a community.

If a member decides not to complete their profile then they’ve chosen to be relatively anonymous, whether they know it or not. But if as community manager you have a large percentage of members that are anonymous this will obviously negative impact on the quality of conversations. Conversely if you have a community where most members have a rich profile which they keep up to date then it’s likely to result in positive conversations. And positive conversations sustained over time help sustain a successful online community.

The value of measuring profiles

Consider the value of profiles in light of the 2008 Tribalization of Business study which found that “the greatest obstacles to making a community work are not technology-related or getting funding, but getting people involved in the community (51%), finding enough time to manage the community (45%), and attracting people to the community (34%)”. Interestingly the same study also reports a disconnection between what organisations’ communities say they are going to measure to track success and those they actually do record. Perhaps to drive the message home we should stress the value of a metric which demonstrates the degree to which profiles have been completed as a proxy measure of community participation, especially considering the findings on the core importance of profiles?

“Based on research in the field of virtual communities, most business thinkers will agree that there are 4 fundamental pillars to successful communities – content, members, member profiles and transactions. If managed properly, these four dynamics can lead to economics of increasing returns that characterize most successful communities.” (‘Understanding the Power of Communities – Even When You Do Not Have Critical Mass of Users’)

The role of the community manager

If members of a community take part in discussions, and express a wish to be part of a group, then it’s the job of the community manager to ask them to complete their profile so other members of the group know who they are discussing with.

The benefits of this approach will show in the quality and number of community discussions. It’s a matter of trust; you are more likely to engage in conversation with when you trust who you are talking to.

To put it another way if you simply invite people to participate with a one-to-many email blast when they’ve shown little desire to take part in discussions, you may get a lot of readers, but you won’t get many people joining in discussions.

Influencing the community eco-system using profiles

From a more scientific viewpoint it’s the role of the community manager to set an evolutionary example in the online eco-system by completing his or her profile to encourage others to imitate. Similarly it’s down to community champions to fully complete their profile as they are leading by example in discussions. In turn community managers and champions should aim to refresh their profile every month; profiles are (to quote Chris Brogan) not a place to dump a snapshot of where you’ve been. It’s an opportunity to stay connected to people, and to demonstrate where you are now, and where you plan to go next.

There’s the additional benefit that when community managers or champions ask members to complete their profile when they first take part in discussions that other readers also see this in public and understand from the benefit in context, not just the principle, and are encouraged to make the same step themselves of adding their profile to take part in discussions.

Consider the scenario of two John Smiths

Two John Smiths are in the same discussion and no-one knows which is which as they haven’t ticked the boxes to show their profile, or have no detail in their displayed profile.

In this situation it’s the job of the community manager to invite them publicly to add their profile so other individuals, as with a normal conversation, take part in discussion on the basis of knowing who they are talking to. It’s obvious that you are much likely to take part in a discussion with people you know. In LinkedIn in the absence of a community manager due to the scale of the undertaking they’ve automated the process so that you are encouraged to complete your profile with a graphic which shows how complete it is.

You are going to invite people for a reason – so they will take part in discussions. To do this successfully they need to complete their profile so people are encouraged to talk to people. This is connected with the benefit of using real names as community members’ display names, rather than anonymous ‘usernames’ for online communities. Understanding how profiles work helps see that non-unique real names are the way forward, as it’s about getting individual members of the community to tell other members who they are, so that other members feel they want to take part in discussion with them. See the recent case of MySpace, which is facing tough competition from the behemoth Facebook, which changed its software to make the use of real names the option of choice for its members. (Meanwhile Faceboook recently took note of the power of its members by putting out its Terms of Service out to vote by the community).

The power of scale unleashed

Indeed the next step, to reiterate, the next step in the process of valuing profiles is for the community manager to advice members how to keep the profile up to date: it shouldn’t just be a place to ‘dump a snapshot of where you’ve been’, but also where you are going. The (‘fractal’) business bottom line is that the more individuals within a community take this approach the more this scales up and positively impacts on the value of the community as a whole.

Facebook search teaser


Trying to figure out how the search works on Facebook isn’t easy, so here’s a couple of neat links that might help:

Blog #1: Facebook’s search algorithm is the most bizarre search algorithm known to man.

Blog #2: How a corporate can grab back a fan page on FB, using the coca cola example.

I've deactivated my Facebook account

I've deactivated my Facebook account

Finally (08 Apr 09) received this response on how groups are ranked via a colleague’s LinkedIn Facebook group:

“To the best of my knowledge Facebook haven’t released the ranking algorithm, but it looks like the title of the group plays a big part, with things like the description helping as well. I guess it’s similar to basic on site optimisation. Put the keyword in the title, the description etc.”

Facebook’s threat to Google ain’t no joke!


Nice piece on Inside Facebook.

Amusing too when one considers last year’s April Fool that Google had bought Facebook; which I found out about just this week as someone who will remain nameless who works in e-commerce told me this merger as a stone cold fact. I really hope he was joking. Anyhow, piece below:

RBC Capital Markets analyst Ross Sandler issued a 15-page note analyzing the different reasons Facebook poses a threat to Google this morning.

Henry Blodget over at SAI has all the pertinent slides (as usual), and here are the highlights:

1) Sandler says by RBC projections Facebook could surpass Google in worldwide uniques by 2011-2012:

rbcfacebookgoogle1

2) Sandler says Facebook is driving 19% of Google uniques, up from 9% a year ago. (Personally I’m a little confused by what exactly he means by “drive” here, because the data for all entry sources adds up to much more than 100% so I don’t think it’s accurate to call this pure referral traffic. Intuitively this claim doesn’t make sense personally as well.)

rbcfacebookgoogle2

rbcfacebookgoogle3

3) The report says Facebook and Google are “complimentary” for now, but Facebook is increasingly becoming the “starting point” on the internet for its users:

Google and Facebook are two of the fastest growing and largest companies on the internet, and thus far, Facebook’s ascendancy has likely helped Google gain share. 45% of monthly unique users go directly to Facebook (as a starting page), up from 39% a year ago. At the same time, Google is now driving 64% of Facebook’s uniques, up from 51% a year ago. Google.com, on the other hand, has a consistent 66% of its uniques as a starting page, same as a year ago. Google’s uniques via Facebook are growing at 188% y/y, and  now represent 19% of Google’s traffic (up from 9% 12-months ago)…

Facebook is actually positive and complementary for Google thus far, but that could change if Facebook’s rapid growth trajectory continues on its current path, or if/when social media can find a business model and attract ad dollars from other online media. At the very least, we think Facebook as the “starting point” for more and more users on the Internet could create some multiple compression for Google over time, if the momentum continues.

It’s interesting to see analysts starting to talk more publicly about Facebook these days. The company is very clearly on the radar of the research community on Wall Street.

PS: So interesting to hear today’s rumour that Google maybe buying Twitter who have a hold on real time search, after Facebook failed to buy Twitter last year:

Michael Arrington, the author of TechCrunch, claims to have spoken to two sources close to the matter, suggesting that negotiations are in the late stages. He believes Google would have to pay well above the $250 million (£170 million) valuation of Twitter suggested by a recent round of venture capital funding.

Biz Stone, Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s founders, were involved in negotiations to sell their micro-blogging service to Facebook last year, but the deal broke down. Sources have said that it would have cost Facebook $500 million in stock.

Facebook blinks, copies Twitter, still gets it wrong?


Key points as to why Facebook’s attempt to copy Twitter won’t work:

As anyone who has worked in real time systems knows, when you increase the velocity you have to decrease the volume of the content.

The other thing we suspect is that they haven’t architected their network for real time comms – it nearly broke Twitter with c 1.2m people, so we watch with bated breath to see how Facebook’s architecture will cope with 120m people.

Update – quite a few people have pointed out that the Facebook model is more similar to Friendfeed than Twitter – good point, and thats what I meant by “getting it wrong still” in that I think Friendfeed has suffered from two issues I noted above:

- Too much information on the real time feed
- Not letting a user community define/design the service systems

As the Guardian points out this is a part of yet another re-design which appears to make the site more complex (er, I think the words is ‘complicated’ as complex is the flip-side of simple, I thank you;-)

PS: Note Twitter itself has had a refresh, with integrated Trends and Search functionality.

The power of SMS & Facebook combined


“Hi Stu, Hows it going in the northern parts ? Bloody hot here, the whole State of Victoria was sent an SMS today, warning of fire danger,power failure etc.. Long time no see, your face popped up on my FB, so thought I;d say hi. Cheers, G”.

Facebook still appears to be in trouble


I see Facebook has changed its terms of service.

And set up a group for discussion of Rights and Responsibilities.

So it’s a shame one of the dicussion threads on display appears to be racist in nature.

I’ve left a comment on Mark Zuckerberg’s blog post suggesting it requires actioning. It’s now 05:20 p-alto time.

Stop press:

  • Via Twitter Stow Boyd reports that “Facebook backs away from change in TOS, restores old TOS until they figure out what to do – http://bit.ly/bCLId“. It’s now 06:14 p-alto time.
  • Dennis Howlett’s take on all this FB critique: but why do Google and Apple get a free pass? It’s now 06:22 p-alto time.
  • Daily Telegraph journalist Kate Day’s take on the apparent Facebook climb-down, with a quote from @CannonGod who I claim to know! It’s now 07:12 p-alto time.
  • Looks like they’ve taken down the racist discussion I noticed. Sure has led to more comment on FB.
  • @yojibee “Ladies & Gentlemen #facebookTOS group just crossed the 100k treshold!”
  • Latest (19th Feb) commentary from Dennis Howlett on how this has all played out.
  • Discussion by experts on NY Times on Facebook’s faux pas.

On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information?


I saw this today:

“Zuckerberg is saying, “Trust us.” But it is difficult to trust a company that is stripping users of rights they’ve become accustomed to, even if hardly any of them ever actually asserted those rights in practice”. And did this:

I've deactivated my Facebook account

I've deactivated my Facebook account

Not surprising in one way as their backed by some big money that need a return on their investment. Nice acid test for Mr Zuckerberg. Here’s his response on Facebook. I guess the pressure’s on.

Hmm, Perez Hilton doesn’t like Facebook either so I’m in good company:

logo_facebook__opt1.jpg

We’re so glad we’ve never uploaded any of our stuff onto Facebook!

You Facebook users are SCREWED.

Did you know that everything you’ve loaded up into your profile (personal pictures, etc.) belongs to Facebook, even after you’ve closed your account?

That’s what it says in the Terms of Service you agreed to when you opened your account, apparently.

The Consumerist recently uncovered this disturbing info and it’s causing quite a stir.

So, what does this mean?

Basically, Facebook can do whatever the hell they want with YOUR STUFF.

And, they can do so WITHOUT your permission.

For example, they can license your personal pictures out to companies, make a shizzle of money and don’t have to give you a dime.

Sounds really, really shitty and sooo shady!!!!!

Social Media Predictions 2009


My two cents worth? To beat the competition it helps to be in the right time, at the right place. Social media can help you do this. Or to put it another way, with a quote taken from a nice post on the subject of social networking & profit: “Relevancy is not enough in advertising. It’s about relevancy and timing.”

Social Media 2009

Talking about relevancy and timing here’s a great example from Laura Fitton of how to alienate people with the way Facebook Ads suck up data from users, unless you remember to opt-out of Social Ads:

“Wow! Leaving the group efactor on Facebook! DO NOT WANT the fact that I joined their FB group to be a part of their Ads. WTH? Repeat: this was NOT efactor’s doing. this is a Facebook-wide issue. it affects you too. Social ads are opt OUT. Privacy>News Feed>Social Ads.”

Facebook Social Ads Permissions

Facebook Social Ads Permissions

 

Is it strange that Facebook is the top UK search term?


“The first six months of the year were particularly Facebook crazy, but that still doesn’t entirely explain why Facebook would be the most searched term of 2008 in the UK. It’s not like the URL – Facebook.com – is particularly hard to remember, so perhaps Google is the homepage and people like my Mum forget to type the address into the address bar instead of the Google search box…” (Posted by the Guardian’s Jemima Kiss on Wednesday December 10th).

Hmm, what I like to do is turn the puzzle the other way round, and take the fact that people searched for Facebook, rather than remembered the url seriously. After all didn’t Bob Pearson (Twitter at bobpdell) Vice President, Communities & Conversations at Dell say in an interview with Forrester’s Jeremiah Owyang that the ‘corporate homepage’ for them is not Dell.com but Google, MSN or Yahoo? Makes a bit more sense in that context? See 03:40+ mins in.

Face(less=more)book


“Unsure why Facebook is so confusing to get it doing what I want… I can barely make heads or tails of the various “streams”, news, profile, wall, photos … really IMO it should all be one stream.” Hmm, I agree. But then I’m a real less is more man when it comes to web 2.0. Hence also why that’s it to this post.

Quote from comment on how to get Facebook updated by Twitter.