social media | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Flunking the Local Search Market

Are we repeating the mistakes of the tech wreck?

At a breakfast last week a business owner told me about his struggle to counter negative reviews about his B&B on Tripadvisor.

There’s little doubt that sites like Tripadvisor and Urban Spoon are important to the hospitality industry, as customers check out reviews of establishments before they make a booking or set off for an evening’s entertainment.

Over the last two years most of us in the industry thought Facebook and Google’s Local Search services – both confusing called “Places” – would dominate the market for these services.

Google seemed to have the biggest advantage as the integration of local search and user reviews seemed to be a no-brainer for the search engine giant.

A combination of poor implementation and anal retentive policies left Google Places stranded. The distraction of trying to slap a “social layer” onto the search platform can’t have helped.

Facebook haven’t fared any better. Much of the problem for the dominant social network has been that users aren’t particularly interested in engaging with businesses unless there’s an incentive like a freebie or prize.

Just last week a US based social media expert was recommending local businesses offer incentives such as “a slice of apple pie” in return for favourable Facebook reviews and likes.

Business owners themselves are finding it too difficult with the demands of too many social networks overwhelming them. This isn’t helped by the services offering confusing products, arcane policies and requiring information being duplicated.

Most importantly though is customers just aren’t using these services. Increasingly it’s clear we want to use custom applications, particularly if we’re using smartphones where it’s difficult to navigate through a social media service’s multiple options.

It could well be that we don’t want to use all in one “portals” – this was the web model that companies like Yahoo! and MSN tried to impose upon us when it became clear that the walled gardens of AOL and The Microsoft Network didn’t work on the Internet.

One of the factors driving the tech wreck of the early 2000s was the failure of those portals as highly valued web real estate proved to be based on faulty assumptions and shaky maths.

The failure of specialised search engines and social networks to expand into mobile and local services indicates many of our assumptions today are flawed.

Could it be that the next popping of a tech bubble is a repeat of the mistaken assumptions we should have understood over a decade ago?

Undermining the cloud

Google’s broad claim on users’ data risks the viability of their services

Whenever I do a presentation on cloud computing and social media for business, I focus on one important area – The Terms Of Service.

Google’s relaunch of their Cloud Drive product has reminded us of the risks that hide in these terms, particularly with the one clause;

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

This is an almost identical clause to that introduced – and quickly dropped by file sharing Dropbox – last year. It’s also pretty well standard in the social media services including Facebook.

Basically it means that while you retain ownership of anything you post to Google Drive, or most of other Google’s services including Google Docs you’re giving the corporation the rights to use the data in any way they choose.

While the offending clause does go onto say this term is “for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones” there is no definition of what operating, promoting or improving their services actually means.

Not that it matters anyway, as one of the later terms says they reserve the right to change any clause at any time they choose. So if Google decided that selling your client spreadsheets to the highest bidder will improve the service for their shareholders, then so be it.

If you’re a photographer then the pictures you upload to Facebook or Google+ now are licensed to these organisations as are all the documents stored on Cloud Drive.

To be fair this is not just a Google issue, Facebook has similar terms as do many others. Surprisingly just as many premium, paid for services have these conditions as free ones.

Because these Terms Of Service are about establishing a power relationship, there’s usually an over-reach by large companies with these terms.

While an over-reach is understandable, its not healthy where the customer has to trust that the big corporation will do the right thing.

Right now, if you’re using a cloud or social media service for important business information you may want to check that service doesn’t have terms that grant them a license to your intellectual property.

Inflating titles, inflated apirations

How job title inflation can affect an organisation

This story first appeared in Smart Company on 19 April 2012.

“She listed her job on LinkedIn as my ghostwriter,” reflected the journalist about his publishing business’ Gen-Y staff member.

The journalist’s lament reflects an unexpected corporate risk in social media; that of employees giving themselves grandiose and sometimes damaging job profiles.

Over the last 20 years, title inflation has been rife in the business world as corporations and government agencies doled out grandiose titles to soothe the egos of fragile management egos.

So it isn’t surprising that many of us succumb to the temptation to give ourselves a grand title online.

In the journo’s case a young graduate working as an editor in his publishing business listed herself as his ghostwriter, risking a huge dent to his credibility among other the lizards at the pub or the Quill Awards.

That business journalist is not alone, in the connected economy what would have been a quaint title on a business card or nameplate is now being advertised to the world.

Making matters worse, we now have tools like LinkedIn and other social media sites to check out a business’ background and who are the key contacts in an organisation.

So what your staff call themselves is now important. It can confuse customers, cause internal staff problems (“how come he’s an Executive Group General Manager?”), damage business reputations and quite often put an unexpected workload on a relatively junior employee.

In your social media policy – which is now essential in any business that employs staff – you need to clarify what titles your people can bestow upon themselves.

As well as making this clear to new staff, a regular web search on your business that includes all of the popular social media sites should be a regular task.

Just as economic inflation can hurt your business, so too can uncontrolled title inflation. Watch it isn’t affecting your operations.

It’s all in the timing

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

This morning I sat in on a corporate breakfast and heard a well known presenter talk about social media for business owners and managers.

The advice was terrible and what was valid could have come from a 2008 book on business social media marketing.

But the room loved it and obviously the client – a major bank – thinks the speaker’s work is worthwhile. He has a market while many of us who’ve been covering this field for a decade don’t.

Timing is everything in business. Earlier this week stories went around the Internet about how Microsoft could have invented the first smart phone.

Microsoft could well have done it, they tried hard enough with Windows CE devices through the late 1990s and there was also the Apple Newton and the Palm Pilot.

While all these companies could have developed the smartphone in the 1990s it wouldn’t have mattered as neither the infrastructure or the market were ready for it.

Had Microsoft released the smartphone in the mid 199os it would have been useless on the analogue and first generation GSM cellphone networks of the time.

Customers were barely using the web on their personal computers, let alone on their mobile phones, so the smartphone would have been useless and unwanted.

Ten years later things had changed with 3G networks and real consumer demand so Apple seized the gap in the marketplace left by Motorola, Nokia and the other phone manufacturers with the iPhone and now own the market.

Apple weren’t the first to market with a smartphone, just as Microsoft weren’t the first with a Windows-style operating system and Facebook weren’t the first social media platform.

Those who were first to the market stood by while upstarts stole the market they built.

Plenty of people have gone broke when their perfectly correct investment strategies have been mistimed – “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” is often proved true.

That’s the same with the speaker this morning; he’s not the first to discover social media’s business benefits but his timing is impeccable.

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

Rivers of gold

Can there be a downside to Google’s massive profits?

Google’s announcement that their revenues have increased by 24% over the last year shows the search engine juggernaut keeps rolling on.

It’s tempting to think that Google is untouchable and that’s certainly how it appears when you’re on track to earn forty billion dollars a year and book close to 40% of that income as profits.

On the same day, Sony announced a massive restructure including with 10,000 redundancies and the company’s CEO, Kazuo Hirai, spoke of a sense of urgency to address the once dominant corporation’s drift into irrelevance.

Twenty years the thought of Sony – one of the world’s innovators in consumer electronics – would be wallowing in the wake of companies like Apple and unknown upstarts like Google was unthinkable.

Fortunes are won and quickly lost in a time of great change and this is something we should keep in mind about Google when we look at their rivers of gold.

“Rivers Of Gold” was a term coined to describe the advertising riches of the newspaper industry in the 1980’s. Google’s online advertising is partly responsible for destroying that business.

Today Google is a search engine business that makes its money from the advertising that deserted print media and went online.

It may be that manufacturing mobile phones, running “identity services” disguised as social media platforms or augmented reality spectacles are the future of Google but right now they it’s search and advertising that pays the bills and books the massive profits.

The challenge for Google is not to lose sight of its current core business while building the future rivers of gold.

If Google’s leaders can’t manage this, then they risk following the newspaper industry that they themselves disrupted.

You hold us harmless

How the terms of social media sites risk your assets and their business

Social media site Pinterest was recently caught in one of the ongoing quandaries of social media – the ownership of content.

The subject is tricky; social media sites rely on a vibrant community of users posting news and interesting things for their online friends.

Unfortunately many of things social media users post are someone else’s property, so almost every service has a boilerplate legal indemnity term like Pinterest’s.

You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.

Facebook have similar terms (clause 15.1) as do LinkedIn (clause 2.E) and Tumblr (clause 15). Interestingly, Google’s master terms of service only holds businesses liable for the company’s legal costs, not individuals.

Boilerplate terms like these are necessary to provide at least an illusion of legal protections for investors – those venture capital investors, greater fool buyers or punters jumping into the latest hot technology stock offering need a fig leaf that covers the real risk of being sued for copyright infringement by one of their users.

The risk in these terms shouldn’t be understated; by agreeing to them a user assumes the liability of any costs the service incurs from the user’s posts. Those costs don’t have to be a successful lawsuit against the service, it could be something as minor as responding to a lawyer’s nastygram or DMCA takedown notice.

Of course, none of the major social media platforms have any intention of using these indemnity terms; they know that the first time they go after a user all trust in the service will evaporate and their business collapse.

Somewhere among the thousands of social media services though there is going to be one that will pull this stunt. Strapped for cash and slapped with an outrageous claim for copyright damages, the company’s board will settle then send out their own demands to the users responsible.

Those “responsible” users – probably white, middle class folk sitting in somewhere in the US Midwest, South East England or North Island of New Zealand – will be baffled by the legal demand that requires them to file a defense somewhere obscure in California or Texas and will go to their lawyer friends.

When the lawyers tell them what it means their next step will be to their local news outlet.

The moment the story of a middle class person facing losing all their assets hits the wires is the moment the entire social media business model starts to wobble.

In many ways what the social media sites are trying to do is offset risk.

Risk though is like toothpaste. Squeeze the tube in one place and the pressure moves elsewhere.

By laying off a real risk by using legal terms the social media sites create new, even bigger risks elsewhere in their business.

The dumb thing is these terms really don’t protect the services anyway – it’s unlikely the typical social media user will have anything like the assets to cover the costs of a major copyright action by a rich, determined plaintiff.

It’s going to be interesting to see how many services still have these indemnity clauses in 12 months.

For the industry’s sake, the big players will need to have ditched these terms before that first dumb attempt to claim damages from users hits the wires.

Overstuffing the social media goose

Businesses are struggling with too many online services

“Small business has to get on Pinterest” urges the social media advisor.

“Oh no, not another of these social media thingummies” thinks the business owner or marketing manager.

Pinterest is just the latest of a dozen online services that businesses have been urged to join in recent years. An incomplete list would include the following;

Pinterest
Google Plus
Facebook
Facebook Timeline
Quora
Color
Yelp
Tumblr
Google Places
True Local
Blogging
LinkedIn
LinkedIn Groups
Twitter

The question for the time poor business owner or under resourced manager is “where do I find the hours for all this?”

It’s not just smaller businesses either – most corporations don’t have the resources to dedicate to all of these services, let alone provide the 24×7 coverage many are beginning to expect.

When it comes to online services and social media businesses owners and managers are like geese being stuffed for foie gras, they’ve had so much stuffed down their necks they can barely move.

Like the foie gras ducks, businesses have become glassy eyed – when someone tells them they have to sign up to another online service they just switch off.

We’ve reached the point where are too many networks for event the most underemployed social media expert to handle.

For those advocating social networking or other online services for business, it’s time to start acknowledging the time poor reality of most businesses and consider exactly which services are best suited for the organisation.

In businesss it’s not time to switch off, that could be the worst thing to do as so many new ways of talking with customers are developing.

Instead of feeling overwhelmed, it’s time to start carefully considering which services will work best with your markets, products and staff and choose carefully.

The days of just charging into the latest social media sensation are over, these services are growing up and they have to prove its worthwhile for businesses – or individuals – to invest their time.

Overselling technology

Do technologists promise too much?

“We’d like to allow remote band members – say a violinist in the Australian outback – be able to participate in an orchestra as if they were there. We hope the NBN will be able to do this.”

When the band organiser said this at a business roundtable all the technologists, myself included, choked.

There are many things the Australian National Broadband Network will deliver but the ability to teleport a violinist from the outback to downtown Sydney or Melbourne isn’t one of them.

One of the problems with technology is we tend to oversell the immediate effects; as Bill Gates famously said “The impact of all new technologies is overestimated in the short term but under estimated in the long term.”

Because we tend to sell the immediate sizzle, customers are disappointed when our promises don’t eventuate. In the decade it takes to win them back, those initial benefits we didn’t deliver in six months have become commonplace.

This is probably one of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to invest in new technology or online services; they’ve heard the promises before and they don’t trust what they can hear.

In the late 1990s businesses spent tens of thousands – sometimes millions – establishing websites that didn’t work. Those financial scars still hurt when they hear talk, some of them are still paying off those sites. So it’s barely surprising they are reluctant to return to a sector that has now matured.

Perhaps it’s best to underpromise; instead of cloud computer vendors committing themselves to 80% savings and social media experts promising millions of customers from their new viral video, it may be better to be more realistic with the expectations.

Customers have become deaf to wonderful promises, they are expecting us to deliver. Promising the world is no longer a business strategy.

The allure of free data

It’s user generated, but is it worthwhile.

It looks like a nice business model, you get users to generate your content for you. Many of the new digital media empires like YouTube, Facebook and Foursquare are built upon it.

The Register’s Simon Sharwood looked at the downside of this business model – junk data.

Even the most well intentioned users makes mistakes with thing like addresses and that’s before you get mischief makers or competitors putting in false information.

There’s another aspect too, what one person thinks is relevant may not be to other users or to the people running the service, Simon cites the dozens of “mom’s kitchens” on Foursquare.

For those who’ve added their mom’s house, that’s relevant and maybe even funny to them.

All of this illustrates the downside to the free, User Generated Content (UGC) model; you have to accept what the users give you.

Which means it isn’t free – it has to be collated, processed and the noise has to be filtered out.

At worst, somebody has to make the decision what is relevant and what has to go. This isn’t easy and, as Google found with their Name Wars, can upset a lot of users if it isn’t handled well.

Nothing in life is truly free and with data becoming increasingly important to business it’s worthwhile considering the quality of that free or cheap stuff you get from the net.

Navigating the Internet jungle

When we’re in the wild, we need to keep our wits about us.

I usually don’t pay much attention to stories about Apple malware given that most hysterical stories about Mac viruses are written by charlatans spruiking third rate security products.

The story of the Flashback Trojan is an interesting one though, not because the malware is particularly original or that it comes with the usual hysterical claim of being part of the coming wave of viruses that will wipe the smug smiles off Mac users’ facers.

Flashback’s interesting because it combines all the tactics of a modern computer virus or malware, bringing together unpatched vulnerabilities and some social engineering with the intention of stealing user passwords.

These are risks regardless of what type of computer, smartphone or tablet you use. It illustrates how the security risks have moved on since the first epidemic of Windows computer viruses just before the beginning of the century.

Similarly, the motivation for writing viruses and malware has evolved. Where it was once an intellectual exercise for bored, highly skilled young code cutters, today it’s a lucrative criminal enterprise aimed at getting access to victim’s bank accounts and other assets.

Which is the reason why it’s a good idea to have different passwords for various online services – no more using the same password for your online banking, Minecraft and Facebook accounts.

Having the latest security patches installed is also important, particularly with third party products like Adobe Flash, Java or Microsoft Office, so don’t ignore those warnings as a caller to one of my radio slots boasted.

We also need to keep our wits about us online and watch out for the sneaky tricks used to fool us into opening malware, it’s a jungle out here on the web.

On becoming a Captive Business

On being trapped by your suppliers or customers

I’ve been writing a lot recently about the risks of businesses aligning their interests too closely with one or another platform, last weekend The China Law Blog discussed the opposite – being a captive customer.

The term “captive customer” is new to me but it’s a familiar concept; in the IT industry most of us found ourselves hostage to Microsoft’s whims at one time or another and it wasn’t a good place to be.

Many smaller businesses and consultants fall for the trap of having just one big customer which their income becomes dependent upon.

While Dan’s point on The China Law Blog is about manufacturing, this risk is becoming even more pressing on the web where there’s a tendency to be captured by one platform or another.

Sometimes entire industries are captured – the Search Engine Optimisation sector is wholly dependent upon whatever Google chooses to with their search algorithm. To make things worse, no SEO expert knows exactly how Google’s equations actually work.

We’re seeing the mass media being captured in a number of ways – by granting licenses to Facebook, one suspects unwittingly, or developing content for Apple’s iPad.

For startups depending upon cloud services or single payment platforms like PayPal there are serious risks as we saw with the co-ordinated takedown of Wikileaks.

In nature, the animal or plant that depends on one source of food or habitat is at risk from even small changes in their environment. Be careful you aren’t a business dodo.