Google’s long awaited entry into the virtual world has taken place in the last week with the launch of their competitor to Second Life, lively.com.  According to the Google blog the initial idea came as they “looked around the social web and wished that it could be less static”.  I’m not quite buying that seen as Second Life has been around for a while now but that
doesn’t mean it isn’t an interesting entrant.  Much like in Second Life you create an avatar for yourself although in Lively.com this is in more of a cartoon vein and in more of a Sims fashion.  You can also create your own rooms within the world and customise their look and decoration.  You can then hang out with your friends in the rooms you create, which brings in the social element.    The interesting part comes with how and where you engage with lively.com.   The system enables you to embed your room into your blog or website, and interact with it directly without the need to visit lively.com.  Whether this is enough of a selling point I am not sure but lively.com will certainly appeal to the youth market more than Second Life and lets face it, the younger generation are much more likely to spend ours chatting to friends online, even more so if they create a cool avatar for themselves in the process.  I was never a big fan of Sims, and never really got into Second Life, so I don’t think Ill be rushing along to set my account up.  But if the Alexa rankings below are anything to go by lively.com could create a bit of a stir in the world of social media.

I was reading Marketing’s fourth annual survey into the top loved and hated brands and noticed the fickle nature of the public in their views on brands, and undoubtedly linked, their advertising campaigns.  What struck me from the survey, more than the strange appearance of AOL at number 2 in the top 50 hated brands even though their UK profile doesn’t warrant such a high profile spot, was the number of brands named highly in both the most hated, and most loved lists.  In the main list you actually only have two brands appearing in the top 20 of both, these are The Sun and Nokia (via ngage in the most hated), but if you get down into the different tables for the individual markets it is much more apparent.  I suppose you could just argue that the more you drill down by market, the less brands their are and so the more chance of a brand appearing in both lists but if you take such a broad market as “fashion” you would imagine there are enough brands out there to limit duplication.  But yet in this particular category 3 brands appear in the top 5 for both hated and loved!  Topshop is number one hated and number 5 loved, Levi’s is number two loved and number 4 hated, and Next is number one loved and number 3 hated.  How can brands be perceived in such a different way?  Is it simply that such well known and high profile brands are more likely to stir an extreme emotion in users where as slightly lesser brands stay under the radar a little more?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I have listed some of the other occurences of this below, focussing on the digital areas of the survey (as that is the topic of the blog after all!):

Is microsoft about to revive the rumours and constant wondering about Facebook buyouts?  After every billionaire tycoon and his dog were linked with buying the social media phenomenon it has all been quiet for a while.  Now apparently it has come out that Microsoft has put the feelers out about a purchase of the social network.  Full article from search engine watch below:

About Face(book): Microsoft Feels Out Social Network Acquisition

Though Bill Gates was out there telling people Microsoft is not interested in making non-Yahoo acquisitions right now (at least in the search/social world), word comes that Microsoft bankers have sent “feelers” to Facebook about a full acquisition.

Here’s why this is a solid move:

1. Microsoft already owns 1.6% stake in Facebook, worth $240 million
2. Microsoft formed a data portability partnership with Facebook and 4 other networks
3. At least two Google execs have jumped ship to Facebook in recent months

While Facebook has yet to “overtake” MySpace in the social media market, it is a viable competitor. And I’m sure Ballmer would love for Microsoft to own a social network that even Apple has used as a marketing ploy as of late. Recent commercials for the iPhone entice potential customers through the ability to access Facebook on the popular mobile device.

Additionally, internet users are turning to their social networks during their search process. Consumers want answers and reviews and social networks help them get opinions from trusted sources.

The Facebook move would likely be seen by many as a better fit than Yahoo. But expect just as many to see it as a negotiating ploy in their bid for Yahoo. Though Microsoft has officially withdrawn its bid for Yahoo, many analysts expect Ballmer and the team to return to the table for another stab at a grab for the search engine.

Neilsen/Netrankings has released some figures which show a monthly decline in Facebook users for the first time since its launch, before it has even managed to fully leverage its traffic volumes into advertising sales.  Its unique audience dropped 5% from December to January prompting many people predicting the demise and claiming Facebook is a fad which will go away as quickly as it arrived.  Have people really already become Facebored?  Or is it simply inevitable that sooner or later there would be a dip in audience as the users who created an account “just to see what all the fuss is about” disappear back to their own world grumbling that it was a load of rubbish anyway?

Mark Ritson, in his article for Marketing, blames the decline on Facebook’s open door policy.  Since September 2006 Facebook has allowed anybody with a valid email address access to their network which was previously exclusive to US students (and before that just Harvard students).  This is where the influx began and over the last 18 months its user base has just grown and grown, until now!  Ritson uses the analogy of being in a hyper trendy bar with his friend, surrounded by beautiful people, drinking beautiful cocktails, listening to great music, before realising the only thing which spoilt the bar, was them!  Two middle aged blokes with expanding waistlines stood out like a sore thumb and somehow made the place less cool.  By opening its doors to anybody in the world, he argues, Facebook has made itself less cool and exclusive, and the seriously cool people, aren’t going to want to be sent a friend request from their mum or an old school teacher!  They want to hang out in a cool environment which similarly cool people, doing cool things and just generally being cool.

So has Facebook’s open door policy caused this dip and is it to be the demise of the worlds largest social networking site?  I don’t know, but I can say that my usage habits have changed slightly since I added my mum and dad as friends!  I am now a lot more careful about what I post and where I post it, although that doesn’t really change the experience too much.  Personally I would blame the 5% drop on the part time users departing, there had to be a dip at some point and I’m sure that’s how the guys at Facebook will see it. 

What it does say to me is that Facebook need to get their act in gear and make this thing profitable, they have an advertising model in place now should start to reap the rewards but it is still not the finished article.  I feel for them in that they are trying to be innovative and make their ads as unintrusive a possible and this is difficult to do but they must find a way.  They have already been chastised for their beacon system and they probably cant afford another mistake like that.  I just hope for their sake, that they don’t rue missing out on a  slice of their $15 Billion valuation which could start to decline a lot faster than their user base if next months figures aren’t more positive.

I have just come across the Yahoo! Buzzapplication which is currently in beta testing.  From what I can see this is very much like Digg and Sphinn in that users provide articles of interest which are then voted on by the users to push them up the listings. 

Stories are given a “buzz score” which is ”derived from search term popularity, the number of times a story is emailed from Buzz, and the number of votes a story receives.”  Which could add a slight element of mystery if it is more than simply a case of adding the sum of all these parts together.  If it is going to work much like the quality score system in PPC then it may change the game a little and avoid all the spamming which takes place in Digg.  There will apparently be a manual editorial team in place to prevent spamming from taking place but how many and how effective they will be remains to be seen.

The other major twist in the tale is the statement from the site “stories with the highest Buzz Scores may be published on the Yahoo! home page.”  this would make the reach of top performing articles massive and the potential of this new application greater than that of Digg and Sphinn as it goes beyond the user base of the programme itself.  Apparently the same editorial team which will monitor the spam will also be responsible for deciding which stories are worthy of the Yahoo homepage exposure.  It will be interested to see what prominence these articles are given as they are free content and so Yahoo! would potentially be losing out on revenue if they replaced any of the paid placements.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether the exposure on the Yahoo! homepage can make it a bigger property than the more established players in social bookmarking.

An application has been developed which allows you to view your Myspace page through Facebook.  The application, developed by Fuser, allows you to check your messages, bulletins and comments without ever leaving the Facebook site.  for the social hardcore this could be a god send and could also be a big dent to Myspace as it will enable users of both to monitor them through one single website, hence less visitors going to the Myspace site.  If users are beginning to migrate from Myspace to Facebook then this could be the final act which prompts a complete switch as they will be able to keep an eye on their lesser used Myspace page without having to visit it.

Additional information

Mars this week launched a Facebook application which allows users to send their friends the gift of a real life Mars bar.  The “gift” will be in the form of a message which, once opened, asks the recipient to enter their mobile number and from this they will be send an SMS voucher which can be redeemed in a participating store.  Twix, Galaxy, Malteser’s and Mars will all be able to be sent with the sender paying via a Paypal account.  This is a bold venture by the guys at Mars but I cant help but think it is a desperate attempt to get involved in social media by a brand which doesn’t necessarily fit.  I am seeing all to often recently companies who know of the buzz around social networking and decide that “we need to be part of that!”  No thought given to whether their brand or product fits or whether the audience they are trying to engage with is part of the social environment they are considering.

To me, social media, social marketing, social networking or however else you want to term it is about engaging with your audience on a personal level, listening to what they are saying and bringing those learnings back into the business.  Too many people are deciding they want to be part of the social phenomenon without thinking whether it suits them, their audience and their product.  The first questions they should be asking are, what am I looking to achieve? Who am I trying to engage? where are these people interacting? Mars is a border line case and they have probably just about pulled it off but in many cases people are missing the mark by a long way just to be involved in the current craze.

There have been a couple of posts recently on the social networking weblog about adult social networking sites and the potential for virtual adultery, questioning whether it constituted being unfaithful. I thought I’d delve into this a little more and give it further consideration.

This first article, virtual adultery, briefly discussed the use of social networking sites such as second life and ever quest for building relationship, some innocent, some not so innocent! It then went on to ask whether these relationships constituted adultery. The author and some quoted users didn’t seem to think it did, so long as it didn’t impacted the “real world”. The second article discussed red light center which is a virtual world created purely for engaging with like minded adults and engaging in “adult activities”. This is one step on from the second life example as this platform was set up primarily to engage in “sexual” (I use this term loosely!) activities in a virtual environment.

I have to say personally I don’t agree that it is all ok so long as there is no impact on real life but thought Id do some slightly more “scientific” investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Dictionary.com defines adultery as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse”. So assuming that one or both of the participating parties is married I guess the next thing to do is quantify “sexual intercourse” which is defined by the same site as “genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm.” Now I could obviously go on and on with this and begin defining each different points but I don’t think I would get much closer to a conclusion simply because all definitions of this nature are going to refer to one or more human elements, associated with the real world. I would therefore come to the conclusion that it qualifies as adultery if the individuals involved consider their virtual characters an extension of themselves, a bit woolly I know but that’s as close as I can get to a conclusion.

It doesn’t stop there though as there is another factor to consider, betrayal, “to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to”. By engaging in “sexual” activities in a virtual environment whilst in a relationship I would suggest you are betraying your partner, that is assuming they are not aware of what you are doing! The author does make this point in her closing comments from the first article.

“My advice if you want to engage in online relationships is talk to your real life partner about it and see how they feel. Reassure them that’s it’s just a game and a way to have fun, relieve some tension. If they really object then you have two options. Either don’t do it, or be really careful.”

I would echo these sentiments and in my eyes, virtual adultery would constitute betrayal if the partner of one or both parties involved was not aware of what was going on. So if you are looking to make the most of what the virtual world has to offer my advice would be, be honest, be open, or be prepared to sacrifice your real life relationships.

Some of the virtual sex sites across the web include:

Somasex - virtual sex super site
3d-sexgames.com
3dslut.com
Hentai Park

I read in article recently in marketing week entitled “Looking for new ways to make money in the age of free media” which discussed the rise of social media and its increasing strength and importance in shaping a brand and a products success.  The article began intelligently enough discussing the rise of user generated channels and their importance in online PR and reputation management.  This is all well and good and I completely agree with the importance of monitoring and managing a company or brands online profile to aid in its success.  But the closing question posed by the article was “how do they (agencies) get paid?” which I thought was pretty damn obvious.

There are two precious commodities involved in any successful online campaign which are rarely held by a client, expertise and time.  The majority of client side marketers (on or offline) would not know where to begin when looking at their online profile and certainly would not now the best way to leverage the channel to their advantage.  This is where a good agency steps in with the knowledge and the contacts to deal with things in the appropriate manner.  Then there is the time element which is one of the major reasons for any company taking on an agency for any activity.  Only the largest companies have a marketing team which can take on board all work in house and produce work of the desired standard, the majority are best served acting as project manager and the owner of the final decision and leaving their roster to get on with the real work, especially when it comes to something as time consuming as online reputation management.  When you combine these two factors you have a highly valuable, highly marketable product, and with consultants in many channels charging u to £5,000 per day I am surprised the writer asks such a naive question.  After all SEO is technically “free” yet there are countless companies out there charging for their expertise and time in this area, social media and online PR fall under the same category.

It is the social networking phenomenon which has taken 2007 by storm but I have started getting a little bored with Facebook of late.  Now that the thrill of connecting with old friends has passed and the days of logging in to a potful of notifications is behind me I’m struggling to get excited by it all.  All I seem to get these days or invitations to join the latest application doing the rounds and numerous postings of those annoying chain letter style messages (for the last time, nothing bad is going to happen if you don’t pass it on, no-one is going to delete your profile and you aren’t going to come into any money!).  There are a few friends who I contact through it which make the process of logging in worth while but aside from that its all a little dull for me now.  Maybe I am alone in this feeling? I know for a fact many of my close friends are still wildly addicted to it and if they go a day without logging on they start breaking into cold sweats and having panic attacks.  But I just don’t get that feeling of anticipation when logging in anymore.  Sure, I still use it, but more out of habit than enjoyment and also the fact I use the internet all day everyday at work so have access all the time.  I certainly wouldn’t be too worried if I had to go with access for a period of time though and can’t see Id miss it at all.  Maybe this is the start of the great Facebook decline, where the casual user drifts away and only the hardcore remain, leaving thousands of redundant accounts.  This is how I see Myspace’s current existence, I haven’t seen their take up figures recently but I would imagine they are in sharp decline, part due to the rise of Facebook but also because they are no longer the flavour of the month and only the hardcore survive.  Facebook is a long way from this status as they are still in the stage of sign up growth but they need to keep one eye on the future and think about how to avoid the decline, either that or get out while the going is good.  As they say, timing is everything, but I doubt they will ever be valued at more than the current $15 billion so it may be time to cash in.