With all the stories about gangs, bullying, adultery it is nice to come across a story which celebrates the true value of social media, connecting people.

The BBC has picked out 3 Facebook success stories which show the true power of social media and social networks for connecting people who cant be together or have lost touch.

Read the full article here

Im obviously talking about twitter, the latest social tool to be all the range in the digital world, and big news in the mainstream media as well.  I expect the purchase rumours, twitter needs it if it is going to stay ahead of the game and solve its infrastructure issues.  But it seems every second article I read now is about why twitter is going to replace Facebook, or why it is the tool to end the search engines dominance online, but I am not really buying it.

I use twitter, I am on Facebook, I use Google and pretty much any other online tool of any great use as well, and I can safely say, no one of those which I use has reduced the amount I use the others or replaced them in any way.  I use Google for my search activity (or live search if I get bored), I catch up with old and distant friends on Facebook, and us twitter for industry news and general commentary on life.  So why does everyone want to merge them, compare them, or pit them against each other in a social media/online battle?

Fresh Egg ponders whether twitter might take business away from Google, techcrunch taks about Facebook stealing twitters market (although suggesting it isn’t likely) and many other bloggers and social commentators debate why and who twitter is going to replace.  Can they all not co-exist on their own merits without the desire to imitate, acquire or destroy one another?  Or is it just a symptom of the evolving social world we live in where every new venture is set to be bought by one of the more established players?

There’s always a quetions mark with social networking sites and social media solutions on the whole about how their revenues model is going to work, is it a straight CPM advertising model? do you charge for membership? Or do you use some sort of combination of the two? LinkedIn seem to have a good balance for me, with display advertising shown throughout the site (the attraction to advertisers being the ability to target business types) and then supplementary services such as a job board which charges for listing vacancies.  It may be that LinkedIn is just not growing as expected and so cutbacks are necessary to hit profit targets, or it could be something more severe.

The original dot com crash was caused by people investing large amounts in projects without a solid revenue model and there has been instances which are reminiscent of this recently surrounding social media (think Microsoft’s $240 M payment for 1.6% stake in facebook).  Given the current economic climate I cant see many investments of this size in the coming months and I would hazard a guess that a few people are regretting previous investments a little, but whether we are set for dot com crash 2.0 only time will tell.

At a recent seminar I attended on mobile marketing the general message portrayed by the speaker was don’t just regurgatate your website for mobile, think about people will want to use the mobile site for and provide that.  Facebook have done this to a certain degree by stripping back their main website and providing a simplified mobile interface where the most prominent feature is the profile update.  This is fine, but I cant help thinking that it doesn’t really play utilise the benefits of mobile  to make it something more.

Social networking plays into the hands of mobile phones and mobile Internet by its very nature.  Social networks are a communication tool, a tool used to connect with friends and like minded people, as are mobile phones.  But there is a huge difference to the PC based world wide web, and mobile web, and so the networks which are going to be successful need to be adapted to suit the world of mobile Internet.

Gigaom are dubious about the possibility of a social network existing purely on mobile alone quoting the example of Rabble who started as a mobile only social network and are now making strides by partnering with existing web based networks and enabling them to go mobile.

Information Week are a little more confident stating mobile social networks as an untapped market ripe for the picking.  they do however raise questions about the most appropriate monetisation model as standard advertising models don’t really suit.

So why should it work?  Here are some of the main arguments why mobile social networking should work:

Communication tools: as mentioned above, both elements are communication tools, so combined they should compliment each other.

Simplicity: the mobile web is tough to get right, but the simplicity of some key elements of social networking can bypass this if done correctly.  For example Facebook status updates are regularly done via mobile and twitter is also a big player in mobile social.

Growth in Mobile Internet:mobile Internet usage is growing as charges come down and handsets advance.  This makes the potential for those that can get it right even greater.

Reach of Mobile: I don’t know anyone who doesn’t own a mobile, that means everyone is a potential user!

And now for the converse; what are the barriers to it being the next big thing?:

Mobile Internet Usage: although growing, this still isn’t great.  For years now mobile Internet and more specifically mobile advertising has been the "next big thing" but but has never really materialised.

Handset Limitations: Linked to the need for simplicity, lets face it, viewing web pages on a handset just isn’t that good.  navigation is difficult and page load is slow, so anything that is going to take off, is going to have to be simple and compatible.

Revenue models:  Mobile advertising to date, doesn’t really work, so CPM based revenue models are out.  Subscription models could work, but you would need ot give people a pretty good reason to sign up.  Without the two obvious options it is going to take some out of the box thinking to monetise any network which does break down the initial barriers.

I’m sure there are more why’s and why not’s which I could come up with given more time.  Do I think mobile social networking is the next big thing…maybe.  I can see it working, but not in its current form, and as for it working as a stand alone network with no web presence, I’m even less sure about that.  Ill have to give it more thought before writing the business plan to take over the mobile social networking world ; )

POUTING: Presenting such a provocative, sensual symbol indicates someone who wishes to be acknowledged in a sexual way – seeking intimacy or a partner. It could also indicate being a very tactile person

WITH AN ANIMAL: A person who displays themselves as capable of caring and nurturing, indicating need of an outlet for these tendencies and a broody nature.

DANCING: To display yourself on display, so to speak, is the ultimate invitation to be watched. Those who show themselves dancing are likely to be strongly extrovert. Additionally, in Western Culture, dancing has strong connotations toward leisure and freedom, denoting a hedonistic, pleasure-seeking streak.

WITH A BOYFRIEND: A popular picture type with serial monogamists, and signifies searching for a deeper or more committed relationship.

WITH A GUY (NOT BOYFRIEND): As well as a simple flirtatious contact, a picture with a potentially ambiguous meaning shows a love of creating stories, and playing games with the social fabric. In short, one who thrives on gossip.

DOING AN ACTIVITY: This is someone who identifies with their abilities and experiences rather than emotions or relationships. It may also indicate an unwillingness to commit or settle down.

ON HOLIDAY: Those who identify themselves with a carefree holiday may have a tendency to over-stress in their everyday lives. This could also indicate escapist fantasies or a dreamer disposition.

LOOKING AWAY FROM CAMERA: An unwillingness to be caught and posed in the conventional way is indicative of someone headstrong and confident in their approach to life.

NIGHT OUT/FANCY DRESS: This image represents the social, extroverted aspects of a personality; denoting that they value confidence and attention highly.

Just one missing from the list for me, the one where the picture is taken from the best possible angle making the person look 200% more attractive/slim/muscular than they actually are in real life! God knows Ive seen a few of those knocking around Facebook!

People have got to start waking up to the fact that Facebook and other social networking sites are mainstream channels of information now.  Just because you have to log in to see information doesn’t make it a secure environment.  People have long been punished in their professional lives for actions in the private lives it is just the case now that people put more information about their out of hours antics in the public domain.  If there is anybody you wouldn’t want to know about something, don’t put it on Facebook!  If you do Big brother will most definitely see it!

1. make everything clean and easy to use, reduce the clutter.
2. give the user more control over their profile (what, you mean make it more like myspace?)
3. show the most recent and relevant content

Apparently this is all based upon recommendations made by Facebook users although Im sure I was never asked my opinion!  Anyway to the initial observations.  The main change appears to be the introduction of tabs on the pages, both profile and home page.  On the homepage they have separated out top stories, status updates, photos and posted items.  Obviously aimed at objectives 1 and 3.  On initial use I actually think this works really well.  I do agree that peoples profiles were getting far too cluttered and this enables you to see more easily the information you want.  The first page is the wall and minifeed, and expansion on the original minifeed which includes photos and actual wall postings rather than just notifications.  This will satisfy the avid facebook user who wants a snapshot of what everybody is up to and in a way brings Facebook and the status updates function closer to the Twitter concept.

The page layout has also changed slightly, with a reduction of content in the left hand margin whilst keeping the 3 column format.  They remove this in the photos tab though and you get more of a full album view which makes photo browsing easier.  It is also removed when viewing group and fan pages and the navigation which was once on the left has now moved to the header bar.

If I notice anything else interesting I will be sure to post it but the initial observation is that the objective of clean, clear, uncluttered layout has been achieved.  I just hope to god that the point about profile control isnt going to lead to the flourescent flashing profile pages that make Myspace so annoying.

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.

Additional information

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.