The following article discusses how Facebook is expanding and continuing to make improvements in order to generate more money and to compete with Google: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=143423
Facebook is soon “launching its universal "like" button, across the internet today, setting up pipes to gather user data from anywhere on the web. And now that users can add what topics, products or content they like to their Facebook profiles”. In other words, companies will soon have a button users can click that will show up on their Facebook page. This innovation shows how social networking has expanded beyond its own page and now companies are embracing it. This new way of expressing a user’s interest is an evolved form of behavioral targeting. Instead of ads being generated based off what a user had visited (for example, Amazon will email you recommendations of a product based off what you bought), this feature would tailor content based off what a user has “liked”.
Furthermore, Facebook “also launched a documents product with Microsoft: Docs.com. It's the web version of Microsoft's Office suite, designed to share and collaborate online. The site appears to be coming head-to-head with Google Docs.”
What this news shows is that Facebook is improving its site in order to get more money from ads. This news signifies how social networking sites is not only a platform for people to communicate, but is becoming a one-stop website. If this cross-platform idea actually works, what are the implications?
Companies need to jump on the band wagon for this idea to actually be effective. While CNN, The New York Times, and several hundred companies have joined in, Facebook needs to capitalize on the idea of liking becoming “universal”. Of course smaller sites, and personal websites, will not be targeted. If bigger companies do join, then this act alone shows how social networking sites have fully become integrated into culture.
Facebook needs to remember that their users are more important than the companies paying for ad space. While the companies support the servers for the site to be running, Facebook needs to continue to implement improvements in order for users to use their site over other social networking sites such as Twitter and Myspace. To further compete with Google, Facebook should join with other software programmers to release a variety of applications, from Microsoft Office (which is now being implemented), to Adobe for Photo editing. Having a variety of applications would enforce the site as a “one-stop” website, where users can create word documents or polish any tagged photos.
Along with giving access to users, Facebook should allow users to customize their page. While Facebook is trying to create a new form of behavioral targeting, allowing users to add color, embed videos, or even music would also show a lot about the person. The videos of songs uploaded could be used for behavioral targeting, where the site could provide recommendations similar to Amazon.com.
Currently, interpersonal communication through Facebook is only text correspondence. However, the site should allow users to communicate with their friends via video or audio bits. The site should create programs where anyone with a microphone and webcam can easily record a message to a friend. Not only would this replace Skype, an online messengers where people can do exactly that, but would further differentiate the social networking site from its competitors.
If Facebook continues to accommodate to advertisers and its users, then the site will easily take out Myspace, Twitter, and other social networking sites. Furthermore, Facebook would find its own mold on the internet where people would only visit the site to do everything from generating word documents to leaving a message to a friend. Soon enough, Facebook could no longer be branded as simply as a social networking site because the site has become more than a way for friends to communicate. I would not be surprised if Facebook joins up with Microsoft’s “Bing” search engine to directly compete with Google, trying to take away its user base in every way possible.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Social Networking Reached Its Peak?
As I continue to look up information about my topic to become more insightful on the subject, I came across the following CNN article: (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/26/has.twitter.peaked/index.html), which discusses how Twitter has peaked in terms of hits. The social networking site differentiated itself from Facebook and Myspace by capitalizing the popularity of text messages, letting people write brief “tweets,” or comments about their mundane activities in 160 characters or less. Despite Twitter losing hits, Facebook is supposedly the most visited website, surpassing Google in terms of unique hits: (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9171358/Facebook_hits_milestone_tops_Google_for_a_week)
But the saying goes, what goes up must come down. The articles made me wonder if social networking sites have reached their peak and will now go downhill, soon replaced by some other fad. It may be cool to set up a social networking page now to contact with friends, but there will always be people trying to innovate and create something new. Who knows if there will be an even more convenient way to communicate with people in years to come?
The CNN article made me wonder if I should consider Twitter a fad. It became really popular in 2009 because it was sort of like Facebook and Myspace, but now people see that they might as well just use Facebook or text messaging. Twitter’s success, which has reached its plateau, has reminded me of my childhood. During the 90s, it seemed like so many fads came in and out that I was moaning to my mother every week to buy me something “cool”. These fads included Pogs, Pokemon, Beanie Babies, and the over abundance of pop music. Because the article gave me a rush of nostalgia, I began to compare what was “in” when I was a child to social networking sites.
Unlike what was cool in the 90s to now, the popular things now are not tangible objects. I cannot buy a social networking site. Using a social networking site has no sense of ownership, as in I am only given the right to use the site by following the terms of agreement. The reason why I bring up the point that no monetary fee has to be paid in order to use the site is that it seems with other fads people come to the conclusion that spending so much money on certain items is a waste of money after a few months. For example, people spent hundreds of dollars on certain Beanie Babies, thinking they would no longer be manufactured, only for the business to be bought out and continue making the stuffed animals. Whereas people could have put the Beanie Babies on Ebay and sell some for over a hundred dollars (eg. Princess Diana one), now they can be bought for less than ten.
I have come to the conclusion that social networking sites will not die out for this reason. There is no monetary loss in joining one and because the sites are not tangible objects, people can easily close and open new accounts as they please. The only thing a person would be wasting is his or her time.
Besides this point, the other reason why I believe social networking sites won’t die out is that companies have embraced them. They have used the sites as a way to communicate with their audience. My previous blog entry is an example of how companies have incorporated social networking sites to market products to their target audience.
Perhaps, then, its wrong to call social networking sites a fad, especially when I’m arguing how they won’t die out. While the sites may have started as a fad, I believe they have evolved to the point where they have been implemented with our culture, such as phones now coming with mobile Facebook/Twitter/etc… applications. Furthermore, as long as there are people who want to communicate with others, then using a social networking site will be a viable option. The only way in which I see the sites dying out is if they pull some stunt where they try to charge people to access the site, such as Friendster. Wait… What’s Friendster?
But the saying goes, what goes up must come down. The articles made me wonder if social networking sites have reached their peak and will now go downhill, soon replaced by some other fad. It may be cool to set up a social networking page now to contact with friends, but there will always be people trying to innovate and create something new. Who knows if there will be an even more convenient way to communicate with people in years to come?
The CNN article made me wonder if I should consider Twitter a fad. It became really popular in 2009 because it was sort of like Facebook and Myspace, but now people see that they might as well just use Facebook or text messaging. Twitter’s success, which has reached its plateau, has reminded me of my childhood. During the 90s, it seemed like so many fads came in and out that I was moaning to my mother every week to buy me something “cool”. These fads included Pogs, Pokemon, Beanie Babies, and the over abundance of pop music. Because the article gave me a rush of nostalgia, I began to compare what was “in” when I was a child to social networking sites.
Unlike what was cool in the 90s to now, the popular things now are not tangible objects. I cannot buy a social networking site. Using a social networking site has no sense of ownership, as in I am only given the right to use the site by following the terms of agreement. The reason why I bring up the point that no monetary fee has to be paid in order to use the site is that it seems with other fads people come to the conclusion that spending so much money on certain items is a waste of money after a few months. For example, people spent hundreds of dollars on certain Beanie Babies, thinking they would no longer be manufactured, only for the business to be bought out and continue making the stuffed animals. Whereas people could have put the Beanie Babies on Ebay and sell some for over a hundred dollars (eg. Princess Diana one), now they can be bought for less than ten.
I have come to the conclusion that social networking sites will not die out for this reason. There is no monetary loss in joining one and because the sites are not tangible objects, people can easily close and open new accounts as they please. The only thing a person would be wasting is his or her time.
Besides this point, the other reason why I believe social networking sites won’t die out is that companies have embraced them. They have used the sites as a way to communicate with their audience. My previous blog entry is an example of how companies have incorporated social networking sites to market products to their target audience.
Perhaps, then, its wrong to call social networking sites a fad, especially when I’m arguing how they won’t die out. While the sites may have started as a fad, I believe they have evolved to the point where they have been implemented with our culture, such as phones now coming with mobile Facebook/Twitter/etc… applications. Furthermore, as long as there are people who want to communicate with others, then using a social networking site will be a viable option. The only way in which I see the sites dying out is if they pull some stunt where they try to charge people to access the site, such as Friendster. Wait… What’s Friendster?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Faceless Companies
While we all use Facebook and social networking friends to communicate with friends and family, this blog is going to discuss how social networking sites has allowed companies and celebrities to communicate with their consumers and fans.
Many companies now have a Facebook page, where you can friend them or become a “fan”. Becoming a “fan” is just another way of saying you like the company. These companies then use the Facebook page to tell their consumers and fans when new events happen. Perhaps, as well, fans feel a personal connection when friending a celebrity on Facebook and seeing the celebrity update his or her status.
Oreo has recently launched a campaign revolving around Facebook. The commercial below is from their new campaign:
http://www.facebook.com/oreo?v=app_2392950137#!/video/video.php?v=334194375733
While this commercial effectively advertises the product, I believe it tries to form a connection between viewer and company. Oreo is trying to get its audience to interact with them. Will this poll have any significance? Is Oreo really going to “deem” a winner? I believe no, but they are taking advantage of Facebook’s popularity.
As someone interested in advertising, I find this campaign extremely effective. The company is not introducing a new product. They are simply putting a spin on an old concept. They knew that some like to dump cookies in milk while others don’t. The ad is simply a poll; however, it makes the consumer think how he or she eats. Perhaps the consumer will now buy Oreos and see whether or not it’s better with milk. Furthermore, the two people involved the campaign targets both the younger and older demographic. The kid could be seen as “the new,” wanting to put his cookie in milk while the father could be “the old” by eating cookies in a conventional, non-soggy, manner. What this campaign also shows is that Oreo’s target audience must be using Facebook.
If people do vote, Oreo can now see their target audience and what they prefer. I would assume they could care less about the poll itself and are more concerned with how many people vote and what demographic these people fit into. Therefore, they could build future campaigns targeting this audience or use viral campaigns to continue to attract this audience while using television campaigns to garner new customers.
Personally, I’m not going to run outside, buy a box of Oreos, and waste my milk by trying to decide whether or not I like to dip them. However, I personally have not friended any company or celebrity. Hypothetically, I could adjust my feed where it would only update when a celebrity or company posts, but I simply don’t see the point in it. I could go to the companies’ website on new events and I could care less what some celebrity is doing throughout the day. I believe I am in the minority as it seems companies are continuing to embrace social networking sites (such as the example above). There are no companies that I blindly follow and there are no celebrities that I am just amazed by whenever I see him or her on the small or big screen.
I have asked a few University of Maryland students whether or not they have friended a celebrity or company. It surprised to me hear, that out of the 6 people I asked, 4 of them had friended a company. Three of the four were girls and simply explained they liked “the brand” and always shop at the company when they can (they said they were fans of clothing companies). The fourth person said he was a fan of some musician I never heard of (or even remember the name of) and that this musician updates his page frequently with concerts and events. I then asked this fourth person if he felt any sort of personal connection to the musician. He shrugged and said the person updated his page often so he has some idea how he spends his time. I assumed the shrug meant a yes and I asked whether or not this has influenced him to see the guy. The respondent said he now feels more informed and will go to a concert if he can afford it and if it’s nearby. I asked the three girls, who responded yes, if they feel any closer to the company or more loyal to it and two of them said yes. I asked why, where they responded that the company lists whenever it has a sale. They find it more convenient than checking the website.
The two people, who were like me, also seemed pretty apathetic towards companies and celebrities. It’s not like me, and those two, hate all celebrities or companies. We all agreed we don’t have any incentive to follow them and don’t feel any personal connection towards these people by simply having quick access to their Facebook page. For those who are skeptical, like myself, I would be more compelled if their Facebook page offered something their website did not, such as a heads up for a sale, or a minor discount to an event. As if that would happen.
Many companies now have a Facebook page, where you can friend them or become a “fan”. Becoming a “fan” is just another way of saying you like the company. These companies then use the Facebook page to tell their consumers and fans when new events happen. Perhaps, as well, fans feel a personal connection when friending a celebrity on Facebook and seeing the celebrity update his or her status.
Oreo has recently launched a campaign revolving around Facebook. The commercial below is from their new campaign:
http://www.facebook.com/oreo?v=app_2392950137#!/video/video.php?v=334194375733
While this commercial effectively advertises the product, I believe it tries to form a connection between viewer and company. Oreo is trying to get its audience to interact with them. Will this poll have any significance? Is Oreo really going to “deem” a winner? I believe no, but they are taking advantage of Facebook’s popularity.
As someone interested in advertising, I find this campaign extremely effective. The company is not introducing a new product. They are simply putting a spin on an old concept. They knew that some like to dump cookies in milk while others don’t. The ad is simply a poll; however, it makes the consumer think how he or she eats. Perhaps the consumer will now buy Oreos and see whether or not it’s better with milk. Furthermore, the two people involved the campaign targets both the younger and older demographic. The kid could be seen as “the new,” wanting to put his cookie in milk while the father could be “the old” by eating cookies in a conventional, non-soggy, manner. What this campaign also shows is that Oreo’s target audience must be using Facebook.
If people do vote, Oreo can now see their target audience and what they prefer. I would assume they could care less about the poll itself and are more concerned with how many people vote and what demographic these people fit into. Therefore, they could build future campaigns targeting this audience or use viral campaigns to continue to attract this audience while using television campaigns to garner new customers.
Personally, I’m not going to run outside, buy a box of Oreos, and waste my milk by trying to decide whether or not I like to dip them. However, I personally have not friended any company or celebrity. Hypothetically, I could adjust my feed where it would only update when a celebrity or company posts, but I simply don’t see the point in it. I could go to the companies’ website on new events and I could care less what some celebrity is doing throughout the day. I believe I am in the minority as it seems companies are continuing to embrace social networking sites (such as the example above). There are no companies that I blindly follow and there are no celebrities that I am just amazed by whenever I see him or her on the small or big screen.
I have asked a few University of Maryland students whether or not they have friended a celebrity or company. It surprised to me hear, that out of the 6 people I asked, 4 of them had friended a company. Three of the four were girls and simply explained they liked “the brand” and always shop at the company when they can (they said they were fans of clothing companies). The fourth person said he was a fan of some musician I never heard of (or even remember the name of) and that this musician updates his page frequently with concerts and events. I then asked this fourth person if he felt any sort of personal connection to the musician. He shrugged and said the person updated his page often so he has some idea how he spends his time. I assumed the shrug meant a yes and I asked whether or not this has influenced him to see the guy. The respondent said he now feels more informed and will go to a concert if he can afford it and if it’s nearby. I asked the three girls, who responded yes, if they feel any closer to the company or more loyal to it and two of them said yes. I asked why, where they responded that the company lists whenever it has a sale. They find it more convenient than checking the website.
The two people, who were like me, also seemed pretty apathetic towards companies and celebrities. It’s not like me, and those two, hate all celebrities or companies. We all agreed we don’t have any incentive to follow them and don’t feel any personal connection towards these people by simply having quick access to their Facebook page. For those who are skeptical, like myself, I would be more compelled if their Facebook page offered something their website did not, such as a heads up for a sale, or a minor discount to an event. As if that would happen.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Jumping to Conclusions
Whenever I think about social networking sites, I cannot help but to think about reality television. Those who are against reality television argue that the genre only exposes the negativity of people. However, reality television has become a phenomenon as all the major networks now have a large line up of reality shows, ranging from people living onto an island for thirty nine days or people aspiring to become a hair stylist. The connection I draw between social networking and reality television is how they both reflect social tendencies. These social tendencies include how people desire to know what others are doing and how people desire to build connections with others, no matter how tenuous it may be.
As an avid reality television watcher, I have to admit that I enjoy the genre because I like seeing complete strangers stress out during unusual circumstances, such as twelve people being stuck in a house together for four months in hopes of winning half a million dollars. Although my life is not broadcasted on television, aspects of my life have been exposed via-Facebook. Social networking sites have become internet tabloids, but instead of focusing on celebrities, it could focus on anyone within your social network. I used to be an avid Facebook user, but when people begin to question why I have been tagged in a picture with a certain person, when someone questions why I wrote on someone else’s wall, I knew I had to reconsider how I wanted to present myself on the internet.
Facebook has shown that people are interested in each other’s business, even without celebrity status and its more convenient to discover how someone else is through a website than actually communicating with them. There have been several occasions where I have attended a party only for a random person to come up to me and say that he or she has looked me up on Facebook and begin the “which friends do we have in common game,” where he or she begins to list people we may both know and I nod or shake my head in response to each name. I would have conversations with acquaintances where they would know what I was doing a few nights ago because of a wall post or a tagged picture. During these situations, I could help but think I would never want to have a conversation with this person because he or she has taken the liberty of getting to know me without actually talking to me. Furthermore, whenever this situation occurred, I wonder why people would dedicate their time to look up relative strangers.
Sites such as Twitter, where people only post 160 characters of what they are doing periodically throughout the day, show how people are always interested in what others are doing, where they’re going, and who they spend their time with, no matter how mundane it may be. Perhaps people are really interested in how others spend their time, or perhaps it is a way to build a connection with others. While life has its obstacles and makes it so you cannot always see your friends, or even best friends and family, these social networking sites allow you to instantaneously know what others are doing.
Although these social networking sites have allowed people to know what their friends are doing throughout the day instantaneously, has it deteriorated relationships? For example, I had a friend who broke up with her boyfriend because she thought he was cheating on her by writing on another girl’s wall throughout the day instead of spending time with her. Instead of approaching him in person to confront the issue, she decided to break up with him via-text messaging. She felt informed on his life because she was able to check his Facebook status whenever she wanted. She did not assume that she perceived the text in the wrong way. She failed to acknowledge that Facebook has its social limitations. Tone could not be translated into text, such as sarcasm. Furthermore, she did not acknowledge that having a conversation person to person could have opened the lines of communication. Conversation through social networking sites should not replace human interaction.
Even though social networking sites have many positive aspects, having an instantaneous connection with someone can have a negative impact. Not only does a social network user have to be completely aware that others are reading the page, but someone may misinterpret the content on the page. Furthermore, social networking pages should not be used as a primary tool to communicate. Similar to reality television and tabloids, the content shown can only be taken with a grain of salt. What is seen on the screen is only one side of a person.
As an avid reality television watcher, I have to admit that I enjoy the genre because I like seeing complete strangers stress out during unusual circumstances, such as twelve people being stuck in a house together for four months in hopes of winning half a million dollars. Although my life is not broadcasted on television, aspects of my life have been exposed via-Facebook. Social networking sites have become internet tabloids, but instead of focusing on celebrities, it could focus on anyone within your social network. I used to be an avid Facebook user, but when people begin to question why I have been tagged in a picture with a certain person, when someone questions why I wrote on someone else’s wall, I knew I had to reconsider how I wanted to present myself on the internet.
Facebook has shown that people are interested in each other’s business, even without celebrity status and its more convenient to discover how someone else is through a website than actually communicating with them. There have been several occasions where I have attended a party only for a random person to come up to me and say that he or she has looked me up on Facebook and begin the “which friends do we have in common game,” where he or she begins to list people we may both know and I nod or shake my head in response to each name. I would have conversations with acquaintances where they would know what I was doing a few nights ago because of a wall post or a tagged picture. During these situations, I could help but think I would never want to have a conversation with this person because he or she has taken the liberty of getting to know me without actually talking to me. Furthermore, whenever this situation occurred, I wonder why people would dedicate their time to look up relative strangers.
Sites such as Twitter, where people only post 160 characters of what they are doing periodically throughout the day, show how people are always interested in what others are doing, where they’re going, and who they spend their time with, no matter how mundane it may be. Perhaps people are really interested in how others spend their time, or perhaps it is a way to build a connection with others. While life has its obstacles and makes it so you cannot always see your friends, or even best friends and family, these social networking sites allow you to instantaneously know what others are doing.
Although these social networking sites have allowed people to know what their friends are doing throughout the day instantaneously, has it deteriorated relationships? For example, I had a friend who broke up with her boyfriend because she thought he was cheating on her by writing on another girl’s wall throughout the day instead of spending time with her. Instead of approaching him in person to confront the issue, she decided to break up with him via-text messaging. She felt informed on his life because she was able to check his Facebook status whenever she wanted. She did not assume that she perceived the text in the wrong way. She failed to acknowledge that Facebook has its social limitations. Tone could not be translated into text, such as sarcasm. Furthermore, she did not acknowledge that having a conversation person to person could have opened the lines of communication. Conversation through social networking sites should not replace human interaction.
Even though social networking sites have many positive aspects, having an instantaneous connection with someone can have a negative impact. Not only does a social network user have to be completely aware that others are reading the page, but someone may misinterpret the content on the page. Furthermore, social networking pages should not be used as a primary tool to communicate. Similar to reality television and tabloids, the content shown can only be taken with a grain of salt. What is seen on the screen is only one side of a person.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Introduction to Facebook
Have you ever spent a night on Facebook when you should have been studying for a test or writing an essay due the next day? I, too, have performed such a procrastinating act. Perhaps it was a form of procrastination, or perhaps I was interested in what my friends’ current statuses were, or maybe I wondered if anyone wrote on my wall. Whatever the case may be, the popularity of social networking sites have sky rocketed ever since Myspace became mainstream.
Although I never made a Myspace account, Facebook was all the rage when I was in high school. I would go out to parties where new people would take pictures of me and them and then exclaim, “Oh-My-God, what is your name so I can tag you? This picture is so FB-worthy”. After countless times where I said I did not have one, I caved in. I made a page where I was able to express my identity, which is perhaps one of the reasons why social networking sites have become so popular.
The purpose of social networking sites is to make a profile where you get to choose a photogenic picture (or… not so much), list your hobbies, and let other people see who is in your social network, and connect with strangers or friends of a friend, of a friend. Through this medium, you are able to make yourself appear however you want to other people. You could lie about your hobbies, you could choose a picture from ten years ago, and you can friend random people to make other’s believe you have a large(r) social network. Regardless of how a user intends to use it, the customizations of social networking sites have evolved over time to the point that now I could log onto Facebook and use its embedded instant messaging client or play simple games by downloading an application.
When I created my Facebook account, I made it with the intent the people who began to sound like a broken record, talking about how Facebook is awesome, how they are always on it, and how I have pretty much locked myself in a room by not having one. When discussing social networking sites with my friends, it seems they all created their accounts because everyone else has. After I made my account, I actually realized how social networking sites could become a great resource.
For one, I created it right before going off to college. I am from
I’ll admit that like others, I was persuaded by Facebook’s novelty. From its ease of use to its accessibility (bringing a laptop to class or going to the library), I visited the page whenever I opened up a web browser. I was able to establish relationships with people I normally would not see more than once or twice, such as a friend of a friend. Like cell phones, social networking sites have changed interpersonal communication. For a short while, I thought it changed interaction for the good, but soon I realized that was not the case…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)