[an unpublished blog post i found from pre-xmas]

Certainly, the rise of social networking sites combined with the stellar growth of mobile apps are definitely putting the decision of website (and more so microsite) (and more so expensive, elaborate microsites) development in question.  But the website still has a place – and important one – and the size of its role depends on your marketing objectives and situation of your brand.

But alas, allow me a word in defense for the website.  Websites are owned media where a brand can control the online experience.  Social networking sites are earned spaces and often, like the case with Facebook, a brand’s efforts are frustrated by the agile development of a software service that does not cater to corporate pages.

Certainly – it’s much easier to drive traffic to a new website than it is to build a social network presence and keep consumers engaged.  As earned media – it can take time to build to momentum.  Social networking sites follow an exponential growth curve – slow start, quick finish – like a hockey stick.  This is a growth pattern that does not fit well within last minute campaign timelines.  I am not suggesting an either or approach, just that a combination of media types is needed to serve a brand and extend reach – and that a website is still an important part of the mix for many brands.

Interestingly, I’ve begun to examine sector share of time spent online from either Comscore or Nielsen.  It’s hard to find recent Canadian statistics but from the US – we see that social networking sites have risen 43% along with significant increases in online gaming (about 10%) and online video sites (about 10%, and 1% for search).   Almost every other sector from entertainment sites, to consumer electronics, etc has gone down.   The long tail – which is what I call everything other than portals, search and social networking sites, typically the wash of forums, blogs and corporate websites, is also down in time spent online.  But it is still the big pie slice – amounting to 34% (highly fragmented among millions of sites of course) (isn’t the long tail always a big pie slice) (excluding consumer electronics and travel).

Mobile is definitely something not to ignore – in 2010, smartphones have reached 30% penetration in Canada with blackberries at 75% market share and iphones at 25%.  Iphone users, however, access the web 8 times more than the blackberry user (my stats are from IDC and e-marketer).   The use of mobile to access the web is starting to trump out the old PC.   Depending on your target market – some segments are pretty heavy into the smartphone and so mobile is a fantastic direction.  And with the multiple platforms out there (android, iphone, blackberries multiple phones), building a mobile app needs careful planning.  In fact, some brands just need a mobile ready website not an app.  (it can still be an ‘application’ – its just delivered over the web vs. a downloadable app from an app store).

So there you have it.  A strong word for the website

Peter reviews Mark vs. the Mark portrayed in The Social Network movie and in doing so gives a run down on the current financial situation facing Facebook.  Eloquently written, Peter reminds us that the ‘moral’ issue today is Facebook’s business model that proffers users information to buyers.   He writes:

A more fundamental “moral” issue, however, relates to the nature of Facebook’s business model, which is based on the exploitation of networks of alleged friendship to sell stuff. Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/06/peter-foster-mark-zuckerbergs-close-up/#ixzz1AP8173l9

Note:  I haven’t figured out why the SEC would force an IPO on Facebook – is this because of Goldman Sachs?

I see Mark Zuckerberg as the misunderstood genius – what I can’t tell from the movie is just how much of an idea was shared from the Winklevoss twins.  If it was only a conversation in a fancy private club, as depicted in the movie, then the $65M for a conversation is a pretty good return given they didn’t execute.  If they paid MZ while he blew them off looking at the code he did not use, then arguably the issue is larger.

In MZ’s defense (and I can’t help likely a smart a** who would re-calculate 18K + 1K = $19K for a condescending lawyer), the right idea is important but development and refinement of the idea to create a business and its online execution or activation is extremely difficult to nail.  I guess that’s why Mark Z is person of the year.   Now take time to read Time’s article – it certainly depicts Mark in a completely different light and at the same time, explains just what an amazing accomplishment facebook really is.

Here is a quick summary of some learnings from the Facebook DC (a page on FB) held a live interview with three very socially active non-profits with Clay Dunn from Share Our Strength, Sarah Koch from Causes and, part of a favorite page for me – Wendy Harman from the American Red Cross.

[ American Red Cross is a page with social media activities I greatly admire - see my post " The new home page of 2011 is the tab in Facebook".]

Although I caught only the second half of the presentation (stay tuned for replay link), there were some key messages delivered:

1. Showing the impact that the donations make is valuable today as audiences are exposed to a lot of donation asks.

2.  Don’t forget to engage with those people who are supporting the charity.  Allow them [I would say give them permission - figuratively] to submit photos related to the charity so that they feel they are part of a group that does something.

3. Consider how you use social media for “digital volunteerism” – a new term that I was not aware of.  How do you allow volunteers to contribute and support digitally?

4.  Allow for micro payments which have been easy asks but in volume contributes quite a bit.

5.  consider enabling people, either through communication or online tools, to form a donation wish and then solicit friends to help achieve that goal.  This is really the door-to-door solicitation taken online.  This may sound obvious but in the design of online experiences – this is a functionality to include.

For more tips on using social media for social good – consider reading a post on “The Science of Sharing“

I’d also like to point out that Facebook itself does a good job of parsing its audiences into a number of facebook pages and then markets events and information across all groups.  I believe this is a good model for organizations that have non-profit groups as a secondary organization.

Location, location, location means so much more these days – with Foursquare making a drive to retail a real thing and now with Facebook Places – launched today in Canada.

I’m pretty big fan of foursquare  – I personally like seeing where my network checks in, getting rewarded for being a mayor, rallying my coworkers for the mayorship at JWT (outgoing mayor has to by the new mayor Tim Horton’s breakfast) and  trying to get that elusive foursquare swarm badge (50 people check in at the same place, at roughly the same time). 

Its often seen as a game for goal oriented people.  But lately, I can only see Foursquare for the opportunities to stimulate social commerce – that is making a connection between location based social activity and in-store commerce. 

Social commerce is a pretty hot thing these days and I’m fortunate to have some connections that are following this stream closely.  About six weeks ago, I narrowly defined social commerce as f-commerce or selling over facebook.  But now I can see how social commerce is a broader theme – how can you use location based marketing to drive to commerce.  As anyone who has faced the old ‘how do I get social media ROI question’ (which can be answered albeit hard) – I look forward to definitely answering this with social commerce.

Facebook Places launched today in Canada.  It allows me to check in, tag friends who are with me and see where other friends are [more here].  It can clutter up my facebook wall pretty fast.   I don’t immediately see social commerce in Facebook places yet - time will tell how adopted places become.  But its definitely worth watch the US adoption rates.