Scaling strategies

One of the things that upset me when reading articles written by "social media experts" is how they look to established platforms, like Facebook, and derive strategic conclusions that only work for powerhouses like Facebook. Rarely will I find authors who take into account the size of a company.

A small web development studio creating simple scripts can be seen as an independent startup trying to provide frontend tools to the public. A large web development company, like Facebook, developing the Javascript behind the "Like" feature? They're not creating tools; they're creating a search engine.

With the successful proliferation of Facebook's "Like" feature on tens of thousands of websites, I'd say they now have a very rudimentary search engine which is driven by user promotion rather than (Google's) keyword ranking. Regardless, Google has some insanely smart people on their team. I'm waiting to see whether Google retaliates.

Creating social networking sites

Several names come into mind when I think of online services offering developers the tools to "create" their own social networking sites from piggybacking off their framework(s). One which has been in the media lately is Ning. From my experience with them, their services and frameworks do seem to give developers the ability to do interesting things; but the question I have is why?

As of yet, I haven't heard of any recognizable brands (Nike, Reebok, Walmart, Coca-cola, etc) who have successfully created a site that has gone critical mass. Yet even with this fact, social networking sites are still in demand by clients who genuinely feel that owning a social networking site is a viable business opportunity which they should invest in; they want to be the next Facebook.

Far be it for me to say that social networking sites are a poor investment decision, but an interesting fact about the web: Ashton Kutcher has almost 5 million subscribers. He doesn't own a website, let alone a social networking site. And as far as I know, I don't recall any recognizable brands like Walmart having even 1 million subscribers (website, RSS feeds, Twitter feed or otherwise); let alone 5 Million.

Font substitution, services & branding

I'm well aware of the different methods in replacing fonts on webpages because designers are always looking to add more tools to their design arsenal. sIFR has had limitations, but the recent methods such as cufón, typeface and Typekit have been gaining attention and I thought I'd mention some issues that are uniquely inherent about technical solutions involving 3rd party services such as Typekit.

Some immediate issues -- if their services go down:

1. How will this affect the client's site?
2. How will this affect the client's brand?

Relying upon any third party's services means your client's brand is susceptible to those services. I was on the Bank of Canada website when this error appeared. The service that provided BOC's date/exchange rates failed and produced an empty page with a horrible error message. Aside from a confusing message which a normal user would never understand, what should a user be thinking?

Not only does this error concern me, it doesn't make me want to trust BoC's online services nor does it give me faith in the BoC brand. There will always be a risk when dealing with external services, Javascript libraries or font-replacement services; the question is whether the gains offset the risks? After seeing this error, how much are you more willing to trust this online bank with your money?

Metrical data and Vancouver’s housing market

Just recently, a staff reporter from The Vancouver Province wrote an article detailing his opinions on why the Vancouver housing market is inflated. In it, he cited Asians from China as being the primary reason. Now, aside from the reporter blatantly writing a speculative piece and trying to push it out as “fact”, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a lack of professionalism from a newspaper reporter. This was the first time I’ve ever written a formal complaint and I’ve yet to hear word back from TVP.

To recap the article:

1. The reporter cold-called different ReMax realestate locations and asked for imprecise and approximate statistical data about ReMax sales.
2. The reporter did not get any “official” ReMax sales statistics regarding the percentage of homes being sold in Vancouver in relation to the number being sold specifically to Asians from China. (I know for a fact that ReMax does not in any way keep track of this information in any official manner.)
3. This reporter did not state the credentials he has to make an assessment or conclusion of the housing market or what is the determining factor causing such inflation.

A reporter with an unknown realestate background, gathered his information from conversations, tallied data from just one segment of realtors, did not check the accuracy of what was said, postulated and then blamed a group of visible minorities for the pricing increase –- a group who most probably would not have the capacity to defend themselves from such accusations.

For the housing market to increase, there needs to be a number of different factors; not just that homes were sold. What was the percentage of buyers who were Chinese and the percentage of those who weren't? Those who purchased homes, did they pay above or below market value? How did the reporter derive that the purchasing of homes from Asians equated to an overall price increase in the market?

What I found upsetting about this article was that it was written in a way to put Asians in a negative light. The title of the article could just have easily stated "Homes in Vancouver a prime asset for Mainland Chinese" or "Mainland Chinese are investing in Vancouver homes". Such titles state FACT. Forming an opinionated hypothesis is anyone's prerogative but to do so on print and without any concrete evidence? Disappointing.

Real-life gaming

In reference to my previous post about FourSquare and gaming, the presentation by Carnegie Mellon University Professor, Jesse Schell, is an amazing explanation of what he sees in store for our future. It’s scary. It’s plausible. It’s eminent.

When advertisers watched the Spielberg movie “Minority Report”, everyone seemed to agree that the future is about over-advertising. I don’t agree. In the future, people will become so immune to ads that there is no value in producing passive advertisements which people will ultimately ignore.

The future is interactive ads where people are encouraged to "play"; Schell has got it scarily right.

Market buzzwords

In every generation, there will be buzzwords that catapult sales. Back in the 90s, it was "i" in lieu of the "iMacs". In Vancouver, we have a restaurant called "iCafe". What does it have to do with internet or web? It doesn't; not even in the slightest. Then came "virtual reality" where even tanning salons decided to get in on it with their "virtual reality" tanning booths. Then came the end of the millennia where everyone jumped onto the "y2k" bandwagon and a rash of businesses started up with "y2k" being part of their company name. Compu20000. iTravel2000.

Just recently, the "dot-two-point-oh" grabbed the attention of everyone and a string of marketing and advertising campaigns focused on "Web 2.0". The pessemist in me is waiting to see what new marketing buzzwords will come and captivate the general public but suffice to say: you can't escape it.

Gateway drug

The Apple iPod. I keep telling my PC-loving friends that Apple is penetrating the PC market because they have tiny "gateway drug" types of technology that encourages a user to try using Apple products. Those who don't own MP3 players will more likely try out the iPod. Those who own an iPod will more likely try out the iPhone. Those who try out the iPhone will more likely try out a Mac Mini.

PC users who mock Apple's resilience needs to wake up: They have a product out there that is perfect for you and after the first hit, you'll probably come back for more.

Advertising and charity

There has been a number of different marketing and advertising agencies using charity as a means to gather impressions. Make no mistake; this is an extremely dangerous method of marketing. The most recent campaign I’ve seen consisted of a company offering to give families in Africa clean drinking water provided you join their Facebook group.

The question to ask is:

1.) Is your audience smart enough to differentiate advertising from charity?
2.) If they *are* smart enough, how will this affect the brand? Will such a campaign help tarnish it?

Forgiveness

While chatting with one of the interaction architects at work, he brought upon a topic I have to agree with. Users are very much willing to "forgive" usability mistakes under certain circumstances. For example, when Apple came out with the "puck mouse" back in the late 90s, advanced computer users hated it. Whenever a user placed their hand down on the mouse, they would need to stop working and look at the mouse in order to determine the orientation.

Round mice are a design flaw.

However, Apple users being the enthusiasts they are, willingly forgave Apple because they have a lot of appreciation for the brand. I find this to be a common theme. People are willing to overlook and forgive mistakes when there is a pre-existing emotional attachment to the product or brand. iPhone's initial lack of MMS? Apple iTV? Forgiving is what Apple users do.

Experts

My friend and I had a quick discussion about social networking sites and how communities such as MySpace, Facebook, and Flickr were all formed through organic growth. Neither of us has heard of a company or organization which deliberately sought out --with a pre-designed plan-- to build a social networking site and have it work out successfully.

I'm sure at some point, these sites employed "social media experts" to help direct the flow of the community, but are there any "experts" who claim to be able to strategically start a community and see it blossom?

Riding the propaganda machine

Seeing that there are so many different types of non-disclosure agreement forms and legal paperwork that forbids people from mentioning about work or proprietary intellectual property, it's rather ironic to see technology blogs reporting "leaked" information. The question people should really ask is, "How 'leaked' is it?"

If I were a multi-billion dollar company about to release a product, would I sit idly by as an employee decided to "leak" my IP and potentially give away secrets which competitors could easily glean? If these people are not being sued for their actions, I can only assume these "leaks" were intended. And if they were intended, they aren't "leaks".

Maybe "thematically-infused press releases"?