Last week Facebook announced that on Monday 24th August 1 billion people logged into the social network. That’s 15% (almost one in seven) of the world’s population using Facebook in a 24 hour period. And given that over half of the globe still isn’t online, the percentage of actual versus potential users is actually much higher – closer to 33% of the 3.195 billion internet users.
The announcement begs three big questions:
1.Is it a good thing?
It is difficult to find a parallel in history for a single entity being used by so many people across the world. There have been monopolies in the past of course, particularly in telecoms before deregulation, but these operated at a country level, and you didn’t have a choice. You wanted to make a phone call and you had to use BT or AT&T. When it comes to control over how people communicate the only example that comes to mind is organised religion, such as the pre-Reformation Catholic Church where all of Europe was subservient to the Pope. As yet, Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t branded any Twitter users as heretics, for which we should obviously be grateful.
Critics will argue that having one company central to how we communicate with friends and family, find our news and even shop is a bad thing. On the other hand, Facebook fans will point out that you have a choice – other social networks are available and the past is littered with previously successful companies (such as MySpace) that failed to evolve. This does ignore the impact of the network effect – as more and more people are on Facebook, it becomes increasingly necessary to be on there if you don’t want to miss out. Technically it is very easy for anyone to create a new social network, what is difficult is enticing enough people to join to make it necessary for their friends to also jump aboard.
What is definitely true is that Facebook, like other international online giants, does need to scrutiny that matches its power and reach. I’m not talking about regulation per se, but any organisation that has Facebook’s combination of personal demographic data and ability to analyse it on a grand scale has to meet the highest standards of behaviour.
2.What about the other 85%?
The obvious point that many people have made is that if 1 billion people were on Facebook on a single day, the remainder of the world (85% in fact), were doing something different. As we’ve seen, Facebook has captured a large percentage of the online population, which is why the company’s efforts are being put into increasing the number of people with access to the internet in some form. Its main vehicle for getting people online is Internet.org, which provides free basic internet services in areas where it is either non-existent or unaffordable. Some of the ways Internet.org is looking to extend coverage include high altitude planes beaming a signal to a particular area, lasers and satellite technologies. However Internet.org has attracted criticism for only providing access to a walled garden of services, including (surprise surprise) Facebook itself.
Clearly if Facebook is to grow it is easier to expand the pie of internet users and reach the currently unconnected, rather than target the refuseniks in countries where it already enjoys high penetration rates. Expect more efforts to extend internet access – probably not just within developing countries but also within ‘notspots’ inside existing markets, thereby encouraging people to use the service even more.
3.Where next for Facebook?
Facebook has already overcome two major hurdles that have defeated its rivals. It has successfully transitioned to a mobile-first world (87% of access is from mobile devices), and is generating growing profits. As well as extending its reach to new victims (sorry, consumers), it also needs to increase engagement – i.e. ensure people still log on and use the service, and do it more often and for longer. The big bet that Zuckerberg has made here is on virtual reality, with the $2 billion purchase of Oculus VR expected to spawn headsets that deepen the experience of using Facebook and interacting with your friends. This, for me, is where things start to get more than a little creepy – if people are addicted to Facebook now, just imagine the time they’ll spend online if they can essentially experience reality without leaving their screen. Plus, with the current size and design of headsets, everyone will look like they are part of Daft Punk.
So, to answer my three questions, I’d say we should be wary about Facebook’s might, keep an eye on its efforts to reach the other 85% to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to access, and be sceptical about the advantages virtual reality can actually bring us. After all, you could just pick up the phone and talk or, heaven forbid, chat to someone down the pub……
September 2, 2015 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Social Media | BT, Daft Punk, Facebook, Internet.org, Mark Zuckerberg, Measures Consulting, MySpace, Oculus, Oculus Rift, social media, Social network, twitter, Virtual reality | 1 Comment
This month Facebook celebrates its tenth birthday, having come a long way from Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorm room in 2004. Hitting 1.23 billion active users and 2013 revenues of $7.87bn points to an astonishing growth in just a decade – though several researchers have tried to spoil the party by pointing out that teenagers have been deserting the social network in favour of cooler locations such as WhatsApp and SnapChat. On the flipside there’s been an 80% growth in those over 55 joining up – and from an advertiser’s point of view, which is the demographic with most money?
As the parent of a ten year old, albeit one that hasn’t delivered any revenues yet, it is amazing to see the impact that the social network has brought, not just online, but to the world around us. This is particularly true when it comes to marketing – ten years ago digital marketing essentially meant creating a website, SEO or sending out emails, rather than the relatively sophisticated profiling that is now possible through Facebook.
So here’s my top ten things that Facebook has changed:
1 Our language has evolved
Ten years ago we liked things. Now we Like them, and friend and unfriend people in the real world, as well as online. Poking publically is still frowned upon though. The language of Facebook has added and amended written and spoken English, and made it into the Oxford English Dictionary.
2 Marketers have traded control for access
If you told a marketer ten years ago that they’d move from investing their budget in their own websites to fitting their content inside the constraints of a presence on a third party network they’d have laughed at you. But essentially that is what Facebook has done – consumer marketers feel they have to follow their target audiences onto the site and interact with them, if they are to drive engagement.
3 Consumers are now in charge
The relationship between companies and consumers used to be one way and top down. The very word consumer conjured up a vision of passive purchasers lapping up whatever was marketed to them without complaint. Social networks have turned this on its head. Got a complaint? Disagree with what a company is doing? Facebook (and, of course, Twitter) provides you with a megaphone for your comments and can reach a global audience within seconds. Brands no longer have total control – as my ex-colleagues Steve Earl and Stephen Waddington have pointed out we’re now in an era of #brandvandals, that have the means and inclination to undermine corporate reputations overnight.
4 Everything happens faster
This isn’t just because I’m old, but we’ve moved from 24 hour rolling news to second by second and minute by minute activity. Move away from your computer for a tea break and you’ll be behind the curve and out of the loop. The constant need to update your status, post what you are doing and react to other people doing the same does give immediate insight, but is it at the expense of longer term perspective?
5 You cast a longer digital shadow
Ten years ago there wouldn’t be much information available online on most people. Now people live on Facebook, sharing their most intimate moments without a second thought. But unlike the offline world, this information doesn’t disappear but remains available forever. So be careful what you post as a teenager, as it may come back to haunt you when you’re Prime Minister
6 News has changed
How we consume news – and how it is collected and disseminated – has evolved beyond all recognition. Facebook profiles are the first place that journalists look for information or reaction to events. Much of our news is shared or recommended by friends rather than genuinely found through our own efforts. Consequently bite-size stories have risen up the agenda, along with a focus on cute kittens and addictive but unprovable gossip.
7 Distance is less important
It used to be that your closest friends were those you saw every day, even if the main thing you had in common was location. But now you can hang out with people you share interests with, wherever they are scattered across the globe. For many people the main focus of their social lives is Facebook, not the telephone or face to face communication any more.
8 Celebrity hasn’t gone away
Social media has allowed celebrities, from the Queen to Justin Bieber, to share their lives and build a direct relationship with an audience, unconstrained by the press. But this comes as a price – you need to actually talk to your fans and engage, rather than shutting yourself away, surrounded by minders.
9 We’re more open
Perhaps too open judging by what many people post. But the stereotype of shy and retiring, emotionally awkward Britons has been completely destroyed by the advent of Facebook. There’s no limit to what people think is shareable or that they believe their friends will find interesting………….
10 We’re beginning to grow up
Our attitude to how our private data is mined and used is changing. When Facebook began, few were bothered about what happened to their personal information – but that has changed as we’ve grown savvier about what it is worth. The next decade will see a fascinating struggle between Facebook (and marketers) and users, as each side tries to shift the needle on privacy.
February 5, 2014 Posted by Chris Measures | Creative, Marketing, Social Media | #brandvandals, Facebook, Justin Bieber, Mark Zuckerberg, Oxford English Dictionary, social media, Social network, The Queen, twitter, WhatsApp | Leave a comment
It is tempting to devote this week’s blog to the passing of Baroness Thatcher and how it has been covered on social media. But essentially this excellent pie chart from @martinbelam sums it up – see any newspaper for stories to prove his point.
Instead I’ll focus on more recent history – the tweets sent by the UK’s first youth Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Paris Brown, which have forced her resignation. At first glance there’s nothing new here – public official says something stupid online, backtracks but overwhelming moral outrage forces them out and leaves their boss (in this case adult Kent PCC Ann Barnes) with egg on their face. It’s pretty similar to all the social media cock-ups made by brands though obviously it has only come to light due to a newspaper investigation.
But what’s different here is that Brown is just 17 and the tweets (which are being investigated by the police as potentially racist and homophobic) were posted between the ages of 14 and 16. Brown denies the charges, though admits she boasted about sex, drinking and drug-taking on Twitter. Having once been a teenager in pre-Twitter times, I do remember a lot of patently untrue bragging being par for the course.
There’s two things that make me uneasy here. Firstly, how far back are we going to go to incriminate someone? Obviously these tweets are at best stupid, but she was still legally a minor at the time. I think there’s a big difference between something said while under 16 and the regular indiscretions of those in their early twenties, who really should know better.
The second, and equally worrying point, is what happened in the recruitment process? We’re told that she went through a ‘very tough’ interview process but that Kent Police’s vetting procedures didn’t include a basic social media check for someone on her pay scale. No one did even a cursory search on Twitter or Facebook and she was merely asked if there was anything in her past that could embarrass her or her job. Hardly watertight vetting for a high profile (if low paid) role.
We hear a lot about building your personal brand on social networks when looking for a job, following the right people, commenting on their posts and using the power of Twitter to make yourself memorable, recognisable and employable. In the past this was relatively easy as they could start from scratch at 20 or 21 – they didn’t have a guilty Twitter childhood as the social network only dated from 2006. Now we’re at a stage where everyone coming into the workforce has grown up with Facebook, Twitter and other networks – time for kids to either watch what they say or remember to erase their accounts when they hit 16………..
- Kent police investigate Paris Brown social media messages
- Youth police commissioner warns of dangers of social networks as she resigns over ‘racist’ tweets
April 10, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | PR, Social Media | Ann Barnes, employment, Facebook, Kent Police, Paris Brown, PCC, Police, Police and Crime Commissioner, social media, Social network, Thatcher, twitter, vetting | 2 Comments
Be careful what you like on Facebook – that’s the warning to take from research carried out by the University of Cambridge. The project used algorithms to predict religion, politics, race and sexual orientation based solely on what people chose to Like on the social network.
By correlating personality tests and the demographic information of 58,000 volunteers, the researchers were able to compare Likes with an astonishing level of accuracy. The algorithm used was 88% accurate in predicting whether someone male was gay or straight and between 65-73% accurate in guessing marital status and substance abuse for example. And it wasn’t based on simple linking – fewer than 5% of gay users clicked obvious likes such as gay marriage. Instead it used information such as likes on TV shows, films and music.
This is music to the ears of marketers (and social networks desperate to sell advertising to them). It could even help Facebook’s depressed share price perk up a little. And if you can accurately predict detailed demographic information from just one part of a person’s online footprint, imagine what you can do if you add in web browsing, search and other social network data. No wonder Google wants you to sign into its multiple services so it can collect the maximum amount of data, whatever device you are using.
From a consumer point of view there’s two ways of looking at this – most people will see it as an intrusion into their privacy and change their settings, but brands may well rationalise it as offering people exactly what they want. And as Mark Earls has pointed out in his book I’ll have what she’s having a large number of people’s decisions are herd led. So offer them an easy option that means they don’t have to think and they’ll jump at it. In many cases consumers may not even realise they are being sold to – which could be very worrying when people start being segmented on sexuality, religion or political affiliation.
So marketers need to treat this data with caution. Yes, it gives unprecedented insight but be too aggressive when using it and you’ll cause a public outcry which could damage your brand – and trigger governmental action to tighten privacy settings on the likes of Facebook.
However my own view is that we’ve been here before. Remember when store loyalty cards came in everyone predicted that we’d be laser targeted with relevant offers that drove us to up our spend? But if I get a mailing from a well-known chemists the vouchers are pretty much identical to my wife’s, with obvious male/female differences. It seems that marketers haven’t got to grips with shopping data in enough granular detail to deliver the killer offers that will drive me to automatically purchase without thinking. We may have the data, and even the technology to analyse it, but until marketers move to a digital mindset we’re unlikely to be brainwashed into buying things we don’t even know we wanted.
- ‘Facebook ‘likes’ can reveal your intimate secrets’ – Business Standard
- Researchers predict IQ, age, and more using only Facebook Likes
March 13, 2013 Posted by Chris Measures | Cambridge, Marketing, Social Media | big data, Cambridge University, Demographics, Facebook, Facebook Like, loyalty card, marketing, marketing technology, Prediction, Social network | Leave a comment
At the launch of Tech City in 2010 David Cameron stressed that he wanted the initiative to help encourage UK ideas and entrepreneurs and pointed to Facebook as the perfect example of the type of business the area could create. Unsurprisingly given Facebook’s share price issues it isn’t a name that he’s been bandying about recently but the message was clear – content, and web-based businesses are the future for UK technology.
Unfortunately that message is wrong on a whole stack of levels. There is a place for content/web-based businesses (unless it is yet another social network)
but as part of a varied ecosystem that spans different technologies rather than as the figurehead of UK Plc. Content-based businesses tend to be lean (so not many high powered jobs), use resources across the world (so not a huge investment in the UK) and can be run from anywhere, making them ultra-portable. Therefore you need a lot of them to create critical mass and actually deliver measurable benefits to the economy, rather than providing appealing photo opportunities.
In contrast, national politicians are a lot less effusive about companies like ARM that provide the technology that underpins real, physical products. In many ways ARM is essentially a software company – it doesn’t make its own chips, licensing its intellectual property to others around the world. And doing so very successfully – with over 20 billion ARM-based chips shipped to date it dominates particular sectors, such as smartphones and tablets.
Comparing ARM and Facebook throws up some interesting statistics:
- The US social network has more employees (nearly 4,000 compared to ARM’s 2,000)
- At current share prices Facebook is valued (even now) at $41 billion; in contrast ARM is worth a paltry $12 billion.
- 2011 turnover for ARM was $781m, dwarfed by $3,711m for Facebook
- Profits for the same period were $2,851m for Facebook, $350m (£221.7m) for ARM
- But taking a closer look Facebook’s gross margin in 2011 was 76% compared to ARM’s 94.4%
Clearly Facebook is bigger, richer and earning more money – even if it isn’t necessarily paying full tax on its UK earnings. But once you add in the ecosystem of companies developing applications/chips around each company then the picture changes. ARM is at the heart of an enormous global community of chip companies, design houses and embedded engineers, all developing using its products – and paying royalties on everything they create. It has spawned a number of spin-offs, in Cambridge and beyond, and essentially created a business model that is now widely copied by other fabless semiconductor companies.
So looking beyond the hype, I firmly believe that ARM has delivered much greater benefits to the UK economy than companies like Facebook. It has built up our skills and innovation base, contributed to the formation of the Cambridge technology hub and created opportunities for highly paid, sought after jobs. Now’s the time for politicians to recognise ARM’s success and use it as an example of what UK tech should be about, rather than solely focusing on the latest trendy web-based businesses.
August 29, 2012 Posted by Chris Measures | Cambridge, Startup | ARM architecture, ARM Holdings, Cambridge, David Cameron, Fabless semiconductor company, Facebook, Silicon Fen, Silicon Roundabout, Social network, Tech City | Leave a comment
When it burst upon the scene, social media (and indeed the whole internet) was seen as a chance for individuals to get their voices heard. Whether it was campaigning on big issues not covered by the mainstream media, providing a stage for new musical or film-making talents, just updating your family and friends or making it easier to find a new job, social media was the great leveller, removing the middlemen and letting us all be ourselves in front of a world audience.
But in fact it hasn’t really worked like that. Those with the highest number of Twitter followers tend to be established celebrities, who use it as a channel to broadcast their views and while a number of new talents have popped up from social media you get the feeling many would have made it through other means. People can share much more of their lives online, but that doesn’t mean the world is listening (or can even be bothered to find them).
This state of affairs isn’t really surprising, for two main reasons. Firstly social networks aren’t that clever. For example, they automatically suggest people you’d like to follow/friend dependent on your background and contacts. So you don’t get exposed to random influences in the same way you would if you picked up a paper, tuned into the radio or went out and physically met people at an event. You get the chance to connect to more people just like you – hardly very individual.
Secondly, seeking social approval is hard-wired into a lot of us. Going back to our early development when we needed to stick together as a tribe to survive, we want to be accepted and within the pale. So in general we’re not likely to make the effort to go off and find random connections or come up with wildly contradictory views. If you want to see this translated into internet terms just look at how quickly some things trend on Twitter or the number of comments on certain Daily Mail articles.
So we’re all part of our herds, likely to think along broadly similar lines on or offline. This makes it a lot easier for marketers (and politicians) – rather than having to deal with people as individuals you can lump them together into particular demographics and then deal with them en masse. The problem with this is that genuine innovation tends to come from the mavericks – the people that run against the tide and aren’t afraid to be different. However in an atmosphere of conformity they can be lost, or, in the case of social media shouted down by the vocal majority. And this means the opportunity for innovation is stifled and rather than someone introducing an earth-shattering new business idea, we get yet another slightly different social network launched.
But all is not lost as there are genuine new ideas out there. And rather than heterogeneous clusters such as Tech City, the majority are coming from academic research, in Cambridge and elsewhere – where blue sky thinking is encouraged. Not every idea will work, not every idea is practical, but it provides an antidote to the herd mentality. And as we become more and more reliant on social media we need to encourage and fund this left field innovation and take the time ourselves to look further afield when we widen our own circles on social networks.
August 13, 2012 Posted by Chris Measures | Cambridge, Marketing, Social Media, Startup | Cambridge, Facebook, Herd, herd mentality, innovation, social media, Social network, startup, Tech City, twitter | 1 Comment
Why Revolutionary Measures?
Marketing is undergoing a revolution. The advent of social media provides the opportunity for one-to-one communication for the first time since the move to an industrial society. This blog will look at what this means for B2B PR and marketing, incorporating my own thoughts/rants and interests. Do let me know your feedback!
About meI'm Chris Measures and I've spent the last 18 years creating and implementing PR and marketing campaigns for technology companies. I've worked with everyone from large quoted companies to fast growth start-ups, giving me unrivalled experience and ideas. I'm now director of Measures Consulting, an agency that uses this expertise to deliver PR and marketing success for technology businesses.
- Google, #tax and PR – do no evil? my latest @LinkedIn post on the PR implications for the tech giant linkedin.com/pulse/google-t… #google 33 minutes ago
- RT @paulsmithuk: Looking for a speaker for next @camcreatives last Wednesday in Feb. Interested in speaking? 5 hours ago
- RT @SilFinch: Why every #PR agency needs a journalist on the team bit.ly/1P5uNVb #comms #media 5 hours ago
- They may deny it but letter is both threatening & aggresive. Wise words on it from @lisfield thedrum.com/opinion/2016/0… twitter.com/prweekuknews/s… 22 hours ago
- RT @CMRLee: Good piece from @ChrisMeasures on why #PR around Google's UK tax affairs won't really impact its reputation https://t.co/Pr8ap4… 1 day ago
advertising Amazon Android Apple ARM Artificial intelligence Autonomy Barack Obama BBC BBC Micro big data BT Business Cambridge Cambridge Judge Business School Cambridge University CfEL Chris Measures Creativity Daily Mail David Cameron Digital Ed Miliband Education Edward Snowden Entrepreneur European Union Facebook FIFA Google government IBM Idea Transform innovation Intel internet Internet of Things iPad IPhone Journalism LinkedIn London Malcolm Tucker marketing Mark Zuckerberg Measures Consulting Microsoft mobile MySpace Nick Clegg Nokia Norwich PayPal PR Privacy Public Relations Raspberry Pi Samsung Silicon Fen Silicon Valley Smartphone social media Social network Starbucks startup Tech City Technology The Economist twitter United States University of Cambridge WhatsApp World Cup YouTube ZX Spectrum