Google+ page vs Facebook page – the battle has just begun…


The first smoke has died down. But the war has just begun. Page vs Page. Facebook vs Google. Two Superpowers against each others.

In the first place these social networks giants was created for people to connect with people. Or “friends and family” as Facebook use to call it. With their “profiles” as a basis for the communication within the network.

Then the time came for the companies to engage with their target audience. With their “pages” as a basis for their communication. And I guess the battle has just begun.

As far as I can see and understand both of these giants have just ended up into a massive clash! Where the value proposition for their users (as companies, brands, and others) is very much the same.

Of course they both have advantages and disadvantages. The SiliconIndia says for an example:

The greatest benefit of branding products in Google plus will be the link up with search engine. The search engine will track the brands on Google plus pages easily and will bring them to the top list in the search engine. Just typing “+Google” will take the user directly to the company’s profile page.
Facebook has again got something that will affect their market. The like button of Facebook is similar to the +1 button on Google plus. The hangout button is simpler to use when compared to video chat in Facebook with Skype. Now Google plus also going corporate will be a tough completion to Facebook pages.

Well – as I said – the battle has just begun… and I’ll will follow this war with great interest.

Now – I’ve just created my own “Google+ page” and I’m looking forward to see yours, and follow your point of view in this matter. Mashable show you how to get started.

Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will


Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011. The social media’s popularity continues to grow rapidly from an US perspective, connecting people with just about everything they watch and buy. And the Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website! Scary? Take it easy, Mark won’t organize the entire web – the crowd will.

Vinny Lingham, Entrepreneur & Search Engine Marketer, wrote the 13th of Juni 2007 that “Facebook is the new internet”. He said:

“I am constantly astounded by what FaceBook is doing – they just get it! Yahoo should have really paid the $2bn they asked for them last year – they’re probably worth $5bn by now! If FaceBook becomes another Google – I think everyone at Yahoo will probably revolt!
I personally think that MySpace sucks – and they are a bunch of Generation W’s that just don’t understand what the web is about! FaceBook will overtake MySpace globally well within 18 months – that’s my prediction!”

He was probably not the first guy that realized that something big was going on. But he was one of them. And I remember I did laugh at his headline by then. Maybe I shouldn’t. I knew that Vinny didn’t mean exactly that. Nor did Mark Zuckerberg when I once met him during an early FOWA conference in London, even though he already had some delusions of grandeur.

But – seriously – what’s going on – really?

Nielsen just released their Social Media Report Q3 2011, which shows that “the Social networks and blogs continue to dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the Internet. In the U.S., social networks and blogs reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users and represent the majority of Americans’ time online. Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other U.S. website.”


Since Vinny’s post, hundreds of engaged people has speculated if Facebook is the new Internet or not.

From my point of view, I still don’t think that Facebook will become the new Internet, if you may call it so, but what I do understand is that people are social, and we love services that treat us like that, with all of our social needs and wants. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Mark Zuckerberg has succeeded in doing just that – to provide social services for social people. And it is becoming increasingly clear that other web services haven’t responded to our requests on that point.

Around that time when Vinny Lingham wrote that “Facebook is the new internet”, Jeff Jarvis wrote the historical quote from Mark, in the Guardian, when the “powerful newspaper publisher beseeched Mark Zuckerberg” in Davos “for advice on how he could build and own his community. The famously laconic Zuckerberg replied “You can’t.” Zuckerberg went on to explain that communities already exist and the question these magnates should ask instead is how they can help them to do what they want to do. Zuckerberg’s prescription was “elegant organisation”.”

So as long as no one else will organize the web to help people “to do what they want to do” on the Internet, maybe Facebook will continue to take lead on that. The question is how far they could go?

From my point of view – not so far. Facebook is and probably will be one of the most important network for socializing, and – yes – we might book our flight tickets there as well. But… The most likely scenario is that the whole world wide web will be “Facebookalized”. Facebook will work in symbiosis with the rest of the web and vice versa. Thousands of small web applications will permeate Facebook. And thousands of Facebook applications will permeate the entire web. “Like buttons”, “Sign up with Facebook”-features, are just a few examples. I think the web – the Internet – will be socialized, and we have to thank Mark for inspired lectured the rest of us to execute on that.

Mark won’t organize the whole web for us; the crowd will. But Mark is one of them. A true thought leader. Thank God (Mark) for that 🙂

And – no – this is video doesn’t show the entire life of Alex Droner, but it might show a tiny part of it.

Social Web continue to grow – the companies follows – without beeing social?


Check out the new stats and infographic from Search Enginge Journal. The web is getting more and more social. Rapidly. No wonder… after all we’re human beings who are pretty much social, right? Numbers of users and contributors are just booming. And companies are following.

But what’s their socializing status? Really? God knows.

71% of the companies (which?) are using Facebook, 59% are using Twitter, and 39% are using blogs in their “marketing”.

My experience though is that many of the companies are still using social media as another channel for their content. Take a look at their Facebook pages for an example. Some of the companies are just pushing their stories out, without listen, and then they’re counting the numbers of “likes” without answer the questions: Am I really committed to my audience? Am I engaged? Who is really engaged? If the likers never comment the companies updates or never contribute with anything to the wall. And vice versa… what’s left of the social part?

Let me refer to what Kevin Roberts, CEO World wide, Saatchi & Saatchi, says in his book “Lovemarks“:

“Forget the information Economy. Human attention has become our principal currency. Job number one for any marketer these days is competing for attention. Whoever you are. Wherever you are. But once you’ve captured that attention, you’ve got to show you deserve it.

The process really only has two steps – so why does everyone find it so hard? I think I’ts all because we obsess over the attention part and forget about why we need that attention in the first place…. We need the relationships.

Emotional connections with consumers have to be att the foundation of all our cool marketing moves and innovative tactics.So it’s time to stop racing after every new fad and focus on making consistent, emotional connections with customer and stakeholders. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.

The great journey from products to trademarks and from trademarks to brands is over. Trademarks are tablestakes. Brand are tablestakes. Both are useful in the quest for differentation and vital to survival, BUT they’re not winning game-breakers.

Today the stakes have reached a new high. The social fabric is spread more thinly than ever. People are looking for new, emotional connections. They’re looking for what they can love.”

Sign up for a Google+ business page now!


Hey PR communicators and others. Do you’ve got a Facebook fan page for your business? And think that’s a great way to get in touch and interact with your audience?

Then you should create a business page for Google+. But hold it! Maybe you should wait for a while, until Google show you the green light.

Some companies like Ford just run into the field for action. They created a personal profile as a company brand. Exactly what business did in the good old Facebook era when pages didn’t exist.

Ford - one of the first business on Google+

Google is of course aware of this, and telling us not to.

Google+ Product manager, Christian Oestlien, says on his profil:

“We have been watching Google+ take shape over the last week and we’ve seen some really great companies get involved. But frankly we know our product as it stands is not optimally suited to their needs. In fact, it was kind of an awkward moment for us when we asked Ford for his (or was it her?) gender!

How users communicate with each other is different from how they communicate with brands, and we want to create an optimal experience for both. We have a great team of engineers actively building an amazing Google+ experience for businesses, and we will have something to show the world later this year.”

But also add that:

“If you represent a “non-user entity” (e.g. business, organization, place, team, etc.) and would like to apply for consideration in our limited program (and be amongst the first to be alerted when the business product launches) you can sign up here:”

http://goo.gl/zq95C

One small paradox is that Christian Oestlien uses his personal profil for business matters like this… 🙂 It’s a mess, isn’t it?

Before you plan to start a community – think twice.


Funny. Or tragic? It happens all the time. Still. People is asking me to explain for them how to build a community.
Guess what? I use to answer like Mark Zuckerberg did when Rupert Murdoch asked: “How can we build such a great community like Facebook?” And Mark said: “You can’t.”

Ever since I’ve been inspired of Marks remarkable statements (and of course his work in particular). And in this case – he’s spot on. Of course you can’t.

Yesterday I got following mail from a friend – a smart guy that I do respect a lot:

“Hello!
Hope you’re doing well. I wonder if you can point me “right direction”.
I’m looking for a white paper, or person who can explain “how to think” of Facebook as a community. It’s simply about an idea involving XXX (which has a fairly significant facebook presence) and a twist on the community that I intend to try to YYY.
Any thoughts / ideas?”

I did answer:

“Hmm … sounds a bit vague to me. And I’m not sure what you mean, but I do believe that a “community” has nothing to do with the platform. A community is people who share a common cause. Who’s interested in or otherwise engaged in a common subject. Facebook is only a platform that might get communities to germinate and grow. Certainly a damn good platform. Try to catch and understand the engagement first.”

And after I’ve sent the reply, I was reminded of the blog post “Who owns community?” by Nick Tadd, that I read a year ago. I found it, and where he wrote among others things:

“You see, what I have learned from founding the Property Tribes forum, is that you cannot build a community.  Why?  Because it’s already there – you can’t build anything that was not yours in the first place. What you can do, however, is provide a platform and facilitate people using the site to have an enjoyable and rewarding experience. You can help them feel connected, you can help them feel valued, you can help them learn, you can help them feel that they “belong”, you can provide a space where they feel comfortable and among friends. Then let them run with it.  Let them make the community what they want it to be, not what you want it to be.”

He concludes his post with an conclusion:

“You cannot buy community and you cannot sell community.  If you are creating all the content yourself, and asking people to subscribe to that content, then that is a completely different business model and will not create community.  It’s also very hard work and time-consuming.”

And give us a few tips how to help people to organize themselves:

  1. Engage.
  2. Contribute.
  3. Pay attention.
  4. Let the community know they are valued.
  5. Connect people to each other.
  6. It’s about them, not you.
  7. Share.
  8. Don’t try and compete with your members.
  9. Be social.
  10. Be a friend.  Care.
  11. Don’t police or “moderate” the forum unless absolutely necessary.  The community will do that in their own way.
  12. Facilitate trust within the community.
  13. Understand that a community cannot be all things to all people.
  14. Celebrate the heroes in the community.
  15. Try and lead by example.
  16. Show respect.
  17. Believe in,  and encourage,  the wisdom of crowds.
  18. Enjoy it.
  19. Never stop trying to make it a better place for a community to organise itself – what ever your niche

So before you plan to start a community – think twice.

Facebook vs Twitter as journalistic tool?


Since I wrote the posting below partly about the brand new Facebook page “Journalists on facebook” and finished that part with the sentence: “I’m pretty sure that many journalist now will take the oppertunity to use this possiblity, to get more out of their daily work.” There’s been a lot of buzz regarding Facebook vs Twitter as a journalistic tool.

Justin Osofsky, Director of Media Partnerships at Facebook, says that the page has been created: “to serve as an ongoing resource for the growing number of reporters using Facebook to find sources, interact with readers, and advance stories. And that “the Page will provide journalists with best practices for integrating the latest Facebook products with their work and connecting with the Facebook audience of more than 500 million people.

I believe he’s spot on, but… I do respect the critics. Among other I got an e-mail from Daniel at Newsy.com who recommended me to see the video about the topic Facebook vs Twitter as a journalist tool.

The news anchor Jim Flink at Newsy, says:
“So, could Facebook challenge Twitter in the battle for reporters’ hearts? One blogger says – probably not:
“Twitter allows you to order the account you follow into lists so you can have all the information about one subject on the same feed while Facebook imposes on you the feed of every journalists you will follow, no matter the subject they are working on or they are specialized in.”

Gigom’s Mathew Ingram suggests the company might have to alter its image a bit to make this work.
“…many users still likely think of Facebook as a place to socialize rather than be informed — a place to play games … not necessarily a place where journalists are active. Those things may not be mutually exclusive, but it’s going to take some work to make them feel like they belong together.”

I do agree. But my point of view is that both services has some left to prove to be kick ass tools for journalists, and their audience in particular.

I would say that the biggest headache right now for both this services, within this matter, is that most people has only one newsstream (or wall) for all their interests, topics, networks, etc (discussion in groups excluded). And most of the people is as a matter of fact interested in several topics and member of many communities. Do you really want the latest news from the revolution in Egypt on the same wall as where my cousins birthday party shows up? I don’t. And these lists feature is too… time-consuming. The same applies for Twitter. Ranking system, like Facebook Edgerank, might make the updates more relevant, but doesn’t solve this problem.

Personally, I love my Google RSS Reader with an extensive but careful selection of sources (social networks included)  in combination with Flipboard.

B t w – what happened to the service “LinkedIn for Journalists”? What I can see is pretty much no more… Or it ended up as a tiny group.  And LinkedIn Today…? Well – we won’t start our days with that kind of news aggregator, do we?

To be continued.

First radio reporter using iPhone as primary field recorder


Journalism has truly turned up side down. And I think that’s just great. I just ran into a few great examples of that:

First of all check out the WTOP reporter Neal Augenstein, who has replaced his heavy radio equipment on an iPhone. He’s writing about this interesting change in MediaShift. And it’s truly inspiring. In particular for those who want to go out on the field to cover, create, and distribute remarkable stories direct to their audience. It hasn’t been easier than now.

Neal describes himself in his Twitter bio as follows:
“Believe I’m first major market radio reporter using iPhone as primary field recorder.”

And he says:
“Now, with the Apple iPhone 4 and several apps, I can produce intricate audio and video reports, broadcast live, take and edit photos, write web content and distribute it through social media from a single device.”

“With the VC Audio Pro app from VeriCorder, I can quickly pull cuts, edit and assemble audio wraps, and adjust volumes on a three-track screen similar to the popular Adobe Audition used in many newsrooms. The amount of time saved by not having to boot up the laptop and transfer audio has been my single greatest workflow improvement. The finished report that used to take 30 minutes to produce and transmit can now be done in 10.

This is a rundown of all the key ways he’s using on and with his iPhone.

Neal Augenstein hasn’t a journalist page – yet. But Nicholas D. Kristof has. He’s one of the top journalists that might got inspired of the possibilities that Justin Osofsky, Director of Media Partnerships at Facebook, talking about on the brand new Facebook page “Journalists on Facebook”. The page has been created: “to serve as an ongoing resource for the growing number of reporters using Facebook to find sources, interact with readers, and advance stories.”

Justin says that “The Page will provide journalists with best practices for integrating the latest Facebook products with their work and connecting with the Facebook audience of more than 500 million people.

I was actually one of the first to like that page, now one day later, they are ten thousands of journalists. And all of them are now asked to create professional pages on Facebook, for both reach and interact with their audience, listen to them, work with them, get ideas for articles of them, and so on. Some of them might already have done that, like Nicholas D. Kristof, that already has more than 200.000 “fans”. And some of them also bring their page to their newspapers bylines like Robert Fisk at The Independent. Why not?

I’m pretty sure that many journalist now will take the oppertunity to use this possiblity, to get more out of their daily work. Some of them will be CNN journalists if they haven’t already joined “the Facebook revolution”. And the media itself is no exception… Look at NPR or the very small local news blog Rockville Central.

When I talked to Nick Wrenn, vice president of digital services for CNN International, during the conference Social Media World Forum, in London, he said that Facebook is an equally obvious that common source of information and meeting point. But he would rather emphasize CNN’s iReport and Open Stories as the public Forum for meeting, collaboration, and sharing, between CNN journalists and their audience.

Kritik mot Facebooks Sponsrade nyheter


Jag gillar inte Facebooks nya social ads i form av sponsrade nyheter. Lika lite som jag gillade deras första sociala annonsprogram “Beacon”. Frågan är om jag någonsin kommer gilla den typen av program. För jag har också svårt för Tupperwarepartyn. Och känner avsmak inför Buzz Agents.

Men vad har de gemensamt? Alla använder “vänner” som kommersiella budbärare. Och det gillar jag inte!

Facebooks nya sociala annonsprogram “Sponsrade nyheter” funkar som så att när dina vänner “gillar”, checkar in på, eller delar med sig av annan information från företag på Facebook, som också är anslutna till annonsprogrammet ifråga, så visas aktiviteten inte bara i dina vänners nyhetsflöden, utan även som en annons i spalten längst till höger.

Bild: InsideFacebook

Facebook säger sig ha testat detta under några månader, och menar på att det givit en massa mervärden till deras kunder (företagen) i form av ökad exponering och varumärkeskännedom.

Facebook hyllar sitt eget nya annonsprogram - Sponsrade nyheter

InsideFacebook skriver:
“Seeing that a friend has checked in at Starbucks is a much more compelling reason to visit than a standard advertisement telling a user to go get a coffee.”

Men vad säger användarna? Borde det åtminstone inte vara opt in på såna här program. Många menar det och somliga anser att Facebooks sponsrade nyheter just är en tam variant av det tidigare och så hårt kritiserade Beacon.

InsideFacebook fortsätter:
“Some users may not want their content turned into ads, and since there’s no way to opt-out or turn off Sponsored Stories, some protest should be expected.”

Räckvidd inget med inflytande att göra


Låt dig inte luras av räckvidd när du söker inflytelserika personer på webben. Personer med stora nätverk behöver inte med nödvändighet ha stort inflytande.

Min pappa sa alltid: “Håll dig god vän med de som sitter längst bak i klassen, för det är hos dem du kommer söka jobb.”

Andemeningen var förstås att göra mig uppmärksam på hur viktigt det är med lite attityd, integritet, bångstyrighet, etc, för att komma någonstans här i världen. Men också för att påvisa värdet av goda relationer med de som har, eller kommer att få, makt och stort inflytande.

Sistnämnda har varit ledorden för de som jobbar med PR ända sen de gamla grekerna. Det som dock förändrats under resans gång är det kommunikativa landskapet, opinionsbildarna, och de kommunikativa metoderna.

De som länge har haft störst inflytande på företags och organisationers marknad är den första, andra och  tredje statsmakten. Sistnämnda – de traditionella medierna – har lite slarvigt uttryckt länge varit synonymt med PR.

Men nu, när vem som helst har fått verktyg att uttrycka sig fritt på webben, talar man om en fjärde statsmakt; den skara människor som plötsligt och sammantaget förmodligen har störst inflytande på företags och organisationers marknad, av dem alla.

Cisions Europachef, Peter Granat, säger i en intervju med PRWeek:

“In the social media era the word ‘influencer’ is fast overtaking ‘journalist’, ‘analyst’ or any other ringfenced descriptive term that we were once comfortable with. Influencers are everywhere and they’re not simply confined to journalists – now we have bloggers, tweeters, podcasters; a constantly changing variety of people to whom PR professionals need to reach out. But finding the right influencers on the right channels that make an impact for our clients’ brands can seem like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Detta är ju minst sagt omtumlande för Cision och liknande bolag vars intäkter till största del och ännu så länge kommer ifrån försäljning av just tillgång till mediedatabaser och utskick med utgångspunkt från dessa.

Branschen skakas ånyo av en omdaning som får stora konsekvenser på alla inblandades sätt att arbeta med PR. I synnerhet de traditionella PR-verktygen som hittills har utgått från att journalister och redaktioner på traditionell media är de med störst inflytande på marknaden, och de enda som är värda att “bearbeta” för att på så sätt nå och skapa goda relationer med sin marknad.

Bortsett ifrån att företag idag med framgång kan skapa goda relationer direkt med sin marknad utan att gå via opinionsbildare, söker nu dessa företag tjänster som hjälper dem att finna dessa nya och inflytelserika personer.

Jag har tidigare skrivit om hur nära nog samtliga sociala tjänster på webben som kartläggar folks uttryck på webben och resultatet därav, kan ligga till grund för att identifiera folks inflytande på företags marknad. Men också om de tjänster som tagit positionen att bygga gränssnitt mot dessa tjänster med syfte att försöka redogöra för vem som hänger ihop med vad och vilka, vad som sägs, till vem, i vilken omfattning och på vilket sätt.

Plötsligt har vi kommit väldigt långt ifrån de klassiska “mediedatabaserna” och “distributionslistorna”. Dessvärre kvarstår ofta den traditionella synen på att inflytande har med räckvidd att göra; där en journalists inflytande förknippas med sitt medias upplaga/täckning, och där nu personer med stora “nätverk”, anses ha större och bättre inflytande, än de med små nätverk.

Detta är en stort misstag.

Brian Solis skriver “Influence is not popularity and popularity is not influence” i ett blogginlägg i höstas. Och fortsätter:

“Over time, our net worth is measured not by the size of our social graph, but our place within it.  As a result, social capital is visualized as influence. It is influence that shapes the agenda of social communities and the resulting activity and conversations that contribute to their resonance.”

I ett inlägg med rubriken: “Digital PR – Trends from 2010 into 2011” skriver Mark Berrryreid:

“It isn’t always the smart move to go to the blogger with the largest reach.”

Utan poängterar istället vikten av engagemang och entusiasm vad det gäller positivt inflytande:

“Investing in the people  (evangelists) who love your brand will create a ripple effect.”

Om PR-kommunikatörer uteslutande strävar efter att nå och bygga relationer med de som har stora nätverk, så riskerar de att missa de som verkligen har inflytande på deras företags marknad.

Jag gillar Wikipedias definition av “Social Influence”: “Social influence occurs when an individual’s thoughts, feelings or actions are affected by other people.”

Stora nätverk kan lätt konstrueras utan att innehålla ett uns av “social influence”.

Människor som verkligen påverkar andra människor, kanske gör det inom en sfär som är irrelevant för dig och din verksamhet?

Kasey Skala på SocialMediaToday är kritisk till den allmänna uppfattningen att människor med stora sociala nätverk också skulle ha stort inflytande. Han skriver i inlägget “Does online influence matter?” att:

“Mr. Social Media Expert/Consultant/Guru might know a little something about the online space, but does he really have any influence on which brand of cereal I’m going to buy? Absolutely not. Keep in mind, outside your little social bubble, the vast majority of people in the real world have no clue who you are, nor do they care about your opinion.”

Journalisters inflytande härrör ofta till det media de jobbar för, och den status de har på mediet ifråga. Vilket inte på något sätt spegler hur många följeslagare journalisterna ifråga ev har på Twitter där deras tweets inte sällan även rör frågor av privat karaktär, som vida skiljer sig från deras professionella sfär.

Det är därför märkligt att exempelvis Cision listar de mest inflytelserika journalisterna på tjänsten “Journalisttweets” med utgångspunkt från Klout. Klout säger sig kunna mäta just dessa journalisters “inflytande” med utgångspunkt från 35 olika variablar tagna från deras konton på Twitter, och numer även Facebook. Men vad säger egentligen detta om journalisternas verkliga inflytande?

Liksom Kasey så har jag inget ont att säga om Klouts verksamhet, men kommunikatörer som vill skapa relationer med inflytelserika människor inom deras intressesfär gör sig en rejäl björntjänst om de går efter “Klout score”.

Lika förbryllad blir man av det faktum att 61% av de tillfrågade journalisterna i PRWeeks Media Survey 2010 har blivit pitchade på Facebook. För hur många av de 79% journalister (enligt undesökningen) som har ett konto på Facebook, har det av professionella skäl? Och hur många vill bli pitchade den där? Något som inte framgår av undersökningen.

Läs också “Are marketers overestimating the impact of influencers?” och “Your Followers Are No Measure of Your Influence“.