It's not generally well known that when you click the Facebook 'Like' button on a website, you're giving the author of that Button permission to message you in a newsfeed. So, if you LIKED a bingo card while shopping, then the owner of that site has the opportunity to message you when it goes on sale by way of your newsfeed.
It's a point brought up by Patio11 (Patrick McKenzie) over at Bing Card Creator. He's a great entrepreneur, and I dare say, analytical thinker. His concern is that this functionality will enable marketers to spam people.
It's a valid concern.
The world is filled with absolutely stupid and inconsiderate people. Just look at what they've done to email:
It's an open standard that enables, to this day, tens of thousands of spammers to generate incredible volumes of unwanted messages. In spite of them, email marketing continues to be very useful for customers and extremely cost effective for marketers. Utility survives in spite of the negative externalities generated by the few. I value many of the communications I have opted to receive from companies. My of my friends have views that intrigue me and I have subscribed to their newsletters.
By the same token, if I figure a company is no longer telling me things that are relevant to my interests, I will hit the spam button. (Most companies fail in terms of compliance with unsubscribes lists...so, why not hit the spam button?)
Ultimate control rests with the consumer. Which is why on this whole Facebook Like button side, I predict that in spite of stupid people, it will end up being a net positive in the end.
In one breath, there will be people who simply generate irrelevant content in a bid to drive impressions. Such marketers will completely endanger brand equity and could significantly erode the value of their fan bases. Such negative behavior will correct itself out sooner (if they have a measurement program in place) or later (when they burn through 250,000 fans in a month).
In the other breath, I believe that such behavior will be corrected over time. Indeed, Facebook, by virtue of it not being an open standard like Email is, will have to gradually police it. Consumers will LIKE certain things so that they can get updates about those things ported directly to their newsfeed. At least, that's if marketers are quick enough to demonstrate that kind of utility, and customers ultimately derive utility. It's in Facebook's best interest to curb spam so that the user experience is good. That's not to say that companies always execute strategies that are in their best interests. (But there it is.)
To Patrick's other points - especially around permission and education - perhaps.
I thought everybody concerned was supposed to quit Facebook. That's not to say they should tempt a Congress filled with politicians who demonstrate a need to protect. They shouldn't. That is their choice, now isn't?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Private Browsing Doesn't Work That Way
I'm not certain that many people really understand what private browsing it - at least based on my interpretation data published by Mozilla Labs. The study is awesome and you should check it out.
I've been over what private browsing really is. It isn't what I think what the general population thinks it is. (I don't know what people are really thinking - but I can attempt to infer it by observing aggregate behavior.) Come with me and dive in.
The Mozilla Labs data indicates that private browsing activations spike at noon, with subsequent spikes around 5pm, 9pm, and shortly after midnight. The median duration of staying in private browsing is 10 minutes, with 50% of the cases falling between 4.5 and 22 minutes.
The data is absolutely fascinating. So just what's going on? Why is it happening?
I think people are going into private browsing for such short bursts in an effort to evade surveillance.
Surveillance from who?
Employers, schools, and possibly family (in households with one limited number of computers). The noon spike certainly suggests some of that going on. And yet, so far as I know, private browsing doesn't prevent most types of surveillance that are employed by IT departments at work and at school. Whatever is going on - even if it isn't recorded in the browser - is certainly being recorded by the website (log files) and possibly by surveillance software installed by people who wish to surveil usage.
I've previously referred to private browsing as being porn mode. I think this holds true during the 10pm and post-midnight spikes. I certainly don't think this holds at noon. (I hope not!).
I think there's a false sense of security there.
The second point is whether or not free email service providers, subscription, and ecommerce sites experience massive increases in 'first time visitors' at these key times. In effect, with cookies in full suppression, it would appear to the web analyst that huge influxes of first time visitors are arriving. If you're such an analyst - you might want to examine the period of time on your own site and see if they coincide.
I've been over what private browsing really is. It isn't what I think what the general population thinks it is. (I don't know what people are really thinking - but I can attempt to infer it by observing aggregate behavior.) Come with me and dive in.
The Mozilla Labs data indicates that private browsing activations spike at noon, with subsequent spikes around 5pm, 9pm, and shortly after midnight. The median duration of staying in private browsing is 10 minutes, with 50% of the cases falling between 4.5 and 22 minutes.
The data is absolutely fascinating. So just what's going on? Why is it happening?
I think people are going into private browsing for such short bursts in an effort to evade surveillance.
Surveillance from who?
Employers, schools, and possibly family (in households with one limited number of computers). The noon spike certainly suggests some of that going on. And yet, so far as I know, private browsing doesn't prevent most types of surveillance that are employed by IT departments at work and at school. Whatever is going on - even if it isn't recorded in the browser - is certainly being recorded by the website (log files) and possibly by surveillance software installed by people who wish to surveil usage.
I've previously referred to private browsing as being porn mode. I think this holds true during the 10pm and post-midnight spikes. I certainly don't think this holds at noon. (I hope not!).
I think there's a false sense of security there.
The second point is whether or not free email service providers, subscription, and ecommerce sites experience massive increases in 'first time visitors' at these key times. In effect, with cookies in full suppression, it would appear to the web analyst that huge influxes of first time visitors are arriving. If you're such an analyst - you might want to examine the period of time on your own site and see if they coincide.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Net Neutrality, the Hierarchy, and the Network
Anybody who has seen their torrents throttled over the years knows that net neutrality really doesn't exist, regardless if it is the law of the land.
The argument against net neutrality - the notion of equality in experience - has been long trotted out. The argument goes that you have 1 person in 100 that is responsible for gobbling up 80% of the bandwidth - and they're degrading the experience for the other 99. So, to preserve the experience for everybody minus 1, the ISP simply must place curbs on that one person.
Such framing is designed to exclude the notion that the pie isn't strictly fixed and metering isn't essential. ISP's are incented to maximize revenue by generating scarcity (think DeBeers) as opposed to maximize customer utility by lighting up dark fiber. Or, for that matter, looking at ways to localize content distribution.
Networks are incredibly disruptive things. They undermine the traditional way of doing things, and bring about really unwanted change. From the creation of secret societies to overthrow the Manchu Dynasty to the organization of trade unions, and through to bit torrenting - networks are generally used to upset order. Sometimes it's for the better. Sometimes it's for the worse.
In general, hierarchies reassert themselves. That's generally the rule isn't? The Manchu's were replaced with the warlords. The trade unions have been replaced by Wall Street. Bit Torrent is being replaced by the ISP's.
The gradual erosion of Net Neutrality - first by way of the illegal throttling - and now more formally in the Google-Verizon agreement, is by and large the hierarchy simply reorganizing itself.
To label it good or bad would be to get all normative about it. It's simply a human phenomenon that's been repeated over and over and over again. If you recognize it, and you have a problem with it, understand where they're coming from - and reframe. If you support it - then you just have to sit back. Or, use technology to accentuate the power of the network against the hierarchy.
It has powerful implications for analysts. Generally speaking, it's far easier to measure a hierarchy than it is to measure a network.
The argument against net neutrality - the notion of equality in experience - has been long trotted out. The argument goes that you have 1 person in 100 that is responsible for gobbling up 80% of the bandwidth - and they're degrading the experience for the other 99. So, to preserve the experience for everybody minus 1, the ISP simply must place curbs on that one person.
Such framing is designed to exclude the notion that the pie isn't strictly fixed and metering isn't essential. ISP's are incented to maximize revenue by generating scarcity (think DeBeers) as opposed to maximize customer utility by lighting up dark fiber. Or, for that matter, looking at ways to localize content distribution.
Networks are incredibly disruptive things. They undermine the traditional way of doing things, and bring about really unwanted change. From the creation of secret societies to overthrow the Manchu Dynasty to the organization of trade unions, and through to bit torrenting - networks are generally used to upset order. Sometimes it's for the better. Sometimes it's for the worse.
In general, hierarchies reassert themselves. That's generally the rule isn't? The Manchu's were replaced with the warlords. The trade unions have been replaced by Wall Street. Bit Torrent is being replaced by the ISP's.
The gradual erosion of Net Neutrality - first by way of the illegal throttling - and now more formally in the Google-Verizon agreement, is by and large the hierarchy simply reorganizing itself.
To label it good or bad would be to get all normative about it. It's simply a human phenomenon that's been repeated over and over and over again. If you recognize it, and you have a problem with it, understand where they're coming from - and reframe. If you support it - then you just have to sit back. Or, use technology to accentuate the power of the network against the hierarchy.
It has powerful implications for analysts. Generally speaking, it's far easier to measure a hierarchy than it is to measure a network.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Economist and Hell's Kitchen
How should analysts communicate?
I've written a lot about communication mediums. I've been dreaming of a post-excel world for quite some time now - getting us out of that slumber and into a world of active communication with people. And perhaps, in a more normative moment, people who matter.
It's been particularly hard to change long standing patterns of behavior. We're getting there, gradually. Whenever something is hard, I take 90 steps back and go extreme case hunting.
Come with me and let's have some fun.
At the one extreme, what if an analyst could only communicate through video? What if they were particularly effective at it, especially with the editing? What if it was edited in a compelling way - ultrasoundbyted - like the Next Time on Hell's Kitchen? See below for an example of the North American style:
Very effective editing techniques that draws drama when very little actually exists. Rapid sound bytes interspersed with notable quotes - and hyperbolic statements like:
"If you think you know....the conversion rate...THINK AGAIN!"
Highly entertaining and in the tradition of wake me up when the data is done. If the goal is effective communication - engaging both the auditory and visual - it would be outstanding.
I'm not altogether joking about such an approach. Perhaps, literally, analytics needs to be wrapped in a such a package.
At the other extreme is The Economist style guide. The Economist has journalists who sound remarkably similar, communicate in a fairly authoritative and playful way, and blend story, data, and implications together fairly well.
So, yes but - it's economics and it's journalism and it's international.
In many ways, what an analyst must also weave the political dialogue (this was the insight that drove the campaign...) with the data (here's how it did...) with synthesis (this is what really worked and we should do again!...) within one document.
The single sheet in the back of The Economist, which breaks out the key economic performance indicators out by country and group, replete with their single line insets, resembles much of what is going out today. Even The Economist doesn't lead with data. They lead with cover story and editorial.
The predictable ending to this post would be: an analyst should communicate in the manner and medium that their audience wants.
But that would be pretty weak. And I'm not even certain if that's really all that right.
Instead, perhaps, I'll argue that an analyst should communicate in the manner and medium in which they will be the most effective at driving action.
Do you think that analysts could do a lot better at communicating insights, and that perhaps, the medium is to blame?
I've written a lot about communication mediums. I've been dreaming of a post-excel world for quite some time now - getting us out of that slumber and into a world of active communication with people. And perhaps, in a more normative moment, people who matter.
It's been particularly hard to change long standing patterns of behavior. We're getting there, gradually. Whenever something is hard, I take 90 steps back and go extreme case hunting.
Come with me and let's have some fun.
At the one extreme, what if an analyst could only communicate through video? What if they were particularly effective at it, especially with the editing? What if it was edited in a compelling way - ultrasoundbyted - like the Next Time on Hell's Kitchen? See below for an example of the North American style:
Very effective editing techniques that draws drama when very little actually exists. Rapid sound bytes interspersed with notable quotes - and hyperbolic statements like:
"If you think you know....the conversion rate...THINK AGAIN!"
Highly entertaining and in the tradition of wake me up when the data is done. If the goal is effective communication - engaging both the auditory and visual - it would be outstanding.
I'm not altogether joking about such an approach. Perhaps, literally, analytics needs to be wrapped in a such a package.
At the other extreme is The Economist style guide. The Economist has journalists who sound remarkably similar, communicate in a fairly authoritative and playful way, and blend story, data, and implications together fairly well.
So, yes but - it's economics and it's journalism and it's international.
In many ways, what an analyst must also weave the political dialogue (this was the insight that drove the campaign...) with the data (here's how it did...) with synthesis (this is what really worked and we should do again!...) within one document.
The single sheet in the back of The Economist, which breaks out the key economic performance indicators out by country and group, replete with their single line insets, resembles much of what is going out today. Even The Economist doesn't lead with data. They lead with cover story and editorial.
The predictable ending to this post would be: an analyst should communicate in the manner and medium that their audience wants.
But that would be pretty weak. And I'm not even certain if that's really all that right.
Instead, perhaps, I'll argue that an analyst should communicate in the manner and medium in which they will be the most effective at driving action.
Do you think that analysts could do a lot better at communicating insights, and that perhaps, the medium is to blame?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)