Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013

Business Social Networking
part 1
cultural and historical perspective

Roberto Lofaro

Copyright © 2003-2013 Roberto Lofaro, aleph123int@gmail.com
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 1493747495
ISBN-13: 978-1493747498

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Aldous Huxley
History can deliver lessons- moreover when it is history written as
events were unfolding, read few decades later: it is useful to see
through the “dust cloud” that makes us believe that technology is
the leading influence on human behaviour.
It is certainly true that our idea of democracy (do we really have
just one shared globally?) is fairly different from that of Plato (who
actually wasn’t so positive about democracy).
Nonetheless, the influence of technology on human behavior is,
for the time being, merely a reconfiguration of what was already
there in Aristotle’s or Plato’s times.
Social networking online, or “social media” seemingly allows
instant communication from many to many: but is it really so? In
the past, “instant” meant that, anyway, there was time to
restructure your message before it was transmitted- nowadays,
“instant” often implies that we are not communicating, we are just
acting as a relay: thinking is way too often an afterthought.
It took decades to have cars become commonplace, and a shorter
timespan to have computers on each desk, but social networking
became “embedded” in everyday life in a decade.
Therefore, it might be too late to “turn back time”: follow Dr.
Strangelove and say “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love”
social media.
A brave new world? Maybe- or, to close with another quote from
Aldous Huxley:
“Experience is not what happens to a man. It is what a man does with what
happens to him.”

PROLOGUE
This book is based on two drafts/concepts (on social networking
and marketing, and social networking and security) that I had
registered with WGA in 2008, before giving a non-exclusive
license to part of the material to contribute to a marketing book,
and preparing to contribute to a book on networking (technology
and methods; eventually my participation was scuttled).
Why publishing this book now? Because since 2008 I kept writing
on these issues1, and recently released on Amazon and Slideshare a
first book on cultural and organizational change2, and therefore
decided that it was the appropriate time to release, as a “parallel
line of thought”, updated material on my 2007/2009 research and
analysis on the use of social media, both in business and
elsewhere.
This book too can be read online for free on Slideshare3, or can be
read offline either on paper or on Kindle (see Amazon).
The rationale of these free books? Act as introductory works,
based on material that I had already released online and offline,
but updated and expanded in 2013, as a starting point and
reference guide for two book series and further online articles.

1

http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog - search through the “tag cloud”, as
the blog is focused on social, political, and business impacts of
technology, not just on social media and social networking

2

http://tinyurl.com/BFM2013

3

http://www.slideshare.net/robertolofaro

Since the early 1990s, as soon as the then-new Internet and World
Wide Web were released, I used (and tried to convince customers
to use) web technologies to share knowledge.
After testing various “community-oriented” technologies (e.g.
Compuserve and pre-Yahoo Geocities) for both personal and
business purposes, in 2007 I joined stage6.divx.com, an
experimental multimedia-based community created by DivX.
Few months later, before it was open to the general public, I was
invited to join Facebook, and accepted the invitation from a
Latvian friend since mid-1990s to a local community, draugiem.lv
(more or less 3 million members).
Once inside, the first experiment was obviously how to integrate
business and private life online, to which I added another
experiment: create a “virtual village” (around 1200 contacts, i.e. a
“village-size” community, now with over 1400 “netizens”).
While on stage6.divx.com I used a “nom de plume” (aleph123),
but never disguised my age, identity, or experience; elsewhere (e.g.
Facebook, Twitter, and G+), I used my real name.
All those 2007-2008 experiments were supposed to become part
of a book, a project eventually postponed (as at the time I was
trying to settle in Brussels, and therefore I had first to see if the
book could create a conflict of interests).
Despite the time since then (I am writing in November 2013), and
the increase on the scope of key social networking websites (e.g.
Linkedin attracted mainly USA members in 2008), there is nothing
really new, but the market matured enough to have “key players”.
Few more books will be published in 2014 on how to use social
media not only in business, but also in other advocacy activities
(social, political, etc.).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & RATIONALE
Since 2008, using my experience on introducing cultural,
organizational, and technological change4 I published online
articles on a variety of subjects, from the perspective of a change
consultant with experience also in politics5.
Three elements allowed to consolidate those writings first into a
“book draft” form: support from thousands of members of my
online “virtual village” scattered across the Net; the opportunity
provided by a customer in Belgium in 2008 to work on their bookproject; and all the customers who actually were interested in my
proposals to use collaborative technologies since the late 1980s.
I would like to thank those that, since 2008, gave me opportunities
on social networking and new media (i.e. social media), either to
write about it, to work on business models, information/solution
architecture, marketing, and overall business/marketing planning
for few new services and startups.
Belgium: C.B., E.G., P.T.; Italy: M.L., V.B.; USA: K.A., D.C.,
R.K.(+2009)
In order to keep this book short, and with no need to be
constantly updated, each word in bold blue within the book is a
keyword that you can search on Wikipedia; each one of the maps
has been produced using Google Trends.
4

E.g. see on Slideshare the free online book on the subject
http://tinyurl.com/BFM2013, available also in print on Amazon and
Kindle: “BFM2013 Knowledge-based organizational change”, 2013,, ISBN
978-1493581078

5

http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog

CONTENTS
Prologue ............................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements & Rationale .......................................................... vii
1. Introduction...................................................................................... xi
1.1. Social network basics (not just online!) ..................................... xiv
1.2. Examples of marketing uses of previous social networks .......... xix
1.3. Why online social networks are different .................................. xxi
1.4. Of (online) ways and means ................................................ xxxviii
1.5. Willing or not, your business will be online............................xxxix
2. The Business of Social Networking ................................................. 41
2.1. Communication channels ......................................................... 43
2.2. Securing a technology ............................................................... 44
2.3. A new framework..................................................................... 47
2.4. A practical approach................................................................. 48
2.5. Keypoints................................................................................. 49

3. Social Marketplace........................................................................... 50
3.2. What are social network services for? ....................................... 58
3.3. What's the audience of a social network? .................................. 60
3.4. Early and recent business users................................................. 62
4. Why and How - Signposts ............................................................... 64
4.1. Bottom-line reasons ................................................................. 66
4.2. Integration within your marketing strategies ............................. 68
4.3. How to target their audience: guidelines ................................... 72
4.4. Getting on board: a checklist .................................................... 74
4.5. Joining them or… joining them? .............................................. 76
5. History and Future .......................................................................... 80
5.1. Yesterday (in 2008) ................................................................... 82
5.2. Coming soon ............................................................................ 83
A. Suggested readings ......................................................................... 86

Business Social Networking part 1: cultural and historical perspective

1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, “social networking” became a synonym
for Internet-based websites like Facebook.
But social networking is something more: any relationship
between human beings is based on a connection between different
interests, experiences, purposes.
To avoid any confusion, this book will adopt a wider perspective:
any technology to communicate without necessarily being in the
same physical location, while leaving behind a “trace” potentially
visible by others is a “social networking service” (ref. 045);
obviously, this assumes that you authorize others to see the trace!
For the purposes of this book:
social network
social networking service
social networking

any relation between individuals
the online version of social networks
the activities done by individuals in their
social networks, both online and offline

Not just Internet, but also e-mail, text messages, other
technologies and devices that are just starting to appear on the
market- and also (in 2013) the latest crop of gaming consoles.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertolofaro

Yes, including outdoor advertisements that connect via bluetooth
with people walking past them, like in the movie “Minority
Report”, or some experiments with “text messaging by
geolocalization” (i.e. I know where you are, I know that you have
a mobile, I do not necessarily know who you are, but nonetheless,
unless your number is on a “don’t waste my time” list, I will spam
you; already done few years ago in London on passers-by).
Since the 1990s, companies and organizations used Internet as a
communication tool, but mainly as a way to broadcast to their
audience, with limited or no interaction (and often no “unfiltered”
return communication visible to other members of the audience).
Social networking services add a further element: the technology is
simpler, cheaper, faster- and anybody can use it to communicate
both successes and failures in their relationships with companies
and organizations, the so-called Web 2.0 (ref. 062).
How much jargon is involved in this domain? Plenty.
You can have a look online at “The huge cloud lens bubble map
web 2.0”6
There are hundreds of keywords, but those that really matter will
be discussed across this book, and highlighted whenever it could
make sense to “jump to” Wikipedia and have a look on more
details.
The simple diagram showing the “cloud” of concepts around Web
2.0 (ref. 050) showed within the “bubble map” (or “tag cloud”)
contains some of the concepts that may already be familiar to you.
By the end of this book you will understand how most of them
(excluding “technicalities”, both the ICT and the socio-whatever
variety) are relevant to your business.
6

http://kosmar.de/archives/2005/11/11/the-huge-cloud-lens-bubble-mapweb20/


Over the last few years, the main tool of reference for the Web 2.0
crowd became Wikipedia, a user-generated online encyclopedialike it or not, it is fast becoming an alternative way to access the
Web.
The success of Wikipedia is a return to the origins of the Web: you
look for a specific topic, obtain a more or less accurate
introduction, and then relevant links, e.g. as the old, library-indexlike Yahoo.
With Wikipedia, if you disagree with a definition you have a
chance to contribute to the amendments- a living encyclopaedia.
You can try for yourself: anytime you will see a concept in this
book with words in bold blue, go on Wikipedia.org and search for
those words- the resulting page or pages will be your guide to
further information on the specific concept (and usually they are
updated frequently, including with links to new articles).
While originally Yahoo organized websites and links using people,
as if in a library, while Google was the first to really identify
meaningful automated connections between websites.
The exponential growth of Google changed the way people
search: with the old Yahoo, most searches gave a list of links with
relevant material, while Google created a cottage industry of
organizations and companies generating links between sites and
better positioning them in Google (Search Engine
Optimization).
Facebook, Twitter, G+, etc.: they all revolve around groups of
people, a social network, connected with each other, sharing one
or more interests, and using technology to overcome physical
distance or timezone differences.
But you do not need to carry around various technological “addson” (smartphones, etc.) to your body to be in a social network.


1.1. Social network basics (not just online!)
Before Internet, the “social network” terminology was the reserve
of social scientists, who were drawing wonderful maps with people
shown as points (or “nodes”, in their parlance), and connected to
other people by lines (ref. 044 for a more detailed and academic
analysis on the dynamics of social networks).
A simple definition: “A social network is a social structure made of nodes
(which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more
specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, financial
exchange, friendship, kinship, dislike, conflict or trade. The resulting
structures are often very complex.” (ref. 043, of course from Wikipedia)
The smallest social network? It can be said that an individual is a
social network with only one node- that individual (but only for
really self-referential people).
And any closed group is, in its essence, a social network: some of
its members would still be able to “connect” members with nonmembers, i.e. with other formal or informal groups they belong to.
Also before the industrial revolution, it was next to impossible to
be alone- Aristotle wrote of man as a political animal (Politics,
Book I), i.e. a member of the polis, the entity that joins citizensimplying that any human being is worth existing only as a part of a
larger entity (before extolling the virtues and wisdom of our
democratic forefathers in Ancient Greece, please do remember:
that at the time, being alive did not imply being considered either a
citizen or really human).
In modern times, clubs and other organized meeting places
became the obvious point of reference for social networks: and, in
most cases, being part meant being co-opted inside a framework
of values and communication rules, that extended beyond the
specific group, as members were supposed to network socially
with members of groups with the same social standing.


Until recently, real-life social networks were mainly local, except
for limited restricted closed networks linked by specific cultural or
social attributes, e.g. Universities across Europe in the XIII
century, or diplomats.
Therefore, the social network of a specific individual was usually
overlapping mainly with the groups (s)he belonged to in everyday
activities.
From the 1950s, affordable scheduled air travel allowed occasional
contacts between different social networks, expanding the ranks of
“bridge builders” beyond the usual professional or high-status
travellers (the “jet set”- albeit of course they still do exist).
At least in Europe, from the 1990s the growth of low-cost air
travel and high-speed train connections further increased
connections between people originally belonging to different
social networks, beyond the usual geographical limitation.
This further expansion allowed to create, expand, connect social
networks that were not limited by the usual class- and statusconscious boundaries, as most local social networks used to be.
But while few people try to keep a single social network, more
advanced social networkers expand their “bridging” ability, as this
allows the specific individual to be of a greater perceived value to
the social network(s) (s)he belongs to.
And, of course, everybody could belong to different ones- friends,
school, work, hobby, etc.
Why do people create social networks? The initial motivation
could be simply physical contiguity- but then, each social network
revolves around common shared interests (overt and covert).
Also, membership in a social network delivers to each one of its
members a social status.


Most social networks adopt rules and other methods to
differentiate the relative social status of their members within the
group (e.g. rank, seniority, additional status symbols, or the
“badge” that is so common in online social networks, such as
FourSquare).
Quite often, as with any other closed group, a specific "lingo" is
created, with one or more specific “shibboleth” (keywords) used
to help identify who is a member of the social network- a shortcut
toward communication.
Finally, membership is a temporary status: free or linked to an
annual fee or other exchanges, membership could be suspended,
revoked, reduced- and this is part of the normal life of any social
network.
A simpler description of the relationship between a social network
and its members could be derived from the traditional Chinese
approach called “Guanxi”, that implies a relationship connecting
two people, affecting their “Mianzi”, visible social status.
The concept? Whoever opens a connection between two networks
assumes the responsibility in terms of personal credibility and
social status.
While this approach was customary in some groups and social
networks in the past (e.g. politics), with social networking
technologies it is becoming a standard approach.
A typical dynamic of social network is to expand through
connections (e.g. Linkedin), using an approach based on the “six
degrees of separation”.
The concept is simple: on average, you need to talk with no more
than six people to contact say, Sting.
One of the first websites
SixDegrees.Com (ref. 055).

using

this

approach

was


While real-life social networks expand more slowly, their online
siblings allow anybody to move from no connections to thousands
of connections in a short time.
Anyway, it is said that there are limits to the real ability to keep a
social network that is more than a collection of business cards or
e-mail addresses.
Personally: I question the value of some Linkedin profiles that
collect addresses, as if they were a virtual Rolodex- I still prefer to
have something to say to anybody asking about somebody on my
list of contacts, and leave instead to Facebook a looser crowd.
The larger the network, the more rules you need to set to keep it
together- which generally results in really creating sub-networks
linked to specific concepts and purposes (also Linkedin added that
feature).
And, as on any social issue, a theory has been built, proposed by
the anthropologist Robin Dunbar, summarized by the Dunbar's
number.
As usual, a figure has been given to this “limit”, stating that 150 is
the average number of people that you can keep a social
relationship with.
But, in reality, it is not uncommon to have people (both online
and offline) that are able to manage a larger network- usually
because their contribution to the network balances the obvious
scarcity of time that they can spend in keeping the relationship
with each network member with a differentiation of roles.
Just think about the social network of famous actors or politicianstheir visibility and status allow them to keep relatively large
networks, while of course developing multiple networks with
varying degrees of cohesion (social policy).


A social network gives a shared framework of reference to its
members: be it values, the color of the pin they put on their lapel,
the physical space where they are allowed to meet- or anything else
that lets members identify other members.
As hinted above (talking about “rank”), most social networks have
an internal social structure, like any other group: leaders, followers,
early adopters, etc.
Unfortunately, most of the structured studies available are derived
from either cultural anthropology or statistical studies- in both
cases, the effects of the interaction with other social networks is
ignored or minimized.
The main reason is simple: it is the "why" a study is done.
Cultural anthropology studies focus often on specific closed
groups, bound by long-term shared values or physical
characteristics, usually associated to a specific territory, while
statistical studies, to produce meaningful results, pre-select and
“freeze” the elements of reference for the analysis.
The main difference is that social networks based on Internet or
other communication technologies are virtual, and can evolve at a
higher speed, sometimes creating new social networks if the
original dynamics generate tensions, following an approach called
“swarming”7.

7

A useful introduction to application of this concept to interactions
between social groups:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB311.html


1.2. Examples of marketing uses of previous social networks
Philip Kotler has been long considered one of the most
influential strategic business thinkers of the XX century- and the
most influential figure on marketing strategies.
Few examples on the role and use of social networking, applied to
both consumers and locations, derived from his “Marketing
Places” book (ref. 082, pag. 48):
Role
Initiator
Influencer
Decision maker
Approver
Buyer
User

Description
A person who first recognizes a problem, need, or
opportunity and takes some action, such as gathering
information or mentioning it to others
A person who gets involved at some stage in the
decision-making process and exerts some influence on
the decision
A person who has the authority to make the final
decision or some decision along the way
A person who can approve or reverse the final decision
A person who implements the final decision
A person who consumes or uses the final product or
service

Whenever using the framework of reference from social and
cognitive sciences created for the XIX and XX century world,
extreme care should be applied in using the lessons derived to
XXI century social networks.
But real-life social networks have been often used, directly or
indirectly, to influence purchasing decisions.
Since the introduction of computers, this generated other profiling
and targeting activities- i.e. children as “decision makers” to
influence through the addition of merchandising to consumer
products (free gifts, etc), or women as the “influencer” and main
“decision maker” in the choice of buying the family car.


More relevant to our subject, Kotler quotes the classical example
of Multi-level marketing, introduced by Amway, whereas a
company “hires” independents to influence their own social
network, thanks to a commission-based scheme that incentivate
buyers to become themselves influencers.
As suggested already in mid-1990s by Garth Hallberg (ref. 083) in
his “All Consumers Are Not Created Equal”, technology allowed
to focus on building a treasure throve of information about the
customers, to identify the key ones in terms of revenue, influence
and so on.
In most cases, online social networks (with or without a
commission paid to the influencers) behave as multilevel
networks, but thanks to technology they spread the information
faster, while leaving a deep information trail easier and cheaper to
access and manage, that can then be used to target the key
influencers or customers (ofter themselves early adopters).
Online social networks both ease and complicate the task, as the
role of “key member”, or the lesser but still important role of
“gate keeper” (Gatekeeping (communication)), i.e. filter of the
information flow toward a person or group, are both dynamic.
Moreover, as these roles are shared with people that maybe will
never meet in real life, their “status” could be revoked for minor
failures in communication (and before those working to get access
through them to others will have achieved their aim).
Interestingly, often the first members violating a set of rules are
treated more harshly than those that will carry out the same
misbehaviour later- a common approach in any social network, i.e.
a weakening of the rules that is a function of how often a violation
is repeated, and usually this “declining standards” are more often
observed when the “keeper of the flame” is an individual.


1.3. Why online social networks are different
You already know a model for the XXI Century social network: a
café where you are a regular customer, and spend time to socialize.
Technology adds another element: any communication is filtered
by the technology, and therefore most of the social rules and
customs and status can be ignored- or forged.
Also online social networks that try to replicate this model using
technology, like habbo (targer: teenagers, mainly in Asia, but
eventually scattered around the globe, as a series of communities),
cannot escape this side-effect: identity online is not something to
rely on- as there are many reasons why people adopt a new
identity or alter/improve their own real identity.
Usually, intensive younger users are more often realistic in their
claims of who they are, or what they do.
Personal status inside an online social network is highly volatile, as
any attempt to control and coherce members usually backfiresand members express their dissent by moving to another “virtual”
venue and generating a negative feed- back.
In reality, also the roles are dynamic: therefore, if the
communication is aimed at a specific part of the membership, it is
advisable to monitor periodically the motivation of that target.
While some people focus on building large social networks, and
therefore act as “bridges” between networks, other could focus on
a smaller social network, but with closely held relationships (e.g.
academics in a specific subject), using and being used by the
“bridge-builders” to link with other social networks.
Three books could give you more ideas: two from Philip Kotler
(see ref. 084 and 085), on marketing in turbulent times, and James
Gleick (see ref. 086), obviously on chaos.


Social networks: yesterday
If you are not a member of a social network, but just a casual
visitor, you are not necessarily involved- both online and offline,
as I reminded in Brussels years ago to a Canadian who commented
on something that Italian did (as a side-effect of their eating
habits), and she said “I lived there and I did not”, to which I
replied: but you are not Italian.
And this is a lesson that is quite often ignored in advertisement,
when trying to mimic the habits or linguistic patterns of a target
audience: dropping-by a network is akin to those who appear in
any party that is thrown around (often uninvited), and then talk as
if they belonged.
Usually, it takes just few minutes (in some desperate cases, barely
seven seconds, to quote a famous song from the 1990s8) to see
that their “belonging” is a mere pretense.
Try getting in a café where a 5-to-10 people crowd usually meet:
until you become a regular, you are simply ignored- or considered
a temporary nuisance, accepted only if your status or contribution
to the “regulars” is considered of any interest to the group (or one
of its members- your “gate keeper”).
Attempts to force into a closed group when you obviously do not
share the same values or characteristics generates a negative feedback.
This phenomenon is well known and studied in cultural
anthropology, notably in the studies on immigration and
naturalization, as new members of a community try to adopt the
visual signs of the existing members (their language, clothing,
attitudes).

8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqCpjFMvz-k


As they do not have yet access to the cultural background, usually
they are unable to manage the proper mix of the visual signs- and
the more they try to integrate by adopting only the visible
behavioural patterns, the more they are considered by the other
members as “not part of the environment”.
From my studies, I remember a case study of a Native American
who was always making a show of his “being native”.
When others in his community were asked what they thought
about him, they said that he was claiming way too often to belong,
to actually belong.
The next volume of this series will discuss in more details how to
define a culture, instead of just hanging around it.
Entering a social network is more part of an adaptation and
integration process, but the origins of new members are known to
all the others- and usually it takes few generations to be fully
considered part of the environment.
Usually, their offspring still adopt a mix of their values and the
local values, while the second generation (or third, depends on
how you count it- I consider as “first” the generation that makes a
choice to relocate, not those carried along with their siblings) can
become fully part of the local culture, as they have no memory of
the original community.
In cases where the communities are kept separated, what is called
Clustering (demographics), this integration could be partial or
never happen, as the new members are separated from the local
community.
Beside the people choosing to migrate and trying to integrate in
the new social network(s), the availability of fast and cheap travel,
along to the globalization of media and entertainment, created
temporary migrants, from occasional tourists to long-term or
repeat tourists and “temporary Gastarbeiter”.


These occasional visitors will miss the evolution in customs and
lingo- re-enforcing the negative feed-back from the closed group:
also after repeated (or extended) visits, they will still be considered
as non-members of the social network.
If they return to a specific location (e.g. same hotel, resort), they
will often develop a local network- with other repeat visitors, but
not with local social networks.
Still, some members could act as bridges versus the local social
networks, for occasional contacts.
Anyway, you can read more material about these concepts,
focused on the integration between online and offline
communities and marketing, within a series of articles that has
been posted online since 20089
Social networks: today
When you move online, the social dynamics evolves, often
because most online social networks allow anybody to join
anytime, from anywhere.
Anyway, if you compare with the old, pre-Internet BBS (Bullettin
Board System), the social dynamics online increasingly strives to
mimic the traditional one, as technology becomes increasingly
intuitive.
Hence, the increase in the age range on communities such as
Facebook, which in turn resulted in a migration elsewhere of
“clusters” of younger members: obviously, teenagers do not
necessarily want to hang around where their older relatives do, and
have them intervene in each and any exchange or communication.
9

Have a look at http://www.dirittodivoto.com/index.php/strumenti: you
will find few selected articles in Italian, but each article also connects to
its English version posted on http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog


A difference linked to demographics: older people that weren’t
used to computers and digital communication before Facebook
are more inclined to say and do online what they would never dare
to do offline.
Moreover- computers are not the only way to join: relatively new
technologies such as mobile phones and interactive digital, cable,
satellite TV integrate with Internet-based social networks, allowing
also technology-neutral or technology-resistant people to join.
A statistic published in October 2008 from ABI Research states
that “nearly half (46%) of those who use social networks have also
visited a social network through a mobile phone. Of these, nearly
70% have visited MySpace and another 67% had visited
Facebook”.
In 2013, it is more common than not that you will access any
online social network through a mobile device (see section 1.3.4).
But why are social networks possible now? Two main reasons:
“Ubiquitous computing” and demographics.
Our society, and not only in the developed world, is getting
increasingly older, and in developed countries the crisis started in
2008 accelerated a trend toward reducing business travels, and
using technology to achieve the same results, e.g. by using
“telepresence”, “web conferencing” and (also outside business)
distance learning.
Having a computing device along with you is becoming
increasingly common, and also “dumb phones” routinely added
features to connect with online social networks, and anyway giving
(and sharing) a sign of your status, mood, or frustration is often
just a text message away.


Social networks: tomorrow
Welcome to the XXI century, where everything around you could
have not just a computing device on board, but also be able to
exchange information with other devices- and, of course, with
your own favourite online social networks.
Facebook has been lambasted few times for its excessive re-use of
information, but bit by bit they stretched the limits of user data
broadcasting, and various social networks changed their own
“privacy terms” so often and so deeply, that in some cases now
they allowed themselves the right to reuse your own personal
pictures (not just your profile picture) in advertisements: anytime,
anywhere.
So, get ready to see your own vacation pictures shown in a railway
station endorsing an airline company when one of your friends
that you classified as “close friends”, or one of those you
exchanged messages more often with, will get nearby that
advertisement while keeping in her/his pocket the same
smartphone whose number they disclosed to, say, Facebook or
G+.
1.3.1. pervasive computing
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, being connected implied being
part of a small (mainly male) group of technology addicts.
Since the 1980s, a constant reduction in size of computers brought
us computers everywhere- an average car has currently tens of tiny
computer chips that are more powerful than those available in the
first personal computers in the early 1980s.
Your own personal computer has more computing power than
one of the computers on board of the 1980s Space Shuttle.


Moreover, additional technologies, like RFID, bluetooth, the
wireless network added further information sources on the habits
and interests of consumers.
Mobile phones, portable players, PDAs, instant messaging, e-mail:
in most industrialized countries, it is becoming more and more
conspicuous not who is constantly connected, but who is not.
And trends toward cheaper technologies (like Bic presenting
disposable mobile phones, ref. 056) will further spread access, as
acquiring the technology required will require an expenditure at a
level appropriate more for an impulse purchase than an
investment decision.
Since the advent of the pay-per-click advertisement online, new
additional free online services became instantly available: their
target was not anymore a monthly fee, but getting “traffic” (i.e.
eyeballs watching their pages and, therefore, the advertisements
that they scattered on them).
Most of the social networking services focus on advertising how
many members registered with them- to both attract further
members and position themselves to potential buyers of ad space.
The basic technologies to allow anybody to access social
networking services anytime and anywhere are becoming more
common, also outside the G-8 and G-20 countries (e.g. through
the International Telecommunications Union initiative to connect
all the world by 2015, "Connecting the unconnected" ref. 022).
The “Digital Divide”, i.e. the gap between the technological
“have” and “have not” is closing: Lesotho added in 2007 the
ADSL services, and the price paid to connect is reducing
everywhere.
After the Hotspot (Wi-Fi) delivered as a paid service, local
authorities all around Europe are following the European
Commission initiatives to ease access to new technologies.


The real “Digital Divide” is therefore becoming generational:
while Internet technologies are easier to use, they require a specific
mindset- and that is the source of both new opportunities and
increased risks.
Different classification schemes have been adopted.
The most commonly used is based on demographic references, the
Generations (book) approach, that is mainly originating in USA,
and linked to their past history.
The table shows various classifications: but it has to be considered
that, as any classification, should be used only as a reference to
communicate, not as a way of identifying target niches.
Timeframe
1961-1981

Source
Strauss
and
Copland

Howe

1982-2004
2005No reference

Prensky (ref. 066)

1990-

Palfrey and Gasser (ref.
067)

Description
13th Generation: the
13th from the US
Independence
Generation X
Millennial
Generation
Generation Y
Homeland Generation
Generation Z
Digital Natives: used
to
technology,
multitasker
Digital
Immigrant: adopters of
technology,
use-asneeded
Born Digital: used to
pervasive
technology,
wikipedia-based learning

While a seemingly precise timeframe could be of interest in some
cases, from a business perspective it is more relevant to consider
the actual approach to technologies adopted by different
subgroups.


1.3.2. Intensive users
This group is generally identified with the Digital Natives / Born
Digital / Generation Y / Generation Y- but could include other
people that, by necessity or choice, interact with them frequently
and adopt their communication and technology usage patterns.
When this research was first written, between 2007 and 2009, they
started to enter decision-making roles, while now many of them
are not only doing that, but also becoming ubiquitous influencers
surrounding, in business and private life, even the most senior
decision-makers.
Usually, they do not go online- they are online: and not in one
single channel, in multiple channels.
It is not unusual for them to initiate a conversation inside an
instant messaging system, like Messenger/Skype, publish (“post”)
few comments during the conversation in one of the online social
networks where they have more friends, send an e-mail message to
somebody else- all during the same conversation.
And they “talk”- first instant messaging systems (i.e. used for
short, mainly text- and emoticon-based messages), then all the
other social networking services allowed users to add one-line
updates on what they are doing (“status updates”- in some cases
limited to 140 or so characters, as shown by Twitter, in others as
long as you want, and even embedding multimedia, e.g. in
Facebook and G+).
Originally widespread in Europe via text messaging/SMS, this
approach on instant information has been spread on the Internet
mainly by Twitter- so well that now it is common between online
social networkers to use “to twitter” as an action verb, i.e.
broadcasting to all your “subscribers” information about your
feelings, actions, instant reactions.


Do you really want to know what I had for breakfast? Probably
you do not really care- but if you don’t, simply ignore the updates,
do not even try to regulate somebody else’s behaviour on their
own Twitter, Facebook, or G+ account.
Services like Aka-Aki in Germany (see ref. 004) years ago started
to integrate different technologies (bluetooth, mobile, social
networking) to create new communication dynamics, e.g. allowing
people linked in the same online social network service to know
when they are physically close- thank to their bluetooth-enabled
mobile phones- and where promptly followed by the American
behemoths (Aka-Aki closed in 2012).
Usually for new social network services you can talk more of a
“half-life” than a “lifespan”: they start with a bang, and either
whittle away as they lose “media traction” (i.e. they are less talked
about, including in new media), or become part of one of the key
players: it is outside the scope of this book, but you can have a
look online at the deals since mid-2000s.
As shown by the huge increase in text messages and other lowpriced communication services on mobile phones, intensive users
are focused on short but highly frequent communications.
They often complain about privacy violations, like the recurring
activities since the times of Facebook Beacon (see ref. 036, 037,
038), but eventually the “boil the frog” method used by the likes
of Facebook works.
You test the boundaries, add services and tweak the boundaries,
and continue with this cycle on and on.
In the end, it is nothing more than the electronic version of the
old “carrot and stick” approach.


1.3.3. Occasional users
This group is generally identified with the Digital Immigrants /
Generation X.
Of course, as discussed above, that you fit the profile assigned to
your demographic “tribe” is more a function of who you interact
with, i.e. your own “social network”, than of a static definition,
also if this distinction is often ignored by many even within the
industry.
Occasional users are positively influenced by Generation Y
members, and in some cases mimicking their pervasive use of
social networking tools.
The main difference is that they use the online systems mainly as a
mean to an end, and focus on a specific channel at a time.
You can have occasional users who are intensive users of
Facebook but almost never venture on Google or Wikipedia, while
most intensive users “integrate” multiple social networking
services within their own lifestyle.
Occasional users have also to compare themselves with younger
and seemingly more technology-savvy youngsters- and often try
not just to use the new communication channels, but to learn how
to use each one properly- thereby limiting the number of channels
that they use.
Except in few cases, intensive users have a balanced integration
inside their lifestyle of the new communication tools, as they are
part of the normal life, including social networking services.
The main issue is not that they are intensive users: but that
occasional users (who often more easily become addicted to a
specific channel) consider presence on multiple channels and
integration in a lifestyle as a sign of addiction.


It is an old story: read books from commentators from Ancient
Rome, and you will read complaints about the “decay” and
“habits” of youngsters.
In reality, most technological innovations become ordinary mainly
with generations who see them in the background since they are
toddlers, while occasional users try push onto something new
frameworks of reference that they are used to.
Occasional users sometimes develop extreme dependency,
extending their “sessions”, and adopting online behaviours that
they would not tolerate in normal life.
A classic example was (ref. 016) a married man, who married
online another woman, and almost generated a real-life divorce.
While most younger intensive users adopt online their real identity
with just some variations, it is more frequent between older and
occasional users to adopt multiple identities- in some reports, it is
said that men are five time more likely to use a different name or
sex online.
It is quite interesting: multiple identities are used to “project”
multiple personalities online, e.g. to “extend their own degrees of
social freedom”: but few know that actually their activities are so
interconnected, that eventually, also without using software
packages “tracking” information, the longer they keep acting
through multiple identities, the easier becomes to see who they
really are.
Including by associating to their “real” online identity, where they
try to conform to their social role, other online identities, where
instead they drop any pretence: and this was shown repeatedly in
the USA by few politicians who misused online systems- and
ended up jeopardizing their political career for something as stupid
as sending their own pictures with less clothes than usual to
unknown correspondents.


1.3.4. The new entertainment mix
Is it worth the effort? The 2007 report on the World Information
Society (2nd edition, ref. 021) showed interesting demographics, as
the upper-middle to high-income users represent 79.2% of
broadband users and 67.5% of the overall Internet users.
In 2013, the “Measuring the Information Society 2013” report
(ref. 021) stated that there are expected to be 6.8 billion mobilecellular subscriptions by the end of 2013, with 2.7 billion people
using the Internet worldwide, leaving beyond the digital divide 4.4
billion people.
The Exabytes (1million TB, i.e. 1 billion GB) of mobile data
traffic per month grew from 0.9 in 2012, to an expected 1.6 in
2013, and a forecast of 11.2 by 2017, of which 67% will be
produced by smartphones: increasingly.
The “mobile crowd” will be easier to reach with high-quality
entertainment, information, and education, and using mobiles to
access private and corporate information will be more common
than accessing via a desktop, that probably will be used more for
corporate applications.
Market size? A 2008 statistics from Internet World Stats (June
2008, ref. 054) on the 27 EU members and candidates shows that
Europeans, while representing just 7.3% of the World population,
represent 20% of the usage world-wide, with a penetration of
59.9% and a growth rate of 210.4%, for a total of over 292 million
users.
By June 2012, the same report stated that while representing 7.2%
of the World population, with a penetration rate of 73.5%, the EU
represented now just 15.3% of the usage world-wide: a clear sign
of a growth of access from non-EU countries.


Digital broadcast TV was probably top-of-the-heap technology
when planned, but the current widespread use of Internet-based
entertainment reduced its viability as a business initiative.
Within the European Union, even local authorities enthusiastically
invested on their own thematic channels on Digital broadcast TV,
by adding interactive services (e.g. in Italy)- only to discover that it
was more complex and less useful than a plain, cheaper, more
flexible Internet website.
And since the 2008 version of the material in this book, also the
integration of multiple technological channels became an everyday
reality.
“Convergence” (i.e. multiple media and platforms) was a mere
buzzword in 2008, while nowadays a telecom company that were
to advertise as a novelty that they offer “triple play” (mobile, fixed,
Internet) would be considered as outmoded as a USA movie
theatre in Arizona advertising that they have air conditioning.
By influence from both the media hype and the younger
generations, older generations started looking to the Internet and
other new media technology as part of their daily
entertainment/information diet.
While free downloading of movies and music remains an activity
for the intensive users, more over-30 users are turning toward
Internet for their entertainment- and away from free-to-air, cable,
and digital TV, e.g. by using YouTube or streaming websites.
A 2005 study on MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online
Role Playing Games, ref. 017) compared the number of hours
spent on TV and online by users, and obtained an average result of
7.7 hours per week spent watching TV vs. 21 hours online.
These online videogames allow people to play with and against
other people- increasing the socialization with people that share
common interests.


In July 2013, a statistics (ref. 087) stated that the average adult will
spend over 5 hours a day online, vs. 4.5 hours a day watching TV,
and over 2 hours a day on non-voice mobile activities (i.e. games,
social networking, messaging).
And being online so often, they don't just play the game- they
“talk” on other subjects, exchange information and advice, etc.
Also Sony (ref. 012) understood that they classical, stand-alone
videogame console is dying, and further integrated Skype
(Internet-based telephony services) and connectivity into the
Playstation Portable already by 2008.
Major “entertainment” (or “edutainment”, if you want to believe
the fig leaf applied by the suppliers of gaming devices) now
operates on budgets larger than those affordable for broadcast TV.
While this could create interesting opportunities for advertisement,
usually an advertisement that is embedded in the storyline (a
functional product placement) is accepted, but explicit
advertisement is frown upon.
Nonetheless, in 2013 gaming consoles such as Microsoft's Xbox
and Sony' Playstation are the real “convergence”, as they integrate
a real computer, connect to social media, and even add some
unusual twists.
Example: Microsoft, beside Skype, was reported to have added
low-intensity lasers to identify where people is located while
playing, while an on-board chip is supposedly able also to assess
the heartbeat of a player sitting in front of the console.
Just imagine: if you were to add “gamification” to your
advertisements (e.g. as done by Ferrero for more than a decade),
e.g. through an online game: you could have customers or
potential customers who visit your website and, thanks to sensors
within the console and a smartly designed game/advertisement,
you could test the physiological response to your message,
products, etc.


As any smartphone adds more sensors and “intelligence”, expect
what you see within the latest crop of gaming consoles to end up
on your smartphone or other “24/7 connected” device within a
couple of years.
There are some side-effects of this integration with online systems,
like the 2008 report that nearly half of the Britons suffer from
“discomgoogolation” (see ref. 006), i.e. are so addicted to Google
and Internet, that they feel increased levels of anxiety when not
connected.
An additional side-effect often reported is a contraction of
attention span (which, actually, was already there with commercial
TV), and increased impacts on memorization abilities: all of which
affect also the ability to reason about more complex issues.
In some cases, through my business activities on cultural,
organizational, and technological change I can confirm that those
issues, over the last 20 years, were often source of troubles, but,
frankly, in most cases a quick reversal (or “re-learning”) was
feasible: it was a matter of management style
While that 2008 report and more recent ones describe real issues,
unfortunately most technology-oriented polls suffer from an
advanced case of the Hawthorne effect- the phrasing of
questionnaires and method used to test the sample influence the
sample.
As in the original Hawthorne experiments, the attention and the
focus on showing to be more advanced in technology produces
inflated results.
In December 2007 a study from a market research company (ref.
011) Zenith forecast that by 2010 Internet advertising is expected
to overtake magazines.


A September 2008 report from Nielsen (ref. 027) stated that the
newspapers websites increased the unique visitors to their pages;
the data provided from Editor&Publisher for August 2008 range
from 52% increase (to 19,862,000) for the New York Post, to 51%
(to 7,637,000) for the Wall Street Journal, with lower figures for
other newspapers (e.g. 25% Washington Post and 9% USAToday).
More recently, in 2012 a report (ref. 088) stated that the US market
is forecast to move from 32 bln USD in online ad spending vs. 36
bln USD print and 60.7 bln USD TV in 2011, to respectively 62
bln USD vs. 32.3 bln USD vs. 72 bln USD by 2016.
In terms of distribution, Google is the leader in online advertising,
with 44.1%, followed by a distant Yahoo/Microsoft with 12.3%,
Facebook with 3.1%, Aol 1.5, and a crowd of “others” taking up
the remaining 39%.
Most advertisements online still follows the old newspaper model:
placed in fixed spots on the screen as if it were a printed page.
As the visibility of advertisement on the Internet is easier to meter
than on other media, already studies showed at an e-commerce
convention in Paris in 2008 demonstrated how to study the best
placement within the online framework.
The viewing patterns of an online user depends on the purpose of
being online- and most online advertisement is positioned outside
the actual area viewed by most users: an unofficial figure given at
the convention was that well over 50% of the online
advertisement was “sight unseen”- just clutter on the page.
Therefore, while more frequent (e.g. all the information websites)
and repeat (e.g. all the social networking services online) use
websites create interesting opportunities for marketing initiatives, a
new models of advertisement will need to be used, to integrate the
advertisement with the content.


1.4. Of (online) ways and means
As noted above, technology is part of everyday life for intensive
users.
Moreover, each new technology, be it Twitter or a new service
allowing to use the camera in your new mobile phone to, say,
check product information while shopping in supermarkets, is
immediately tested by someone within the social network, who will
then share the experience (more often it is even mildly negative,
while, on the opposite side, only if it is really positive).
But any new product or service that comes with strings attached
quickly backfires: the negative feed-back spreads even faster and
wider than the positive suggestion (see ref. 060), as it will act
mainly as an alert to the other members that somebody that they
trust discourages its use.
if you want to
share instant feed-back

give your feed-back

Use
Twitter-like
short
messages shown to your
network,
via
a
Messenger (now part of
Skype) or Facebook and
similar (it is the "status")
instant messaging (any
kind of Messenger),
SMS
e-mail
blog, forums, websites
(including
gaming
environments), Youtube

audience
people in your network

mainly one-to-one
people in your e-mail
address
anybody visiting

Of course, additional technologies are available- but this generic
categorization represents the ones available to anyone used to
technology- and not just the technology-oriented.


1.5. Willing or not, your business will be online
A 2008 study on social media (ref. 035) published in the USA by
Cone showed that most people going online assumed that a
company should be present on social networking services.
The reasons given?
43%
41%
37%
25%

Solve consumer problems
Solicit feedback
Develop new ways to interact with a brand
Marketing

A 2013 post online (ref. 089) provided a neat infographic with
key figures on why social media is important at least for customer
service- listing the expectations by channel (e.g. 42% of UK
Twitter users expected to get an answer within one hour).
Guy Kawasaki (formerly at Apple, and whose blog was in
Summer 2008 no 88 in the World), in April 2008 made an
interview (ref. 030) with the authors of Groundswell, on “The
Impact of Social Technologies on Sales, Support, Marketing, and
Branding”.
While companies like to control “spin”, the way blogging works is
that users are listened to- you can invest in blogging, but, as the
authors say, few corporate blogs are anywhere close to being
interesting.
Also if an organization does not set up or proactively go on social
networks, its employees, customers, and other stakeholders are
and will do.
Groundswell authors suggest an approach based on monitoring
first, to identify the best options and strategy, and then choosing
the way to listen and partecipate.


But they recognize that a “wait-and-see” approach has to be
tailored to your audience: if your customers are retirees, they are
probably used to an older, more balanced way of spreading
information, and it could be easier to tailor your communication
toward them.
When focusing on the open market, or with a target
predominantly focused on younger, intensive technology users,
you have also to consider that age, social status, class often do not
matter as much as in real-life social networks.
Therefore, the shared frustration on a supplier from a teen-ager
carries as much weight and impact as the well thought feed-back
from a senior manager.
Moreover- if you do not go online, probably your competitors will,
as the new battleground for trademarks and branding is online:
“ in a French court ruling in 2005, Google was enjoined from allowing others
to buy as a keyword the trademark brand of a French luxury goods maker,
Louis Vuitton. For countries other than the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom and Ireland, Google has a trademark complaint system, so
holders can generally prevent their brands from being purchased as keywords by
others.“ (see ref. 020)
As noted by Guy Kawasaki in the interview, some companies
(including Apple) tried to keep the genie in the bottle, by
forbidding their employees from blogging- but probably they will
be as successful as the the university professors quoted by “Born
Digital” (ref. 067) co-author John Palfrey in October 2008, who
try to ignore Wikipedia.


2. THE BUSINESS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING
This chapter is the shortest one, as it is focused mainly on the
“background issues” related to business uses of social networking
online- both as suppliers of information and as “communication
channel” between a corporate environment and audiences (including
employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders with access to your ICT
systems).
Over the last decade, all the new technologies share a common
factor: you can learn the skills required to use them in mere minutes
(often, the “user manual” is available only online- not really needed).
Be it a mobile phone, instant messaging tool, chatting or social
networking website, people as young as elementary school children
can easily participate.
Moreover, the language used is streamlined, and this allows to
equalize the differences in education, social standing, or
communication skills.
Last but not least, while previous technologies assumed that users
were mainly “consumers” of information provided by
communication experts, users are now producing and spreading
information that is immediately shared within their own social
network.
41


42


2.1. Communication channels
While in the past broadcasting-only (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.)
media were usually produced by “channel experts” that traditionally
were coached by older colleagues, in the XXI century new media
shattered that model- including within traditional media.
Having a “closed community of producers” had a significant
advantage, i.e. you could assume that a certain set of “production
rules” would be shared.
At the same time, this reduced the incentive to innovation- and,
actually, media really innovated more following a “steady for a while
and then jump” model than a “continuous improvement” approach.
New media enable anybody anywhere to innovate: have a look on
Slideshare or YouTube at creative ways to produce presentations or
videos violating each and every industry “savoir faire”.
But this innovation trend eventually generated a feed-back loop on
any business, as anyway new employees would be used to this
approach to communication.
Most corporate videos or presentations posted online in 2008 were
often as lively as a “Cold War times” tourist commercial from the
Soviet Bloc.
A consequence of new media is that each “channel” embeds its own
“industry approach”, i.e. if you were a speech writer used to produce
20 minutes speeches, having to use Twitter would require a paradigm
shift- basically, unlearning what you learned.
So, more than in the past, the channel is often the message: look at
how many corporate new media uses leave no visible sign of their
passage through the mind of their audience.

43


It is fairly different when channels such as YouTube as used to
generate “viral marketing” responses (I am old-fashioned, but I
think that “Welcome to the Bark side” is a funny example).
Enumerating channels would be pointless: to that end, you can have
a look at the most recent edition of Philip Kotler’s “Marketing”,
complemented by one of the latest book on new media marketing
(your pick).
Within a corporate context, you have to consider social networking
both a risk and an opportunity- while opportunities will be discussed
in other chapters (e.g. see the introduction), there are few risks that
have to be considered and managed: from the impact on your “brand
identity” of a badly managed presence on new media, to more
traditional financial and continuity risks (e.g. copyright violations).

2.2. Securing a technology
The normal attitude in securing a networking technology is
identifying the specific weaknesses and business purposes the
technology will be used for.
Then, it is possible to define rules to access and use it, and monitor
that they are followed.
Further technology and human resources then can be used to enforce
respect of these rules, monitor the actual use, and audit potential
threats, so that improvement can be added to both the technology
and its uses.
All these choices are built around a trade-off between greater security
and a reasonable cost and impact on the ease of use.
It is an approach that is sometimes challenging to enforce even in the
traditional business activities, where you are operating within a
relatively “controlled environment”.
Social networking creates unique challenges on all these elements:
there is no “in” or “out”.
44


Therefore, “security” has to be considered something more than the
online equivalent of a border fence- and has to extend to the
interactions of your organization with each channel.
Just consider a basic element: control on what you “publish”.
When you post something online, it is spread around on countless
machines- and chances are that any mistake or potentially hilarious
side-effect will go “viral”, i.e. keep going around on and on.
At the same time, forbidding your employees to go online in their
own spare time, or even to talk online about the private life impacts
of their business activities created more potential risks than it solves,
e.g. by forcing your employees to go online with a “fake” identity
(henceforth, feeling “freer” to vent their frustration more often), or
even by missing the opportunity to attract new potential customers.
A further security issue is that, whenever you hire somebody to be
your “online presence”, you have to ensure that they will behave
according to your corporate identity- and, instead, the move “digital
native” they are, the more they will inject into whatever they post
online on your behalf their own personality.
Example: go on Facebook, and connect to, say, Foreign Policy and
The Wall Street Journal.
Then, get ready to receive plenty of links to articles whose level of
seriousness is, ahem, lower than you would expect: you will see
plenty of trivia.
Reason? It might be because those two publications try to build a
more modern image- but, more probably, they simply hired people
focusing on those channels but who don’t really belong to the
traditional audience.
It is a choice- but it is puzzling, as you still have to visit their websites
if you want to get updates on what you would really expect from
those magazines.

45


Each one of your employees who posts online and is clearly shown as
“employee of X” can be seen by online audiences as “related” to your
company, and even become connected to people online who just try
to elicit information or reactions that would disclose information
about your business.
The European Union in 2014 will (at last!) start the convergence
toward a shared implementation of “data privacy”, i.e. moving from
the old “EU directive- national implementations” to a more coherent
and shared framework.
This will make easier to operate across the European Union as a
whole, and will open new opportunities to businesses who will want
to use their own presence on new media as an additional set of
channels to reach customers, potential customers, and to obtain feedback from their market.
Business social networking isn’t simply a marketing &
communication issue, and should instead be designed and managed
using at least a front-office/back-office approach.
Leave, if you want and cannot do otherwise, the “front-office”
communication to the experts within your organization, but build
cross-functional teams that are both involved in communicating and
in managing the feed-back from your online presence.
Additional issue: in the past, you could choose not only what to
communicate, but also how: e.g. you knew when, how, within which
show your advertisement would run on TV and radio.
With new media, you do not know what else is running along with
your publication or advertisement, and not even how users will read
it or interact with it.
In a corporate environment, this means that not only you have to
consider the channels (i.e. YouTube and Facebook) that you use in
your online presence, but also the methods of access (e.g.
smartphones, tablets, computers).

46


At the same time, your own ICT systems have to get used to
different patterns for access (e.g. most recent smartphones can be
configured to look as a traditional computer while connecting to the
corporate e-mail system).
Discussing BYOD policies (Bring Your Own Device) is outside the
scope of this book.
Anyway, while talking about new media and devices, you also have to
consider the potential security issues deriving from having your own
employees using say, their company-supplied (or, even worse,
personal) tablet to both connect to your own ICT systems and social
networking services that install applications (e.g. some online games
could use access to the device used to play them to actually access
other data on the same device).

2.3. A new framework
People born since the 1980s (Generation Y and Z) are used to have
communication technology as part of their day-to-day life.
Until recently, it used to be true only in developed countries, but it is
now spreading worldwide, thanks to the mobile communication
devices and Internet.
Also people that are not used to “pervasive computing” (see
Chapter 1.4) are starting to mimic the approach of younger users.
The XXI century social networking technologies are so easy to use
and affordable, that also children are using them, and give the users
the freedom to choose the device or mean to communicate with
members of their own social network.
Over time, personal and business social network membership mix,
also in supposedly dedicated social networks (e.g. LinkedIn).
Consider also the potential for “swarming” behaviour by your staff
(e.g. one starts, the others pile up- no leader, just event-based).

47


2.4. A practical approach
In real life, there are minimal differences between the technologies
used for corporate and private use: and the more often the users use
them, the easier is to “blur” the boundaries (e.g. how many managers
let their kids use their business iPad to play games?).
Moreover, there are overlapping international regulations and trends
(privacy, intellectual property protection, etc.) that create challenges
both for individuals and corporations online presence.
If you are working in highly specialized and secure environments, you
are used to receive training and common sense rules before being
issued technology.
But also in those environments, usually the rules strive to follow
technological developments.
As an example, all across Europe few companies have rules on
instant messaging- in most cases, the rule is simple: instant messaging
is disabled.
Seemingly a solution, this ignores the availability of instant messaging
on mobile phone, smartphones, and other tools.
The general suggested approach is to
Acknowledge
permanent innovation
Educate on
information lifespan
Channel presence is a
choice
Prioritize your online
presence
Adopt a Lego™ brick
approach

New technologies and channels will keep appearing: you
have to work through “general principles”, not detailed
rules
Consider that anything that is distributed via social
networking once written has a life of its own (ref. 040)
Choose the channels where you want to be present, and
keep updated the list: cross-reference from other channels
Identify which channels are more critical, and monitor
periodically if information about you is posted on those
channels
Your presence has to be modular, structured, and
adaptable to new channels and audiences

48


2.5. Keypoints
Social networking is not simply another tool- it is the integration of
easy to use technologies in everyday life.
Thanks to the technological advances of the last 20 years, anybody
has access to the communication channels.
The pervasive distribution of these technologies will severely affect
the viability of security policies based on the distinction between
personal and corporate uses.
Soon, easy-to-use technologies will allow to connect information
across multiple channels (“semantic”)- and even to glean indirectly
(“signal intelligence”) from comments, who is involved into them,
the intensity of “repeats”/”likes”/etc., how much that information is
converging toward something that you haven’t yet disclosed.
A minimal unintended exposure of information will be immediately
give access to resources that, under the old security policies, would
have been controlled and filtered.
Therefore, securing social networking requires a re-thinking of the
traditional approaches
A more “technical” book on a specific issue (how to implement a
BYOD policy, i.e. devices that do not belong to your organization
and are connected with your own ICT systems- “Bring Your Own
Device”) is currently under preparation with a colleague- have a look
at my Linkedin profile for announces, while articles published since
2008 discuss the potential issues related to other technologies (from
telepresence to nanotechnology or “Internet 2.0”)10.

10

Search on http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog
49


3. SOCIAL MARKETPLACE
Social network services are mainly based on a free-service model:
the basic services are available to everyone, and the company
generates revenue through advertisements and, more recently,
micropayments, that are used to pay for additional services.
While Internet-based social networks are associated with names like
Facebook and Twitter, their origin dates from the first days of nonacademic access to the Internet, in 1990s, when Tim Berners-Lee
invented the Web (World Wide Web), to allow sharing connections
between research material.
The new approach to communication allowed anybody to share
information online, without the need to be technologically-savvy.
Geocities started offering in the early 1990s a model that was quite
popular, by allowing people to create a personal page in a “virtual
neighbourhood”, and allowing users to add their own material; it was
bought in 1998 by Yahoo.
Yahoo started losing membership, as the company applied policies
that were conflicting with the previous self-managed community
model- a common fate: a “case book” lesson on how to waste an
investment (maybe News Corp. can deliver one on how they
managed to do the same with Myspace).

50


Currently more social network services are created every few months
trying to replicate the successes of Facebook or Myspace, but almost
all share some common characteristics:
Membership
Web 2.0 services
Pricing
Advertisement

Cross-media

open to anybody, except for “niche” communities, where
an invitation is required (but, having million of users, the
invitation is not really an issue anymore)
users can post their own notes and “blog”, pictures,
movies, and comment on content added online by other
users
free, while increasingly larger social network services are
adding micropayments for games, photo album space, and
other additional services
with the notable exception of Facebook (that allows the
creators of additional applications to keep the
advertisement revenue), and Squidoo (that allows to keep
or share the advertisement revenue), usually the
advertisement positioning and revenue is managed by the
social network service
most social network services are trying to integrate the
web with at least mobiles

You can find online hundreds of articles on the most recent statistics,
but, again, an infographic is clearer, e.g. “100 Amazing Social Media
Statistics, Facts, and Figures” (ref. 090)- from the number of tweets
or queries per minute, to the daily average use of each social network
and demographic differentiation.
Why not books? Because books pretending to give the latest figures
on social media, instead of just showing trends, are obsolete even
before they are printed.
And if you are really serious about using social media in your
business activities, you should get used to one simple tool: Googlesearch and you will find, but do not rely just on “static data”
(including from this book) to make decisions.

51


3.1. Reaching the audience
After News Corporation bought Myspace.com, and Microsoft
invested in Facebook, the industry shifted toward increasingly
looking more “mature”.
Before, social network services had only one number that they could
show: the millions of users registered.
Name
(alphabetical)
Bebo

Users 2008

Users 2012

Regional coverage

40,000,000

117,000,000

Classmates.Com
Douban
Facebook
Flixster
Flickr
Friendster

50,000,000
Created in 2005
124,000,000
63,000,000
does not disclose
80,000,000

50,000,000
46,850,000
1,000,000,000
63,000,000
32,000,000
90,000,000

Formspring
Google+
Habbo
Hi5
Last.fm
Linkedin
MyLife
(Reunion)
MySpace
Netlog
Odnoklassniki
Orkut
Qzone
Renren
Sina Weibo
Sonico
Tagged.com
Twitter
Vkontakte
Viadeo
YouTube
WeeWorld

Created end 2009
Created mid-2011
100,000,000
80,000,000
Created in 2002
Created in 2003
48,0000,000

290,000,000
500,000,000
268,000,000
80,000,000
30,000,000
200,000,000
51,000,000

US, UK, Ireland,
NZ and the Pacific
Islands
US
China
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide, mainly
in Asia
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide

246,351,193
36,000,000
--67,000,000
----Created mid-2009
--30,000,000
2,200,000
Created in 2006
--does not disclose
---

30,000,000
95,000,000
45,000,000
100,000,000
480,000,000
160,000,000
300,000,000
50,000,000
100,000,000
500,000,000
123,612,100
35,000,000
does not disclose
30,000,000

World-wide
World-wide
Russia/ex-USSR
World-wide
Mainland China
China
Mainland China
Spanish/Portuguese
World-wide
World-wide
Russia/ex-USSR
World-wide
World-wide
World-wide

52


While no shared certified statistics exist, these are sample figures
from the List of social networking websites (ref. 059) available on
Wikipedia- being a public source that can be updated by anyone,
unreliable figures are usually weeded out by the community.
Except for few social network services that have an impact wider
than their membership (e.g. Flickr, Twitter, YouTube), only those
with a reported membership of over 30 million members in 2008 or
in the latest update have been included in this selection.
Being a registered user does not imply being an active user.
Moreover, intensive users are often members of half a dozen or more
communities, usually each one for a specific purpose or social
network (e.g. school, shared interests, photoblogging).
Anyway, the numbers reported for social network membership are
staggering, if you consider the International Telecommunication
Union statistics (ref. 021) on the income levels of the average
Internet user, stating that over half have an upper-middle or higher
income.
After few years, social network services started to create “niche”
communities- a tradition within social networks (offline).
One of the most successful “niche networks” was Linkedin, focused
on business networking (originally mainly IT and Marketing), but
some new additions included a social network for fathers (see ref.
005), along with communities for specific national, professional, or
academic groups.
And, as noted in a previous section, technological and demographic
trends increased the audience and frequent users of these new
systems.
The key issue: generate reasons, notably on professional networks, to
have your registered members visit again your website, connect with
other members, attract new ones, and spend more time on it.

53


3.1.1. Growth and retention rate
Reuters interviewed in September 2008 (ref. 041) Bill Tancer, the
author of “Click: What Millions of People are Doing Online and
Why It Matters”, who said that “the hottest Internet searches now are for
social networking sites”.
What was the change since then? If you look at maps of the “search
terms” on Google, you would think that searching on, say, Facebook,
faded, if compared with 2008.
Actually: social networking is currently generating more traffic
without the need to attract further users, and searches often happen
within the system, not through Google.
Users themselves are actually creating the growth, by attracting
further users in their own personal social network, sometimes (for
intensive users) by inviting each other in their favourite community.
A self-sustained audience growth is certainly interesting, and wordof-mouth has been the most efficient way to grow a social networkboth online and in a traditional way.
But a word-of-mouth audience is not captive: a mis-management of
services, e.g. by violating the privacy of users to sell their data, or
adding new hidden fees, generates a much faster backlash.
When users have no financial commitment to the service, switching
suppliers means clicking few buttons.
As an example, Stage6, a video sharing social network set up by the
company DivX, allowed to share high-quality videos online, and
added typical Web 2.0 features, such as a personal homepage, blog,
messaging, personal photo and video galleries, bookmarks, friends'
list.

54


When it was closed in February 2008, users were invited to join
another service.
Instead, the community spawned tens if not hundreds of new
communities, thereby removing any potential value in the community
database: social networking services manage the most volatile of
commodities, i.e. goodwill from community members.
3.1.2. Advertisement
Google enjoys a dominant position on the Internet advertising
market: it is almost a standard, and by using everywhere the same
standardized approach, allows an easier task in media and campaign
planning.
Few sites have their own advertisement agreements, and also major
players mix their own advertisement with Google advertisement, as
this allow them to reach potential ad buyers that would never contact
them directly.
Incidentally: part of the success of Google is that it provides quite
sophisticated tools to pinpoint the effective use of advertisement
money, via its Google Analytics.
Old data: Google delivered (ref. 068) a 13% surge in fourth-quarter
profits for 2007, to $1.2bn, with the number of "paid clicks" on
advertisements up by 30% year on year. For the whole of 2007, its
profits were up 40% to $4.2bn.
Despite the market negative response (analysts were used to have
Google go beyond any forecast), it was quite a progression, if you
consider that (ref. 069) the revenue was $805.9 million for the quarter
ended 30th September 2004, up 105% over the previous year.
Google itself announced in January 2013 that in 2012 it had earned
50 bln USD.

55


But advertisement expenditure is still focused on a media mix that
underestimates the Internet, that since the introduction of broadband
and ADSL services is representing an increasing part of the
entertainment diet.
Also Internet advertisement has been suffering from the financial
crisis of Summer 2008, as reported by Nielsen Online in September
2008 (ref. 072), but entertainment, automotive, and consumer goods
compensated the contraction in image-based advertising. The
financial services firms spent 27% less on display advertising in the
first half of 2008 (ref. 075).
As noted in an IAB/Price Waterhouse study published in October
2008, “Due to the unique efficiency and effectiveness of targeted and
measurable campaigns, Internet advertising has shown strong growth
in the first six months of 2008, compared to the same time period
last year. This growth has come in spite of an environment that has
put significant pressure on the advertising industry in general.” (ref.
074).
Nielsen Online in August 2008 (ref. 071) reported that while Internet
access via mobile in US and Europe is still mainly focused on
information, a new trend is coming from BRIC countries (Brazil
Russia India China), where the growth in mobile and mobile Internet
services is driven by entertainment.
The reason for the difference? BRIC countries added services
recently- and the new mobile phone network came with high-speed
data capabilities, allowing them to leapfrog the cable laying phaseand to faster bridge the digital divide.
More recently (ref. 091, Q2 2012), Asia was reported as having 44.8%
of the Internet users, but only North America (78.6%), Oceania
(67,6%), and Europe (63%) had more of the 50% of their population
connected, while Africa (15.6%) and Asia (27.5%) still have a huge
growth potential, and Latin America and Caribbean (42.9%) are
getting close to that threshold.

56


3.1.3. Targeting social networkers
Steve Rubel from Advertising Age (ref. 070) noted in September
2008 that there is still a missing link in social networks: monetization.
In 2007 and 2008, Facebook was under fire for its Facebook
Beacon, launched in November 2007, and some technical glitches
with the privacy management created concern within the community.
The concept was to extend word-of-mouth to the XXI century, and
using the throve of information available on Facebook users'
activities to inform their friends, and target advertisement to users'
friends, e.g. suggesting other users to buy the same items that had just
been bought on a e-commerce website (e.g. books, DVDs) from one
of their friends.
In December 2007, Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook a note
stating: “We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it. While
I am disappointed with our mistakes, we appreciate all the feedback we have
received from our users. I'd like to discuss what we have learned and how we have
improved Beacon.”
The technology had some legal and technical issues to be solved, but
it was promising enough… to de facto resurface under different
forms, as it allowed to target advertisement through the social
network of each user- also while visiting other websites.
Furthermore, YouTube is widely used as a viral marketing
platform, allowing companies also to carry out low-cost market test
on ads before deciding which ones could be used with the traditional
media outlets, and to validate new product concept or ideas.
But, as noted in the introduction, the expected contraction of
marketing budgets (ref. 010, 011) allows to consider the attractiveness
of the lower cost of Internet vs other channels.

57


Since 2008, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and others reacted to the
financial crisis by improving their ability to “target” audiences,
including by offering ordinary users the ability to “promote” (for
money) their own posts, and attracting small business through
“geolocalization” services (i.e. ads served in the same area where
you were reported to connect from).
All this is moving beyond the traditional (and self-explanatory) payper-view or pay-per-click models.
To summarize advertising models: a 2010 Slideshare presentation
(ref. 092) is an interesting introduction to key concepts and
approaches, while an article on Wikipedia is more focused on online
advertising, and includes a long list of links to further articles
exploring different business and technical issues.

3.2. What are social network services for?
Most social networks online were build around a specific activity and
technology, and while there are too many to list, we selected the most
famous and visible (at least in terms of media hype).
if your target is
communities via events,
fan groups, grassroot
activities
delivering
a
viral
marketing or market-test
concepts
inform
on
specific
products or services, and
"spin
control"
information about your
corporate customers
deliver instant updates to
a pre-selected group of
customers
sell items or attract media
attention (e.g. Iceland
2008)

We suggest
Facebook
YouTube,
Slideshare

Main use
personal pages, videos and
photos, commentary, groups,
events
video sharing and comment

Wikipedia,
Facebook

user-generated encyclopedia

Twitter

instant-messaging, available by
free subscription

Ebay, Amazon

auctioning off your surplus
possessions

58


The list on the previous page is just a selection- before doing
anything on any of this networks, it is advisable that you visit the
system you focus on, observe what is online, and, more important,
observe the feed-back on activities carried out by other advertisers.
As shown within the section about the “trends” in social networking,
Google is much more than a search engine or a support to your
advertisement or online activities: you can also use its constantly
growing set of tools to actually monitor (or identify) your target
audience.
Moreover, as the growth rate will contract, leading social network
services will keep trying to “attract” audience from other services, e.g.
with Facebook adding music and increasingly depending on mobile
traffic.
Social networking online leaves no time for spin control: if your
campaign or commercial activities are considered offensive or
excessive, the retribution from members will be swift- and long
lasting (e.g. by going “viral”, and being spread to their friends).
As most information posted online never disappears, generating a
negative feed-back today could result in somebody giving it a new life
six months from now, after (s)he will find it by searching, and will
send it to a new personal network of contacts.
SecondLife was the darling of media, through a well, managed
campaign, and attracted sizeable budgets, from companies that
created “virtual offices” in the system- in reality, just thanks to an
unmetered audience.
Nonetheless: it required a relatively large commitment (and
investment) to anybody willing to use it, either to create its own
“virtual objects”, or to buy from others what they would then use.
After SecondLife, seeking new revenue streams, changed its policies
to award itself the right to do as it pleases, some “producers” left or
forbid the use on SecondLife of their creations.

59


3.3. What's the audience of a social network?
The value of Internet membership and user statistics has been much
disputed, as noted also by the Internet Systems Consortium (see ref.
048): “In summary, it is not possible to determine the exact size of the Internet,
where hosts are located, or how many users there are.”
It was true in 2008, and it even more so in 2013, also because many
users in developed countries have not one, but multiple Internet
connections that they use whenever they see fit.
Most social networks show membership numbering in millions or
tens of millions, with few over 100,000,000 registered users.
To make a comparison: it is less reliable than counting the number of
portable radios sold to decide how many radio listeners are there.
3.3.1. Measures suggested by the major social networks
The main measure proposed? The number of registered users. Or
number of videos and items posted. Or other measures that do not
give any feed-back on the frequency and intensity of use of the social
network service by its members.
As will be discussed in the next section, different demographic
groups use social networks in fairly different ways, sometimes with
overlapping membership in multiple social network services.
An interesting approach has been proposed by the Pingdom (ref.
073) blog in August 2008, using Google to search for the frequency
of request of a specific term in a specific territory.
As an example, the Google “search maps” for 2013 on Facebook and
Linkedin are shown in the next page.

60


Facebook
Linkedin
the intensity of the shaded areas shows the density of requests

See chapter 5 for an historical evolution- from 2008 to 2013, via
2010: the approach was useful when the social network services were
less “mature” (i.e. more Internet users were outside than inside their
communities), but e.g. for Facebook is questionable that it still makes
sense, as most of the searches are done within the system, or, as is
customarily said, the “Facebook ecosystem”.
While traditional media mainly focus on a territorial or national
markets (except for satellite TV), Internet-based and, increasingly,
mobile-based services ignore completely the market and national
boundaries, using basic English as a lingua franca to communicate
with people that may or may not be in the same territory.
Identity, location, gender, age, profession, etc- these are information
that should be always considered in social networking activities as an
indication, not as a reality.
The safest approach suggested is to combine the International
Telecommunication Union (see ref. 021) data on telecommunication
and Internet availability, with the data from Internet World Stats (see
ref. 054), to get a general idea of the demographic spread of use of
technologies.

61


3.4. Early and recent business users
How many businesses routinely use online social networks?
The answer to this question in 2008 was: more than you can think.
In 2013, the answer is not “who is using them”, but “who is doing
something that affects the bottom line”.
When Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation bought Myspace.Com,
everybody criticized the price paid.
When he bought The Wall Street Journal, he converted the annual
subscription of the online edition into a partially free model.
Why? The power of advertising: while companies still will subscribe
to WSJ, the possibility of selling packaged advertisement, i.e. WSJ
plus other newspapers requires keeping added value and increasing
the community, as the revenue from online subscriptions is marginal
vs. the value added for newspapers.
But other companies are using social networks services to increase
the loyalty of their customers, and to obtain other benefits that will
be discussed in the next section.
The common thread to being perceived as a serious player is giving
some services for free, not simply using the network as an update for
the traditional press release (albeit still in 2013 there are plenty of
websites who look as 1950s PR).
The minimal services expected? A personal profile, the possibility to
comment and receive comments, and a way to differentiate yourself
from the others, e.g. by giving “points”, “badges”, etc. to the most
frequent users or prolific writers.

62


Unfortunately, early users (e.g. Visa and American Express) simply
ventured in the right direction (e.g. setting up focused communities
to target specific market segments, such as small businesses), but then
did what they would have done with traditional channels at the end
of a campaign: dump it and move on, but online, once you activate a
link or post something, you never know which life it will follow (see
ref. 040).
A smarter solution was adopted by Volvo North America: after
setting up a domain to reach truckers and involve them in sharing
their stories, using proprietary material and a service called Ning, they
saw the value of doing it the other way around.
Or: you do not ask anymore to integrate your customers within your
own proprietary “gated community”- you join them where they are.
Therefore, if you were to select that link that was included with what
I wrote in 2008, you would reach now… a Facebook page.
Should you create your own proprietary website and community on
your own platform? Only if, as in the case of Dell’s “Ideastorm” (a
kind of “crowdsourcing R&D”), you have really specific needs.
Generally, it is better to combine with various degrees of
engagement, e.g. to support independent “fan groups” on Facebook,
have a company page on the same site, and then have your own
community integrated with Facebook and Linkedin11.

11

More on this approach will be discussed within the next book of this series,
but you can follow the thread by searching for articles on
http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog; key articles are also available in Italian
(with links to the English version) on
http://www.dirittodivoto.com/index.php/strumenti
63


4. WHY AND HOW - SIGNPOSTS
This chapter shares few “signposts through knowledge” on the
reasons and means to interact, as a business or organization, with the
“social marketplace” discussed in the previous chapter.
The next book in this series will discuss more in detail both issues,
but you can also read online the articles that have been posted since
200812.
Before Facebook and other services, companies and organizations
built a web portal, to integrate different internal and external
websites.
The main approach was to use a website as a broadcast- in what was
called Web 1.0, communication was one-way.
With Web 2.0 and independent social network services, users expect
to be able to participate, comment, criticize, and occasionally
contribute.
12

http://www.robertolofaro.com/blog, with a “search-through-the-tag-cloud”
feature; some of the key articles are also available in Italian on
http://www.dirittodivoto.com/index.php/strumenti
64


The dialogue becomes bidirectional- and the response time is
expected to be really low.
Using a social network, online or offline has at least a basic benefit:
an increased level of customer loyalty.
But until recently, it was a technological enterprise, and management
was assigned not to corporate communication, but to the IT
department.
Let's see an example of a different approach that involves the
European Commission.
The EU Commission each year finances hundred of millions of
Euros in research and projects.
Technological and market changes imply that sometimes there is a
potential overlapping between researches financed by the EU
Commission: unfortunately, most project teams are disbanded after
each project (or its funding) ends, and therefore the knowledge is
dispersed.
The European Commission has a distinctive advantage: whoever
worked on a project is usually interested in being recognized as
somebody knowledgeable on the issue (s)he worked on- and maybe
involved in further projects
Therefore, following an internal initiative, a project called
“epractice.eu” was created, using an open source framework called
Drupal- requiring really limited human and financial resources.
The epractice.eu website is open to registration, and the purpose is to
allow the publishing of case studies- that can then be commented by
other members, and to allow members to network with other
members (and avoid re-inventing the wheel).

65

Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013

Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (9)

Ähnlich wie Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013

Ähnlich wie Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (16)

Business Social Networking - part 1: cultural and historical perspective #BSN2013