In August 2012, Twitter announced the launch of API 1.1, an API suite that would be far more marketer-friendly. For good reason (namely the need to monetize the platform), Twitter needed to appropriate its API for inclusion of paid tweets and add more robust tracking, targeting, and implementation of marketing campaigns. This included the following measures:

1. Required OAuth authentication on all API points
2. API rate limiting
3. More sophisticated “developer rules of the road“

Additionally,  Twitter imposed a 100,000 token limit on existing, third-party Twitter clients.  Unfortunately, as full implementation of Twitter’s API 1.1 concludes today, it is worth understanding how the new API brings Twitter roundabout to the consumer experience, turning it into a “walled garden” akin to Facebook.

To understand the draconian effects of the new API on consumers is to understand the history of Twitter. Twitter was launched in 2006 at the SXSW festival. As an early adopter of many internet technologies I opened my first, personal account almost exactly a year later (putting me in the first 0.22% of Twitter users). So I’ve seen Twitter through server crashes, API rate limiting, fail whales and the likes. The early stages of Twitter existed before the deep penetration of smartphones and app proliferation; Twitter largely existed through SMS and the web as a way for a user to send mass messages to his network.

Additionally, unlike Facebook “friends”, Twitter didn’t require the reciprocated connection for information to be disseminated. The early versions of the Twitter API programming were  kept relatively open, allowing developers to build third-party desktop clients, web-based clients, and eventually, more smartphone clients. This gave users extreme latitude in freedom of choice in how to navigate the Twitter experience–that is to say, short 140 character bursts  to the user’s network. Different clients have had different features that users have adopted as they prefer–ease of use, accessibility, aesthetic, use of columns, search features, display of external content, refresh speed, and preferences.

The infrastructure was rather unsophisticated and crashed frequently–particularly during peak usage periods. For this reason, Twitter instituted its API rate limiting, which meant that any time the Twitter servers were pinged(requested) outside of SMS/twitter.com/the official Twitter app would count to this rate (June 2007 – 1440 requests in 24hrs, May 2008 – 70/30/70 requests per hour, July 2008 – 100 unauthenticated requests per hour, January 2009 – 20,000 requests per hour, June 2010 – 350 authenticated requests, 175 unauthenticated requests per hour, March 2013 – 180 authenticated requests per hour). These requests may be Twitter searches, profile views, embedded content views, Tweetstream refreshes,  and so forth. Multiply that by the simultaneous use of clients on multiple devices and the API limit can be reached rather quickly on third-party clients (e.g. I use HootSuite on my laptop, Twicca on my phone and tablet, and Falcon Pro on my tablet as well).

It becomes evident that, aside from the 100,000 token limit on third-party Twitter clients, Twitter has also closed the wall around third-party API requests, putting them back to nearly 2008 (n.b.– in 2008, Twitter had 3 million registered users; in 2013, Twitter has 500+ million registered users). For Twitter “power users” who frequently view profiles, refresh their streams for breaking news, use outside apps to post/pull from twitter, etc, this is a devastating change that conflicts with Twitter’s growth trajectory and technical scalability… unless users use twitter.com or the official Twitter app… those don’t count toward API requests. Rate limiting killed Coca-Cola’s use of Twitter for a multiscreen advertising campaign during the Super Bowl, as Coca-Cola doesn’t use twitter.com.

To put the nail in the coffin of consumer choice, Twitter yesterday announced the retirement of its TweetDeck desktop and app support (n.b.–TweetDeck started out as a third-party client until it was purchased by Twitter in May 2011, making it a viable alternative with more features and functionality than the official Twitter client). This move, along with the API rate limiting and the 100,000 tokens, officially launches Twitter’s venture into completing the wall around the garden. Effectively, it has pigeonholed any external development around the Twitter platform–development that led to the company’s explosive growth–and near mandates users to use its own software. The sacrifice of TweetDeck is nothing, if not symbolic of this shift.

I mentioned above how this is great for marketers; rather than risk third-party work-arounds for API 1.1, Twitter tightens the reins in advance of a long-speculated IPO. It demonstrates via Promoted Tweets and Promoted Trends that it can effectively monetize social. It forces any remaining developers to ensure a consistent experience, inclusive of the advertising that brings in significant revenue. And, as I teach my Internet Marketing students, it’s reaches a significant amount of eyeballs–possibly more so than Facebook display advertising.

This could have all been strategized in a more flexible manner, rather than in a muscle-flexing manner. Rather than bring 500+ million users in 2013 back to the system of 2008, Twitter could have easily required new developers to integrate the advertising software (perhaps in exchange for a proportion of revenue). It certainly didn’t need to lower the API rate. And it didn’t need to limit 100,000 tokens per developer. Twitter grew its ecosystem , the result of an open architecture system; it is killing that system in favor of Wall Street and at the expense of the user. Like Facebook’s IPO, Twitter API 1.1 may be the move that jumps the shark for its most devoted users.

The post Twitter and the Walled Garden appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

A collection of GIFs I made on tumblr.

Before the defense I practiced hand-tying my own bow tie:

Just before:

Awaiting the verdict (pic courtesy of Bruce Weinberg):

Doctor.

Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D. (pic courtesy of dad)

Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D. (pic courtesy of Bruce Weinberg)

With my advisor, George R. Milne (courtesy of George Milne):

Post-defense celebration with the wife and daughter (courtesy of dad)

The post Dissertation Defense Day appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

So after watching the commercial, you may be thinking two things: 1) Ew, gross! 2) What does GoDaddy get out of that commercial if everyone is turned off? Is any buzz really “good” buzz?

USA Today rated the ad a 3.30 out of 10, placing it in the bottom five ads of Super Bowl evening, while the BrandBowl rated it 9 out of ?, placing it at #17 out of 43 ads, with increased sentiment of 64%. Around the internet and through all the MMQBing, GoDaddy was thought to have one of the worst Super Bowl ads (falling in line with Thought 1). But perhaps the ad was more genius than previously thought (falling in line with Thought 2). Forget the fact that we’re still talking about it the next day–here’s why I speculate this is so.

Peter McGraw, humor researcher at University of Colorado Boulder, has done research on a phenomenon called “benign violations”. These benign violations demonstrate some sort of normative deviance in which we are threatened by what we “ought to be” as long as the threat is benign. The Benign Violation Hypothesis necessitates a situation be “appraised as a violation” (model and geek makeout session in a Super Bowl ad), “appraised as benign” (there is distance between us, the viewing audience, and the offending parties, of which the offending parties have no direct impact), and “these two appraisals must occur simultaneously.”

Alright, so would speculate a benign violation here. We all went “ew”. But what about the real-time viewer polling that showed a sharp increase in positive male sentiment (10 to 63%) versus female sentiment (10 to 24%)?

A line of research on transportation effects in advertising (Escalas 2004; 2007; Green and Brock 2000; Phillips and McQuarrie 2010) points to a phenomenon where consumers use advertising to construct mental representations of themselves in the context of the advertising. In particular, Escalas’s work assumes that consumers are “transported” into the realm of the advertisement, so that they mentally construe themselves in the role of the narrative’s main character. Phillips and McQuarrie take this notion further, suggesting that we reflect ourselves in the advertisement like a metaphoric mirror.

This starts to make sense now. Yes, the GoDaddy ad features a benign violation, but it also features a transportation effect. This effect has particular appeal to men–the typical target of a GoDaddy advertisement. So instead, GoDaddy splits the middle: on the one hand, we may all agree on the benign violation, but males (as evidenced by the polling) are willing to put that violation aside in favor of transporting themselves to a salacious lovefest with Bar Refaeli. For males, the momentary discomfort lapses and “what if I was Walter?” sets in, while females are left hanging uncomfortably for the commercial to end.

Indeed, it would be interesting to learn what traffic to GoDaddy’s website was, following the ad’s premiere–especially among different demographics. At the very least, the short version of the YouTube clip is nearing 7 million views, while the extended version is nearing 190,000. Best Super Bowl ad? No. But it’s not the writeoff that many have proffered.

The post Violation Transportation and the GoDaddy “Perfect Match” appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

Today, Microsoft just unveiled a new logo–it’s first redesign in 25 years. This coincides with the impending launch of the Windows 8 operating system this fall, but perhaps has greater symbolism: it revitalizes one of the world’s largest tech brands that has been recently displaced by both Apple and Google.

At first glance, I wasn’t sure what to make of the redesign. But that actually changed in the span of 30 seconds, when I then caught the YouTube clip unveiling the logo. A quick re-contemplate later and I actually think the new logo is an intelligent move by Microsoft, which operates not only in the consumer domain, but heavily in the enterprise domain as well.

Recent research by Walsh, Winterich, and Mittal (2010, JPBM) suggests drastic redesign may have a negative impact on strongly committed, brand loyal consumers. Followup research (Walsh, Winterich, and Mittal 2011, JCM) indicated logo redesign affects brand attitudes, with particular respect to self-construal. Additionally, Müller, Kocher, and Crettaz (2011, JBR) used both experiments and structural equation modeling to determine a positive relationship between logo redesign, brand modernity, and brand loyalty. Of four dimensions of logo redesign (attractiveness, complexity, appropriateness, and familiarity), only logo attractiveness and logo familiarity had a significant impact on logo attitude. Indeed, they write, “for the IT sector, when similarity between the old and the new logo is high, respondents seeing the new logo rate brand modernity higher than those seeing the old one.”

Here’s how I see the new Microsoft logo redesign being fresh, yet attractive; modern, yet familiar:

1) This is Microsoft’s first logo redesign in 25 years. Radical thinking can backfire when revising a stably accepted logo (e.g., the Gap logo backlash remains a current, contemporary case study in logo redesign failure. Its difference in aesthetic clashed with various brand dimensions and was quickly reverted to the original logo). Keeping the new Microsoft logo consistent with the brand is critical.

Alternately, a recent Starbucks logo redesign had a more thematically consistent change:

2) The original Microsoft logo doesn’t have the Windows symbol in it–only the logotype. This new logo incorporates the most ubiquitous Microsoft icon: the Window. And yet it does so in an understated way, the Windows symbol is just to the left of “Microsoft” logotype, enabling it to be used by itself. Rescaling either the symbol or the logotype would still remain recognizable.

3) The four window tiles tie together prototypical core Microsoft elements: Windows (blue), Office (red), and XBox (green). The debate will soon rage over what “yellow” represents. The tie-in with the Microsoft elements becomes clearer when watching the 30s YouTube spot.

4) The simplicity of the symbol’s Windows squares evokes the simplicity and consistency of the Windows 8/Mobile [not]Metro UI that’s being launched all throughout the Microsoft brand ecosystem.

5) The ‘Microsoft’ logotype seems to have an appropriate kern that looks contemporary (also consistent with the Segoe-based fonts Microsoft is currently using in its ecosystem’s UI: XBox, Bing, Windows, etc….).

And for comparison’s sake, Apple never really evolved its logo too far from its core either. The rainbow-themed apple was used from 1976-1998, a monochrome-themed logo was used from 1998-2001, an Aqua-themed logo was used from 2001-2003, and a glass-themed logo has been used since 2003. (In fact, one might add, Apple was formally known as Apple Computer, Inc. until 2007, when it finally dropped “Computer” in an 8-K SEC filing.) In short, one of the two tech brands more valuable than Microsoft has marginally changed its own logo during the course of its history.

This is not all to say that the new Microsoft logo is perfect. For example, while it may be a more contemporary version of what Windows has been doing for a while, and it may mimic Google Chrome, it doesn’t point Microsoft in a direction of anything future-oriented but Windows. That implies that for the foreseeable future, Microsoft is hanging onto its core product, even as Apple and Google start to encroach on desktop(laptop) and mobile devices. At the very least, it’s not only modern for the consumer and corporate user, it’s modern for internal marketing as well. And who doesn’t like to feel rejuvenated?

The post Microsoft: Think Different appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

In his latest post on The Verge (Miller still uses an internet-disabled computer to write, prints his stories, and gives them to his editors), Miller shares with us his goings on of the past three months. In particular, he writes that there is a difference between ‘disconnecting’ and ‘disconnected’–despite his ability to adapt to life without internet, the realization is greater that being in the present moment requires knowing not just how to do it, but also why to do it. One point that Miller expresses is that “There’s still nobody on the computer waiting to love me, and I just have to deal with it.”

It’s almost as if this experiment has helped Miller re-engage with what Albert Borgmann (1984) called ‘focal things and practices’. These were the things that required practice to help create intimate connections with objects. Over the past several years, we’ve used the internet (and social networks, in particular) to try and improve social relationships. And yet, the device paradigm has superceded our ability to foster relationships without anything but the computer. Instead, we’ve relied on an intimate connection with our computers to do the bidding of our social relationships. And when we realize that we have 1400 friends who could care less if we’ve ‘disappeared’ for a month or three months or so, we do feel inconsequential.

As Miller learns though, what the internet giveth–that is, to say, an easy fix to boredom and the perception of alleviated social stress–the internet also taketh away our ability to know exactly what those focal things and practices are. When faced with the present moment, we don’t know how to occupy it with just ourselves.

Some recent research by my colleagues and I (forthcoming at Journal of Public Policy and Marketing) found that mindfulness practice helps fulfil this deficiency in our understanding of how to use the present moment. A common substitute for stress relief–eating disorder–can be aleviated by implementing formal mindfulness practice in daily life. Additionally, we found mindfulness also reduces stress levels. In a society that typically looks at solutions to fill time, mindfulness ends up filling purpose. Yes, the computer could possibly be used as a focal object, but if we forget why we’re using that object, our reliance on it only intensifies further. Mick and Fournier (1984, JCR) also find that an avoidance strategy to cope with the “technology paradox” is no better than a confrontative strategy to reduce stress and conflict caused by the paradox.

Indeed, I suspect Miller is starting to find the balance in his life. I suspect he is gaining more of a sense of purpose as he grapples with his inconsequentialism. I suspect he will have a greater appreciation for the focal thing and practice his computer lets him accomplish. And I suspect that this will achieve more for his ability to know why it’s “time to get back” versus when/how  it’s time to get back.

The post Mindfulness and the device paradigm appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

“The New MacBook’s Green Credentials”, by Joe Hutsko, New York Times, 17 November 2008.

“Dell, Apple, Microsoft, HP Perceived as U.S. Green Tech Leaders”, Environmental Leader, 30 November 2008.

“Apple Removes Green Certification From All Products” by Matt Petronzio, Mashable.com, 9 July 2012.

“Apple’s green standard pullout puts some CIOs on spot” Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 10 July 2012.

I’ll preface this with a disclaimer I gave back in October: I have rarely given favorable praise to Apple; I’m a bit of an Apple contrarian.

In 2008, Apple was ranked among the top perceived green tech brands. Another study in 2009 by GreenBiz placed Apple in The Earthsense 35–the top 10% of “350 companies familiar to consumers in their everyday lives.” Further, back in 2009, Apple thoroughly touted its green standards with the new MacBook Pro. The MacBook Pro was to be EnergyStar compliant, reduced volatile organic compounds, and made from recyclable aluminum. Apple invested heavily on a “greenest family of notebooks” marketing spree throughout 2009–a year before the vaunted iPad was released.

Flash forward 3 1/2 years and Apple now seeks 39 of its products removed from the green registry of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). Essentially Apple has decided to “go it alone” on environmental issues.

What’s striking to me is that despite consumer perceptions of Apple as “green” and despite Apple’s own marketing as “green”, anecdotal discussions I had with several Apple brand loyalists back in the beginning of the year strongly implied that “green culture” pervaded the Apple brand. In essence, the argument went, Apple was perceived as green because of a reversal of the “halo effect” typically discussed in marketing–those who were “countercultural, anti-PC individualists” were influencing brand perceptions. While the image of an Apple does evoke environmentalism, it’s Apple’s own marketing made its green credentials explicit. Those who perceived the brand was culture jammed by a post-modern hippy culture were incorrect.

Which is why the news of Apple pulling out of the EPEAT green registry brings partial disappointment. On the one hand, it means Apple is ‘free’ to be beholden to its own environmental standards, rather than third-party certifiation standards. This is akin to Starbucks being one of the world’s largest fair trade coffee purchasers (despite criticism that it doesn’t purchase enough fair trade coffee). On the other hand, not being beheld to a third-party certification standards breeds a legitimacy issue. This is akin to Starbucks only having two blends of certified Fair Trade coffee, but not demonstrating that any of the rest of its whole beans pay farmers above market value. (I will admit, as a part-former Starbucks brand loyalist, I toed the company line on this one.) Apple may or may not be continuing along an environmentally-responsible path, however legitimacy takes a blow once a company leaves a certification scheme.

The last thing Apple should need right now is a legitimacy crisis  (although its unparalleled brand loyalty seems virtually unquestioned). Like it or not, Apple’s sustainability halo–if I may call it that–was self-inflicted. When a brand takes a hit to the tripartite sustainability principles of environmental and labor protection and social justice, it should be taking steps to legitimate its own efforts. Following the New York Times’s January expose on iPad factory conditions, NLRB audits of the Foxconn factories helped Apple re-legitimate its labor principles, but this news of dropping out of EPEAT de-legitimates its environmental principles. It’s not that the products have changed; it’s that there isn’t any third-party standard to overcome greenwashing claims.

An article by Tillmann, Lutz, and Weitz (2009) found that there are certain inocuation strategies companies could use to overcome hypocrisy on social responsibility. For example, Apple has the potential to release its own moderately negative CSR information or to release counterarguments. I suspect Apple will lean heavily on the latter strategy, claiming that future Apple designs will be more environmentally-friendly than EPEAT standards. It’s not that this might be a false claim; Apple is great at pushing radical innovation and it’s planned new headquarters is a marvel. But perhaps market mechanisms may encourage consumer skepticism sooner than radical eco-innovation will take root.

Either way, the subjective perceptions of the Apple brand won’t likely be tarnished too badly. In the short-term, Apple brand loyalists will engage in dissonance reduction to ensure Apple is still perceived as a “good” company and Apple contrarians (such as myself) will only reinforce perceptions that Apple is entirely fallible. In the long-term, perhaps this is a blessing in disguise for us all.

The post One baaaad Apple… appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

“The ‘Busy Trap” by Tim Kreider, New York Times (30 June 2012)

“Enough is enough of the age of consumption” by Robert and Edward Skidelsky, Financial Times (4 July 2012)

During the past week, I’ve seen Tim Kreider’s above article, “The ‘Busy’ Trap” quoted/posted on Facebook/tweeted/retweeted nearly a dozen times (if you combined both my personal and my professional web addresses).

The gist of the article is as follows: Society is evermore busy. Society wants to be busy. Society can’t stand not being busy and perishes the thought of idleness. Even our children need to be busy. The article embeds 1000 other arguments that society has collectively heard over and over again for the past decade (and has failed to make changes)–we work too hard, we don’t play enough, when we do play, it’s work, we check Facebook too often, we don’t stop to smell the roses, we’re too concerned about things, etc. You get the drift.

I think back to a line from my favorite book, Fight Club: ” The things you own end up owning you.” We live in an age where materialism/consumerism meets anti-materialism/consumerism and yet paradoxically, the coexistence of these constructs hasn’t managed to annihilate society. I even question if the Puritan/Protestant work ethic has enabled American and British societies to meet their spiritual demises.

Enter the Skidelsky’s op-ed a few days later…

The gist of the article is as follows: Economists predicted we’d save so much, we’d drive ourselves into consuming just what we need. Instead, we’ve worked to improve consumption by improving goods, so we consume more. Yet as a society, the richer we are, the poorer we are. In order to compensate, we fall into “serial consumption” or the “consumption treadmill.” And there are ways we could be nudged away from such consumption.

Maybe it is the annhilation of society.

Literature is replete with studies on happiness and treadmill effects. Take, for example, this article by Mathias Binswager (2006 Journal of Socio-Economics). The more income grows, the more people try to “get ahead.” This ability to “get ahead” is predicated by “busyness”, and so forth. In reality, the treadmill is exactly what it’s a metaphor for: a device that presents an illusion of forward motion, requiring the user to perform such motion as to not fall off, but without achieving actual forward motion. This explains why people don’t really get happier when they get richer (or get more “stuff”).

That said, I’m wondering if there’s another phenomenon at work here. Perhaps the demands of busyness are largely due to materialism. In their article, “The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection”, Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong (2008) found a relationship between materialism and existential insecurity. In lay terms: people buy more stuff because they’re afraid of dying. The consumption treadmill has become Church.

Perhaps what these articles are really calling for is a return to spirituality–not in the spirituality of objects and the process of attaining those objects, but the spirituality of humanistic or theistic religions. Yesterday, the world was awed by news of the discovery of the Higgs boson, aka, the “God particle”, which ties the mass of the universe together.  And while the science vs. religion debate can go on until the cows come home, it’s a vast universe out there; both science and religion are about seeking answers to the big questions of life. Perhaps the materialism void that’s leading to busyness needs to lead back to spirituality instead in answering these existential questions.

I’m not advocating any religion in particular here–people ultimately believe in whatever they want. But it strikes me as though the mental, physical, and social benefits of finding inner peace are far greater than anything provided by outward consumption. Perhaps we need to return to understanding why we own the things we do, that way things we own don’t end up owning us afterall.

The post Dinah blow your horn… appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

Google+: Doing too much to succeed? – by Emily Vraga

It’s easy to blame Metcalfe’s law on Google+’s slow growth (not in absolute user numbers, but in relative content numbers), however I think much of that is attributed to the slow openness of the G+ API. Certainly, the network effect level of Metcalfe’s law was horribly evident at G+’s onset, but the explosive growth of users, followed by the built-in network of Google services is starting to render that point near moot. However, comparisons are still being generated relative to the growth of Facebook. It bears worth repeating that Facebook’s growth took off when 1) it was opened to everybody 2) Facebook Connect (2008) laid the groundwork for the Open Graph Protocol (2010).

G+ has started to amass network effects especially since it, too, opened to everybody last month, but the it lacks an integrative platform much the way Facebook already does. There are a lot of disenchanted Facebook users who haven’t fully made the G+ switch because it lacks some of the prototypal features of Facebook. Until that happens (which it ultimately will), it superficially appears Google is just trying to match Facebook and Diaspora*, but I think it will be a couple of years until G+ is more than just a cross-posting platform.

Facebook, Twitter… they all took several years before the growing mass of users figured out how to make the medium the message. To people who are not typically early adopters, patience is a virtue.

The post Brief updated thoughts on Google+ appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

For years, I’ve rebelled against Apple. When I was 16, I spent a summer horribly working on an iMac G3. The OS was terrible and one morning, I spent my time performing 3 complete system re-installs before noon. For all its “user friendliness,” I found the system absolutely terrible.

Apple was definitely in its down years. Yet the launch of the iPod brought it back to life. Unbelievably, I bought one (3 generation). My wife has a 4th generation, and I still use it quite a bit. With few comparable alternatives, I would consider still getting one in the future. But on the same line, the PC and Android systems have remained viable alternatives, not as an elite, or as an antiantiestablishmentarian, but in versatility and network effects. And that bad experience I had when I was 16 still remains forever ingrained in my attitudes toward Apple the Brand.

However, insofar as Apple the Man goes, Steve Jobs truly was the consummate businessman and showman. Even though his founding reign at NeXT proved to be a complete dud, he still knew what it would take for the future to become now. At the same time, his key role in pushing Pixar Animation Studios into the animated movie mainstream, may have helped him on his return to Apple. Reinvigorating Apple became a top priority and he made some creative products as well as creative business models, pushing the envelope not just with hardware, but also with pricing schemes and a pragmatic ability to secure deals with content providers.

Even being an anti-Apple the Brand man, it’s hard as a student of business to argue with how Apple the Man revolutionized not only the way we do business (in all its aspects, from supply chain to marketing), but the way we envision the future. His cult of personality was strong and he brought it to change the competitive landscape… for the better. It goes without saying that the case studies that will continue to be written on Apple for years to come will undoubtedly focus on Steve Jobs’s ability to push the envelope, rather than retrench in the status quo.

As a PC and Android man, I’ll always jibe Apple the Brand (and sometimes, even its haloed users), but give credit to the life and legacy of Apple the Man — Mr Steve Jobs — the consummate businessman and showman. A toast…

The post A toast to Steve Jobs……… appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).

•  The new “Subscribe” feature
•  A revamp of the friends/lists
•  Aggregating a section of the news feed devoted to just “top events” (similar to “Top Stories,” but supposedly “smarter”)
•  Photos larger in the news feed
•  A news ticker above the right-hand chat column

I would speculate two significant reasons for Facebook’s urgency of product rollouts:

1) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a company with 500 or more qualified investors must publish their financials in the first quarter of the following calendar year. Supposedly Goldman Sachs became the 500th qualified investor, forcing Facebook to publish its financials in 2012. This is what lends credence to the speculation that, like most companies in this situation, Facebook will be seizing the momentum (due to their financial data being public) for an IPO in mid- to late-2012.

In response to this, Mark Zuckerberg has spent some time discussing how he doesn’t quite want to lose his current innovation momentum unless he delays the IPO. If the IPO is indeed coming, then pulling the trigger on the product rollouts would be necessary.

2) In addition to the IPO speculation, the timing of the rollouts — only a day after Google+ was made available to the public — was most auspicious. Since Google released some initial API codes to developers (thus, making Google+ available for external product development), as well as started integrating games into its ecosystem, this would give Google an edge on continuing to build its social network. Plus Diaspora* appears to be readying for a beta launch in the very near future. Facebook would need to come up with a quick way to differentiate itself and generate revenue… and fast.

In response to all of today’s changes, one friend wrote:

“…what are all the millions of users in the over-40 crowd that have joined in the last couple of years thinking today? Or are most people on here too busy mindlessly playing Zynga created games to really care?”

I concur (although Zynga has failed to post a steady enough revenue stream, thus delaying its own IPO).

I’ve kept quiet on a lot of previous Facebook product rollouts because in the past, they’ve focused more about subtle layout/features. Additionally, the incrementalism surrounding those product changes enabled consumers to gripe, but slowly adapt to the new changes. A new change would roll out and people would gripe again. And so forth and so forth.

Facebook was able to continue to make these changes because the rate of pace of consumer adaptation was slow enough to still fend off attrition as a result of “change fatigue“. And businesses continued to support the model because the lack of attrition made it a stable outlet to plug into the world of social media with visible ROI.

But then came the blitz…

As a long-time user of the internet and early adopter of many internet-based technologies, I actually think Facebook got it wrong this time. Although the timing of the rollouts had to seize on two crucial events, this was way too massive, way too dizzying, way too fast. The time for users to adequately learn the purpose of/how to use these new products and adapt their behaviors accordingly was next-to-none.

Additionally, the rate of change makes it near impossible to keep up with privacy interests at dizzying speed. This is yet another example of Facebook failing to understand consumer privacy behavior; they’ve roll out of these bizarre new, Google+/Diaspora-like “Lists” at the same time as they’re now putting every “Like” and comment into the new ticker. Not a moment before the consumer even figures out what to do with Lists, all of a sudden the only way for him to keep stuff out of the ticker is to start actively managing those lists. Whatever ability existed to protect information to other users and filter information from other users was rendered instantly moot, requiring massive cognitive overload to mentally filter out one friend’s post to a friend of a friend (the technical solution to that problem isn’t even available). Information overload and layout clutter begin, just the way they did with MySpace (currently the biggest boondoggle of the social media age).

And I don’t believe they’re short-term finished with these massive moves. Among the next up is going to be music sharing, with Spotify, MOG, and Rdio streaming to friends (hmmm music focus… sounds like another social network…). Apparently another profile revamp (aside from what they’ve already done) is also in store.

But this presents many problems for business, who may not only be hesitant of Facebook user attrition rates due to change fatigue, but may also find it very difficult to get an effective message across to potential consumers (this sounds like a great marketing strategy paper — anyone in?). For instance, Facebook is counting on the new ticker feature to make sharing of information (including “Likes”and so forth) more ubiquitous throughout the “social graph.” Supposedly, new features should make individuals and business more interchangeably “social.”  Instead, it ends up an erratic high volume of information that’s actually repulsive to consumers. Advertisers and companies will therefore likely find ROI unpredictable.

Furthermore, the unpredictability of the new News Feed format will make it harder for ads to engage consumers at the right point without oversaturating them in the ad model. The traditional text ads that Facebook had been known for is slowly being lost among the sea of information. Twitter has marginally found out how to leverage promoted tweets without significant user backlash, but Facebook isn’t Twitter and a News Feed isn’t a Tweetstream. Lack of stability combined with user attrition is going to make companies think long and hard in the mid-term about how much money they’re going to continue investing in Facebook advertisements/engagement.

The fact is, for the amount and pace of products Facebook is rolling out, it is completely neglecting anything regarding what we already know about consumer behavior. I understand the business decision in terms of the IPO and even the response to Google+ (which, by the way is not ever going to displace Facebook, although Google+ has attracted a more sophisticated crowd, much as Facebook did nearly 5-6 years ago). However, these rollouts are going to reverberate backwards financially if Facebook can’t understand how consumers actually internalize changes. Yes, it’s hard to please 750 million customers, but this week has hardly been a pragmatic week in the evolution of Facebook.

I understand the sentiment of those who are cynical about outrage over a free service. However, unlike what happened with MySpace and many other social networks, there is almost an entrapment effect here that makes its “zero cost” irrelevant. I question whether or not Facebook is truly at its tipping point. No one anticipated MySpace would ever reach that tipping point and it did.

To the cynics who also complain that there are bigger issues than Facebook changing its layout, yes you have a point, but pragmatically speaking, millions of jobs, careers, and businesses are now affected by what Facebook is doing, any more than the small business owners who find that changes in Google’s algorithm could cost them thousands of dollars of lost business.

I duly think Facebook is going to be screwing the pooch over these next few months. This tweet might go down in infamy as saying it all:

 
See also:
Does Facebook’s News Feed Punish Advertisers (Yet)? - AllFacebook.com, Sep 21, 2011

The post New Coke, New Facebook appeared first on srossmktg (Spencer M. Ross, Ph.D.).