Please list and and all past, and present, personal or business website or web pages, memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, MySpace, etc.

The list was to include each website as well as the applicant’s user name and password.  The uproar caused by publicity surrounding the request has settled for the most part, but social networks and Bozeman were back in the news last month, this time for a different reason.

The City, which defended itself back in June when the City attorney was quoted as saying “…we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity [...] so we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City” seemed to have a lapse in judgment when they hired at least one police officer.

As a part of a civil rights-related lawsuit filed against the City of Bozeman and some of the police officers it employs, Matthew White and his attorneys cited posts an officer at the center of the case made to his Facebook profile page.  The officer, Cody Anderson, who is being accused of violating the prosecutor’s civil rights had the following posted on his publicly available profile:

I think there should be a law saying police can take people to jail for being stupid. Ask a cop a question like, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do?’ and you get a free ride in a cop car. If I had something better to do, I would be off doing that, and not messing with you. Speaking of messing with people … I like messing with people. Just being in a patrol car looking at people while parked at a red light is fun. Make eye contact, squint your eyes like you know what they just did and watch them squirm and avoid all further eye contact. It makes my day fun.

“I’m always amazed at what people will tell a police officer. I think people assume we are like priests and it is all in confidence. It’s not. We go back to the office and talk about everything we saw and heard. Then we laugh at people. Usually it is all on audio as well so we listen to stupid things over and over. If we are lucky, it happened in front of a patrol car with its camera on. Then we get to watch it over and over,” the lawsuit said.

Following the filing of the lawsuit the Deputy Chief of Police and issued a statement of concern.  The officer also apologized, citing his “dry sense of humor” and that the postings had been “taken out of context.”  Weeks later the officer resigned of his own volition.

The whole episode created a lot of chatter on the Internet, with commenters taking sides either applauding the officer’s resignation or defending his right to free speech, privacy, and even disdain for the public.

Related posts:

1. Social Big Brother in Big Sky Country
2. Millennials: Nothing personal, Twitter
3. Three Facebook Predictions for 2010

The study, which questioned 200 panel members between the ages of 18 and 24, reported that while 99 percent of respondents have a profile on a social networking site that only 22 percent of the group say they use Twitter.

While there’s a barrage of articles speculating on why, I personally don’t find this to be all that surprising.  Considering the nature of the networks, and the Millennials themselves, Facebook makes sense.  Twitter does not.

High on the list of Millennials core values are authenticity and transparency.  And, what do Millennials utilize social networks for?  To build and nurture relationships.  Stopping right there the preference toward Facebook over Twitter seems obvious.

On Twitter, you can hide behind a profile and be anyone you want to be.  Don’t want people to know who you really are?  Open a GMail account and sign up.  Create your fake bio and go for it.  Parade around as whomever you want and say whatever you want.  If things don’t work out, start over.

Facebook couldn’t be more different. Facebook is decidedly focused on creating a network of people, not profiles.  While it is possible to make it through the registration process with a made up name and empty bio, what’s next? Its akin to showing up at a black-tie party in a bozo the clown suit.  You’ll definitely find yourself short on friends let alone interaction.

In terms of servicing their users, Facebook also aligns more closely with Millennials needs than Twitter does.  Twitter is a simple messaging platform that allows the broadcast and receipt of 140 character messages.  Yes, Twitter has utility.  One utility.  It does one thing, and not especially well.

Facebook’s offering provides a far richer set of tools, allowing members to interact in a far more dimensional context.  Twitter is a simple messaging system, and not one that Millennials have much of a need for in its current form.

Related posts:

1. 2008 social network site data
2. Do you Twitter?
3. Tvviter is phishing for your Twitter account

According to an article posted on DailyTech, local media was made aware of the request by a city job applicant citing the City of Bozeman’s “Consent and Release to Conduct Criminal Background and Reference Checks” form (available online for download) [update: the form has since been changed to remove the section requesting user names and passwords].  The single page document confirms the section the applicant spoke of and includes clear directions.

Please list and and all past, and present, personal or business website or web pages, memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, MySpace, etc.

An article posted on MontanasNewsStation.com quotes the City attorney as saying “So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City.”

The attorney added that no one had exited the recruiting process due to the social network information request.  While the City attorney seems confident about the stance, a poll accompanying the story on the same website shows readers disagreeing: 98% saying the policy is an invasion of privacy.

I took a look on Facebook to see if the City had a City of Bozeman Fan page to gauge what, if any, lash back there was on the social site to discover there is no Fan page for the City of Bozeman on Facebook.  No surprise there.

Photograph by Mushroom and Rooster

Related posts:

1. Bozeman fired up over officer’s Facebook posts
2. 2008 social network site data
3. Millennials: Nothing personal, Twitter

First, what’s ToldYa’s pitch?

ToldYa is a web based software platform for creating, hosting, and managing widget-based Portable Stores. Our Portable Stores enable everyday consumers and businesses to sell their goods and services through the most advanced widget technology available anywhere.

So far so good.  A bit more specific:

The ToldYa eStore™ lets you buy and sell among friends on social networks, blogs and web sites. You can create and copy your store directly to your profiles (such as MySpace, Facebook and others) as well as your own blog or website. And you also get a custom store page here at toldya.com to link to. Your customizable ToldYa eStore widget features an integrated secure checkout system that lets you accept major credit cards for purchases. And you can personalize and promote your store to help you sell your stuff fast. You can even earn money by telling your friends. And best of all, it doesn’t cost you a penny until your item sells!

Commerce in social context, huh?  I’ve heard this line before and been disappointed when I’ve surveyed the experience from the perspective of the buyer, the seller, or both.  Before we get much farther, here’s what the eStore widget looks like embedded into this post:

My verdict on ToldYa? I like it.  Here’s why:

1. Seller setup was was easy. I grabbed an item off my bookshelf that I could part with, went to the ToldYa site, and had my product listing on my Facebook page in less than ten minutes.  That included creating my ToldYa account.  The ToldYa seller user experience was anticipatory, straightforward and thoughtful.
2. It was simple to distribute the eStore widget (and would be for a novice).  ToldYa provides cut-and-paste code and click integration to quickly get the eStore onto social sites like Facebook or a personal blog.
3. The pricing model is fair.  Selling requires no up-front payment, and ToldYa has a flat-rate structure ($.99/sale and a 5% transation fee on credit card sales).  There are obvious limitations in that pricing structure, but their overall pricing model is fair.
4. The eStore looks good.  I’m not 100% on the look of the base eStore widget (the dark blue-black with the super-gel buttons), but this is something that ToldYa can easily overcome (templates).  What was a pleasant surprise was how the eStore looked when placed on my Facebook profile and/or Wall.  The eStore looks like it belongs (they dropped the dark blue-black scheme and kept it simple).
5. Buyers can buy the product right on your site.  There’s not linking out to complete the transaction elsewhere.  Checkout occurs right in the widget.

Take a look at my eStore on ToldYa.

Related posts:

1. Making money how?
2. Millennials: Nothing personal, Twitter
3. 2008 social network site data

The online marketing company I work for, Terralever, had an opportunity to comment on a follow-up to original story which was posted on msnbc.com’s site titled Does cruise line’s viral campaign cross the line? Here’s an excerpt from that article:

By utilizing a “complex formula of data mining,” the cruise line selected 50 individuals based on the “quality and quantity of their posts with many having over 10,000 message board posts on various Royal Caribbean topics,” the Consumer Insights Group article said. The majority of posts were found on Cruise Critic. After individuals were chosen for the program, their posts were “carefully monitored during events and on a regular basis to ensure that posts remain positive and frequent.”

The post also states that Royal Champions were rewarded with all-expense paid pre-inaugural sailings along with invites to events and cocktail parties hosted by Royal Caribbean executives.

Based on the aforementioned information (and some time on the Cruise Critic forums) I provided a response which appears in a follow-up article that was posted to the msnbc.com website on Monday (Marketing campaign sinks Cruise Critic).  Here’s an excerpt with my quote included:

“The two hallmarks of social media are authenticity and transparency. It would appear that Royal Caribbean had a breakdown on both of these fronts,” says Jonathan Heit, senior vice president of digital media for Allison & Partners, which has implemented digital strategies for brands ranging from Philosophy to the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas.

“What’s curious is why Royal Caribbean would even walk this line,” says Scott McAndrew, director of strategy at Terralever. McAndrew says Royal Caribbean has a good brand reputation and a loyal and vocal fan before starting the program.

“In trying to shortcut the natural progress from brand exposure, to brand adoption and finally advocacy, Royal Caribbean now faces a far worse problem,” he adds. “All the wholehearted, genuine reviews of their brand and service that are positive run the risk of being eyed with a jaded view. Is this a real review, or is this one they bought?”

What do you think?  If you read posts by a compensated advocate of a brand in a social context online, would you feel slighted?

Photograph by J.L. McVay

Elsewhere on the web

• Invasion of the Marketers – How to Deal with Paid Promoters in your Community
• Royal Caribbean goes all big brother
• Other cruise lines: We wouldn’t do what Royal Caribbean did

Related posts:

1. Social Big Brother in Big Sky Country
2. Free advice for accountable travel & tourism online marketing
3. Social selling – your commerce, your context

Cloud Computing

Scott McNeally is likely somewhere in a padded room cursing the visions of the future he had in the 90’s.  McNeally told us “The Network [was] the Computer.”  Thin client and distributed computing was a good call, it was just ten or so years too early.  At the time McNeally was thinking about it, broadband wasn’t prevalent, and web browsers barely spoke the same language.  Times have changed, and both issues have largely evaporated.  Things evolved and a similar message is back: the Web is the operating system.

Add to the mix that the general populous is shedding their shyness about sharing personal information (and general concerns about privacy) and McNeally’s time has come.

Google?  Google is well invested in the cloud computing landscape.  A quick review of their business productivity initiatives online makes that clear: they’ve basically built Microsoft Office as a web-based solution.  Google’s Outlook is GMail and Google Calendar.  Google’s Word, Excel and PowerPoint are known as Google Docs.

And, Office-type business applications are just a few of the web-based applications Google has put in the cloud (for free).  They also have Google Notebook for organizing information found on the web, Google Sites to create web sites and secure wikis (collaboration), and they are at the forefront of online photography and video sharing with Picassa and YouTube.

So, you’re probably asking “what does that have to do with a web browser.”  Well, without controlling the web browser itself, these applications are (or I would argue will likely be) disjointed in feel to the end user.  And, their capabilities are stuck within the limitations provide by the user’s web browser of choice.  What could be gained by owning the browser they run in?

The disconnected experience for one. Cloud Computing sounds great, but the experience to the end-user needs to be seamless and smooth, and, it needs to work when the user is not on the Internet for wide adoption.  Chrome utilizes the Google Gears runtime. Gears is an open-source project which “let[s] web applications interact naturally with your desktop.” That is from the Google Gears home page.  It also mentions that you can store data locally.  That would allow utilization of Google applications (and what is created with them) when not connected to “the cloud.”  Gears allows it, but how that experience translates to the user is where Chrome will shine.  It’s something the other browser companies don’t have front-of-mind, nor do they have reason to.

What if you were using Google Docs and you had to run to a meeting and finish it at the other location where you didn’t have Internet connectivity.  If Firefox wasn’t locally storing a version of the document (and why would it), you simply couldn’t work with it offline.  Chrome could ensure that type of housekeeping was taking place.  Good experience and low price equals adoption.

Social Networking

Social networking is all the rage.  And, it provides incredible benefits to those who can control it.  User’s are providing generous amounts of public data for consumption by the social network sites. The social network sites in turn are collecting that data and, albeit clumsily at the moment, marketing back to them.  On the horizon is the ubiquity of social networks; a time when social networking won’t be going to a site.  Social networking will be transparent and prevalent in interacting with the web at first, and later with computing in general.

The social networking landscape can easily be divided up into two camps: Facebook and not Facebook.  The “not Facebook” camp has a more formal name.  It’s called Open Social.  Open Social is a group of social networking sites and development companies working together to create a social experience which can have continuity betweens social network sites (for a start).  It’s a great promise, a promise which Facebook has also made a commitment to, just oustside of Open Social.

Facebook has something called Facebook Connect.  What Connect allows is to allow for Facebook type interactions when away from the social network site.  Connect and Open Social both embrace data portability, and allowing interactions with user interaction beyond silo’d walled gardens. Why?  Facebook understands what Google does: the power of social networking largely likes in the data they are collecting, not in people poking each other and debating over if Scrabulous is better than ‘real’ Scrabble.  John Battelle calls what Google is actually building a “database of intentions.”  A way to know what people want and need before even they do.  The data being collected in the social landscape reveals a lot of very rich information. Information which can be monetized.

Currently Open Social is the underdog.  Facebook is ahead of the game, and implementing their strategies.  Open Social very much has an “under construction” sign on its door, and real-world examples are few and far between.

Arguably Google is looking down on its disparate group of applications and a disparate social web and looking for glue.  Open Social is glue.  A browser which streamlines the end-user experience and interaction with social networking is glue too.

What does Google have going for it in the new browser war (if we are to call it that)?

1. A good brand name. It is being questioned as of late, but my opinion is that is more by web scholars than by the public at large.  Generally, people trust Google.
2. Free. Google has a lot of web-based applications out there that are free.  Especially with those that work well, suggesting a download of Chrome to enhance the experience does have merit.
3. Understanding the end-user. Google is very adept at executing simple, easy-to-user applications.
4. New, relevant partners. Open Social has Google cavorting with some of the most influential social properties on the web.  Those companies have no interest in a browser war, and they very much can benefit from working with Google. Promoting a browser isn’t much to ask of them.

Challenges?

1. Is the public looking for new web brower? I currently don’t need a new web browser.  It took me quite awhile to download Firefox.  I was fine with Safari on the Mac and Internet Explorer on the PC.  Do users feel the need for a new browser?  If not, Google needs to create that need.
2. Can Google distribute software (well)? Google hasn’t been known to be adept at distributing software-not on this scale.
3. Is grass roots marketing going to cut it? Google traditionally relies on grass-roots tactics.  Will that work for Chrome?  Does the value proposition need to be put in front of the consumer more?  Lessons from Firefox would indicate that no, they don’t need to be.  But, Firefox has a place and a time, and security made it shine.  What will make Chrome shine?

Related posts:

1. Google announces Chrome browser
2. Google Chrome announcement [video]
3. 2008 social network site data

Happily, we were able to find data that helped in our analysis without spending a dime.

Global popularity of social network sites

In research social networking site popularity, we came across a great blog post: “Modeling The Real Value of Social Networks“.  The post by Michael Arrington (that appeared on his site TechCrunch) was focused on assigning a valuation social network sites.  While I wasn’t interested in the valuation, the post leveraged data that was just what we were looking for to get a gauge on overall popularity: April 2008 comScore social network site data for their supported countries and regions.

Interested? TechCrunch made the data available as a Google Docs spreadsheet:

• TechCrunch – The True Value of Social Networks

Member population: age and gender

Another key piece of data we were trying to find was a breakdown of social network site members by age and gender.  I was fairly confident that this data would be hard to come by, but some persistent Google searches turned up this gem: Two Rapleaf studies focused on that exact topic.  The studies are biased towards the U.S. market, but the information is compelling and valuable nonetheless.  Rapleaf’s commentary on how males and females differ in their usage of the social network sites is also interesting.  Following links from these press releases will get you to data (some of it is provided right in the press releases also):

• Rapleaf Study of Social Network Users vs. Age
• Rapleaf Study Reveals Gender and Age Data of Social Network Users

I hope this data helps in your social network research!

Related posts:

1. Millennials: Nothing personal, Twitter
2. Three Facebook Predictions for 2010
3. Social Big Brother in Big Sky Country

• If you think you’re going to get rich off of Google AdSense ads, good luck—you’re going to need a hell of a lot of traffic (and most likely a web site about asbestos lawsuits) for that to pan out. By the way, if you see any Google Ads on my web site, feel free to click on them.
• Selling and managing your own advertising space is another option. It sounds kind of cool—you’re in the driver’s seat of your own advertising outlet. It stops being cool and exposes itself as work when you realize you must serve as the (a) marketer, (b) sales person, (c) bill collector, (d) accountant, and (e) customer service extension of this cool new facet of your web site.

And of course there were the usual suspects (you can sell your own merchandise, you can sell others’ merchandise, etc.). And then… the not so to-be-expected topic…

Virtual Gifting

Virtual gifting is exactly what it sounds like: One web site member sends a virtual gift to another web site member. The gifts are virtual. The price to purchase them, however, is not. In the U.S. market the runaway sophomoric hit turned dating site Am I Hot or Not is widely credited for bringing virtual gifting to the table. Other popular web destinations including Facebook, Dogster (and Catster) are also offering virtual gifts.

Send a Virtual What?

• On the “Am I Hot or Not” site, the virtual gifts are flowers. The prices aren’t that different than the real variety.
• On Dogster and Catster, there are free virtual gifts that are awarded to members to hand out, but one can also purchase ‘Zealies‘ (Dogster and Catster’s currency) which can be used to send virtual rosettes to their favorite pets (Dogster and Catster are social networking sites for dogs and cats—er, I mean, dog and cats’ owners).
• Facebook, who implemented virtual gifting this year, allows users to send various virtual gifts to one another.

Is This a Viable Way to Make Money?

I would have thought not. How many people would send someone virtual flowers? According the the panel, quite a few. Ok, but how many people would buy and send virtual kitty chachki from their cat to another? There can’t be volume there-or could there be? In our virtual worlds, we have virtual places and virtual identities; maybe virtual ways of expressing ourselves isn’t that far fetched after all.

Related posts:

1. Facebook’s money for nothing
2. What’s a clever Facebook Status go for nowadays?
3. Social selling – your commerce, your context