Facebook Home: Clearly someone wasn't thinking

Honestly, you can't blame Facebook for thinking new Facebook Home is going to change the world... for them it probably seemed like an excellent idea (for them)... just think of all that wonderful data they could capture by being permanently on a user's home screen... all... that... data. It's the stuff Facebook drools itself to sleep about.

But there's just one problem. What's in it for the user? Facebook's promotional materials say we'll have a constant stream of our friends fab photos and posts... how cool is that?! But they clearly haven't thought this through because Facebook Home dramatically fails the 'real world' test.

Let's be clear, my friends are an awesome bunch of people, that's why we're friends. They have some interesting views, do cool things and they are kind enough to want share them. Some of my friends are also keen amateur photographers, but most of them are like me and... well, the stuff we post on Facebook wouldn't win any prizes, it's just there to capture a moment... sort of like a Monet painting, but without use of light, or composition, or the ponds or bridges, or the artistic merit... and it's mostly shit.

So the though of a steady stream of such photos filling my screen is really rather horrifying. Added to that there will be all the comments that come with such shots and you have a ready-made way to pollute my phone with stuff I really don't want to see... ALL THE TIME.

On the other hand, like many people though, I am lucky enough to have friends who are pretty good at photography. Naturally, when composing shots, they tend to like a range of formats - landscape, panorama landscape, portrait... or square format as used by Instagram. They don't shoot in the highly idiosyncratic tall portrait format that would be demanded of Facebook Home, so even their wonderful shots will be ruined as well. In fact, with the release of Facebook Home, Facebook has just effectively screwed Instagram (and I'd just gotten good at composing square photos!)

So there it is, Facebook Home, the more I think about this, the more I think they weren't thinking at all!

Listen Facebook, just take my damn money!

When Facebook purchased Instagram last year part of the rationale was that Facebook was lousy with mobile and the acquisition would help. This was no frivolous thing, with mobile uptake and activity on Facebook outstripping browser-based action, and a majority of ad revenue coming from its browser-based activities Facebook could see writing on the wall.

So the question is, how are they going? Unfortunately if recent developments are anything to go by, pretty damn poorly. The challenge of course with mobile, is finding a way to out ads in whilst trying to adhere to that basic principle of advertising - try to avoid excessively irritating your users. There's a fine line between ensuring you get your message across (heck a company has to make money, I get that part), and driving users to the point of homicidal distraction. The Facebook's browser ads fall into the former category.

The contrast with the experience of using mobile couldn't be bigger. Recently, Facebook has started including full page "sponsored posts" on its mobile app. Or should I say in my case, and some others I know "a single sponsored post, repeated over and over again". Mine is for a trading app (see right), a friend of mine is persistently haunted by gambling app whenever he uses FB mobile. That the same ad comes up repeatedly and exclusively, in my case since before Christmas, is intensely irritating.

Now I should repeat at this point I do not have an objection to advertising on Facebook mobile - the company is trying to build revenue, and I'm getting what I believe to be a valuable service. My objections are these: Firstly, don't fill the whole screen, you wouldn't have an automatic pop up that fills a browser's screen, so don't do it on mobile. I'd happy accept if the ad came further down the News Feed. Secondly and more importantly, Facebook knows more about me by now than pretty much any other entity, human or otherwise, it has the capability to target me as a consumer to the point where I should be clicking without a second thought. So why does keep hitting me with the same ad that I've previously ignored? (repeatedly) This is getting back to the basic part of marketing - it turns me against both the advertiser (whoever they are) and the medium (that's Facebook). It makes my experience less enjoyable, it turns me onto other services like Path. If you Facebook really wanted to test the efficacy of the advertising why not include a "Dislike" button... it's certainly controversial, but both Facebook and the advertisers would start getting solid feedback on the quality of content, as opposed to the inferred response now: Click through = good; inactivity = ??

But here's the real kicker. I use Facebook a lot, and for all my gripes I find it a very useful service. In fact I'm getting to the point where I would certainly pay money to use it... because I've realised it's utility. So if Facebook were to offer me to pay a subscription (say £5 a month to be rid of such advertising), I'd seriously consider it... very seriously. There's an opportunity here for Facebook. I'm not suggesting they force people to pay a subscription, but given the choice between this sort of intrusive advertising and £60 a year... at this point I'd likely take the latter. Facebook would have a novel new revenue stream, users, and perhaps since *I* am paying Facebook rather than advertisers, they might start to show me a bit more courtesy.

So, Facebook, do the right thing, just take my damn money!

Quit whining, Instagram are a business

The response to the news that Instagram have changed their integration with Twitter has me puzzled... really puzzled. I'm not puzzled as to why Instagram chose to do so, as they see it, they want more control of the data and user experience for themselves. I'm also not puzzled that Twitter have done similar things in the past, for example to LinkedIn. No, what really puzzles me has been the response from the tech community... the community normally so enamoured with the idea of being an entrepreneur and making a truckload of cash (and possibly saving the world in the process).

From articles like this though, they've forgotten that they're dealing with business and assume they're dealing with charities instead. As I see it there's a lack of understanding about how businesses make money, or more fundamentally that businesses need to make money at all. Let's not forget, neither Instagram nor Twitter charge users for the services they supply - of course these companies derive economic benefit from access to customers' data, but it's not quite the same - so no one can claim to have been "screwed" out of anything. Instagram are acting in what they see as their best interests. If a business decides it's in their best interest to close off or change aspects of their service, they're entitled to do so. The flip side to this is that customers are entitled to act in their best interests - if they're unhappy with the business they can stop using it or switch to a competitor. If you don't want to stop using it, then stop complaining about something you get for free.

Part of the argument (the "breaking the spirit of Web 2.0" part) is that these businesses may build their systems on the back of open platforms. As Instagram has admitted, at the start they didn't have a presence and frictionless integration with Twitter made sense - in marketing we do this all the time to help build awareness, it's called "sampling". But these things can't last if the company wants to make money as they must. The same thing can be said of everything Facebook has been doing since it started.

So this is the part that has me genuinely puzzled. The tech community is suffused with entrepreneurship and lauds entrepreneurs. It tracks their rises and falls, it worships the most successful of them, and it advocates for them to anyone who will listen. Yet, from the evidence on display over the last day or so, the tech community has forgotten the most basic precept of businesses is to make money, and that business/customer relationship is a two way street.

Personally I think Instagram are making a mistake, but then again, that's their choice. As a customer I have a choice in this too. I won't be exercising that at this point. But if people feel strongly enough about it, they should stop whining and exercise that choice for themselves.

>>> Update: What on earth were Instagram thinking? They've properly screwed their users now. Appropriating user data is one thing, but unilaterally claiming ownership is on a completely different level! Photography like any intellectual property has economic value (I'm guessing they know this bit). This doesn't just mildly annoy users, it's theft. It's like iTunes unilaterally deciding that all the content on iTunes is now owned by Apple.

Worse still, Instagram turned a what could have been a really useful revenue stream - sale of user content from a potential win (if the rights were shared with users) to a massive own goal.

User data is pretty abstract, you wouldn't expect much of a backlash, this is something a bit different.

Do tech companies (and people) misunderstand advertising?

Firstly, let me apologise for writing yet another post that mentions Facebook; I promise, this will not become a Facebook-focused blog. In my defence though, there's an awful lot happening with it as a business and much of it is incredibly interesting for new age marketers - ie. app developers. So on that note...

There's been a lot of ink (both real and virtual) expended in recent weeks analysing the current and future performance of Facebook, and putting aside its rollercoaster IPO, much of that ink has been devoted to the performance of Facebook in the advertising realm. A quick whip around the news sees stories about: declining revenues; inability to get mobile right; the loss of GM's business just prior to the IPO; and of course comparisons with business like Google who did get their advertising model right prior to IPO. Most, if not all the analysis warns that Facebook hasn't got their advertising model right and that with its weakness in mobile it's falling further behind. Firstly, this is fairly obvious, but as the actions of GM show, some marketers, some commentators, and perhaps even Facebook itself, seem to have a misunderstanding about how advertisers can make best use of Facebook's facilities - the key here is considering how users interact with Facebook.

Let's first start with those who get it right - Google and Amazon. Have a think about what is going through your head when you're using these sites; most likely you're in acquisition mode, whether for information, products or services. If it's either of the latter, advertising that promotes a specific product at a specific point in time will be helpful to you. Chances are that you'll be more receptive to the message and you might even click through and purchase. Contrast this with Facebook which is more "recreational"; in this mode you're relaxing, you're spending virtual time with your friends, connecting, playing games, etc. Any advertising that prompts you to buy there and then is either ignored or worse, is an irritant - imagine someone tapping you on the shoulder trying to sell you something whilst you're catching up with friends... not the best approach. As an advertiser your best approach in this circumstance is to brand build, allowing customers to gain a greater insight about your company and what it stands for without trying to sell something on the spot. In time they will hopefully develop a preference for your brand and products and then, next time they're using Google or Amazon they'll click and buy.

Does this then mean that Facebook is the wrong place to advertise? Not at all. What matters is what you (as an advertiser) are hoping to achieve and therefore how you advertise in that environment. GM don't seem to have figured this out - and if Facebook tried to convince GM that they operated like Google, they were probably kidding themselves as well. Fortunately for Facebook, Ford and Chrysler have figured this out and have stuck around.

So what do we take out of this? For Facebook, a couple of pieces of free advice. Firstly, Facebook should stop telling anyone (clients, users, the markets,anyone) that its advertising model is anything similar to that of Google and Amazon, clearly it isn't. With its scale, Facebook has the opportunity to be the most powerful generator of insights into the human condition this side of god. So find a way to commercialise that! Secondly, Facebook's corporate Clients currently get an incredible amount of free branding and consumer engagement via their corporate Facebook pages - actually selling that service (provided the pricing is right) would net Facebook a very handy revenue source.

For app developers, the lessons are useful - if you are developing an app that includes in-app advertising, think very carefully about how people will use your apps, when advertising will be most suitable and what sort of advertising will work most effectively. If you intend to advertise your app to potential customers using a service like Vungle, think about what your customers will be doing when they see your advertisement. What will be the most compelling way to communicate with them without annoying them? Get this right and you'll not only build your brand but you'll increase sales in the longer term.

Facebook launches its app store

It's definitely a fascinating development.

For app developers the opportunity to be hosted on a market designed to put the universe of apps out to 1/6 of the world's population is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying. Get it right and you stand to own the world, get it wrong and you'll be buried by everyone else with the same thought - a needle in a haystack-sized pile of needles.

Whilst customer ratings will help consumers navigate this new universe, they create a tyranny for new apps. How to be recognised, how to make you app standout before the stars start landing?

The most important thing to bear in mind is the power of this new environment, there's no need to capture all 900m users (though good luck if you can). With such a massive market, even a niche market will still contain millions of people. Think about who would most likely use your app, by rigorously specialising and simplifying your product, your customers will more easily be able to identify themselves - specialising your product becomes powerful when you can hook into a network of like-minded Facebook users.