MappingTheWeb //

[Effectiveness of Facebook Apps as a Marketing Tool] - A little while back, I asked readers to submit questions they would like me to answer or blog about. The first one I’d like to tackle was submitted by Mark Evans, who blogs at MarkEvansTech and serves as Director of Community of Canadian-based start-up PlanetEye. Mark wrote:

“What’s your take on the effectiveness of Facebook apps as a branding/marketing tool?”

My cliched first thought was, “Good question”. After giving it some further time and consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that, as a whole, Facebook apps are not a great marketing tool. Obviously this is a generalization and apps may prove to be a successful strategy for some companies. Let me explain my logic…

It’s all about perception.

Branding and positioning are an important part of any online strategy. Subsequently, solidifying status and credibility within an industry is essential. Still with me? The recent onslaught of Facebook apps has saturated the “marketplace”.  A lack of management on behalf of the social network has driven many to utter frustration with the highly-touted platform.

For this very reason, I think that the introduction of a Facebook app may be more detrimental than advantageous, in some cases, unless extreme caution and delicacy are exercised. A suitable Facebook app would have to provide compelling value and utility. Furthermore, there would have to be a certain level of fit with the exposed community of users.

My guess is that a majority will disagree with this train of thought, but I’m just giving my take on the situation.

In all honesty, I think that most apps are being created for amusement purposes - not as branding vehicles.  The ability to “poke” someone or write on their “FunWall” is great, but these dominant apps may reflect negatively upon your company if you are trying to portray a more professional, sophisticated image.

Jumping back to August 2007, I wrote a post about the short-term success and long-term failure of the platform. I still believe much of that post to be true. The effectiveness of apps has decreased significantly due to the surge of entrants.

I think that more users are starting to see things the same way as I do. For the most part, Facebook apps are more of a hassle than they’re worth.  They cause huge amounts of clutter and force users to scroll down long profile pages to find what they’re looking for. They’re also very distracting at times. What I find most annoying is the increased page load time. In other words, unless you’re creating an app for pure amusement or you happen to be in the business of “fun”, then Facebook apps are likely to be a poor marketing tool unless a cautious, very well sought out strategy is executed upon.

[Facebook - Has The Novelty Worn Off?] - It looks like the Facebook frenzy has finally died down a bit. It seems like only yesterday every tech blogger was posting a story about the social network.

The launch of the F8 platform ignited the PR fire. Eventually, the chaos hit a feverish pitch when acquisition rumours began to swirl. Facebook was quick to discount these rumours, stating they had no intention of selling the company. The last big hurrah came when Microsoft invested a small chunk of cash in the company at an absurd valuation of $15 billion. Now that the PR hurricane has passed, the sea of Facebook is eerily tranquil…

Publicity aside, users are starting to shy away from the social network for another reason - information overload. When Facebook apps was launched, everyone was adding every application they received an invitation for. Now, people are being much more selective with apps, as well as events and groups. Personally, I don’t add any applications at all, and I’m very strict about which events and groups I sign up for. I focus on quality rather than quantity and I think others are doing the same.

If you sense pessimism, you are deceived. I am still very optimistic about the future of this social network. I think they’ve been very smart and strategic with their approach. Their constant push for innovation has led to some industry-changing features, most notably photo-tagging and news feed. If they continue to stay focused and strategic, I am convinced that Facebook can prosper for a long time to come.

The Craigslist interface is the epitome of “ugly design”. Keep in mind that “ugly design” doesn’t necessarily mean “bad design” or “unattractive design”. Many people, including myself, love the design and are against any changes. Thank God the company has the same philosophy. With the exception of a few small, necessary tweaks, the interface hasn’t changed much since inception.

Many have begged Craigslist to modernize the interface - even just a bit. At SXSW 2006, a six-person panel of leading designers and interface experts did a basic redesign of the layout. A more sophisticated look and feel was the goal. Here is the design they came up with: Craigslist redesign. It is actually quite nice. Although, as expected, the company never implemented any of the changes.

I think the lesson to be learned is that simplicity and utility cannot be over-emphasized. Though aesthetics do play a role, users most often favour efficiency, which leads in to my next point.

Usability remains number one. How do we know this? Any destination page is only two clicks away. First, click your city. Then, click your link of interest. Add to that familiarity with the navigation. Since the layout hasn’t changed for so long, people have become accustomed to it. If changes were to occur, there would be a learning curve involved.

At this point, Craigslist can do no wrong. Though the company is structured as a for-profit corporation, most perceive the company as a non-profit due to its unconventional approach to business. The .org domain also helps. The combination of free listings and a constant focus on the user are two main drivers that have kept Craigslist at the top and disallowed any competitors from making in-roads.

What do you think of the Craigslist interface? Do you think it’s great? Do you think it’s ugly and should be changed?

I get a lot of post requests by various companies. Rarely do I have the time to fulfill all their wishes. Nevertheless, I appreciate their thought and consideration, and often I do find time to profile a single company. In this case, I’d like to highlight a bunch of companies that have contacted me. I will include a one-line pitch and you can decide whether you want to delve deeper. Without further ado, here they are:

ScheduleOnce - Easy meeting scheduling tool.

PostMapper - Plots Wordpress blog posts on a central map.

WOT (Web of Trust) - Social-based website trust ratings.

AdRoll - Collaborative, niche ad network.

TagItOn - Centralized discussion facilitation tool.

Fixya - Community-based tech support.

There you have it… that’s the list. I’d appreciate any opinions or perspectives relating to the companies listed above. If the companies have anything to add, please do so.

Innovative ideas are what inspire me. I think that all these concepts are genuine and merit further scrutiny. Obviously not everyone can benefit from all products and services, but perhaps one may make your life a heck of a lot easier.

Yesterday’s post brought up an interesting topic. What is the definition of a “startup”? In other words, when does a startup progress to a “company”?

Is it defined by:

• Time? i.e. Less than a year old?
• Revenues? i.e. Under $10 million in revenues?
• Profitability? (Self explanatory)
• Traffic? i.e. Less than 20 million page views per month?
• Staff size? i.e. Staff size smaller than 50?

This topic is particularly interesting because many believe Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc… are still startups. I don’t believe so. Facebook, for example, has:

• Been around for 4 years
• Revenues in the hundreds of millions
• Billions of page views per month
• A staff of a couple hundred

Can you still consider it a startup? I’m not convinced…

On an ambiguous note, Wikipedia defines a startup as “a business with a limited operating history”. So basically, I’m no further ahead than when I first visited Wikipedia.

I’ve been thinking about a term to use to describe the aforementioned boundary or limit. I’m not certain whether a given term exists or not, so I’m going to coin one anyways. The startup threshold will now be known as the point when a business transitions from the startup phase to a full-blown company. The exact metric or number has yet to be established, but I’d like to get feedback from readers.

How do you think a startup should be defined? What number(s) do you think are most important? What would you consider the startup threshold?