MappingTheWeb //

Well… not quite. But I’m surprised that we haven’t heard more such rumours. Facebook seems to be hogging the attention as of late. Nevertheless, I expect Twitter rumours to surface fairly soon.

Though the service hasn’t reached the mainstream yet, I doubt it will take long before it does. Already, many social networks have integrated similar status update services. As we all know, the micro-blogging space is on fire right now. Phenomenal growth has been witnessed. Having said that, don’t expect it to die off any time soon. Micro-blogging isn’t a fad or a trend. It is a platform - and it is here to stay. Other well-known names in the space to watch include the likes of Pownce, Jaiku, and Tumblr.

So why is Twitter the big name? After all, the technology isn’t very hard to copy. It is actually quite simple when compared to numerous other apps out there. Twitter is the known name in the space. All the innovators and influencers use the service. Any potential acquisitor would (obviously) be more interested in the user base rather than the actual technology.

Speaking of potential acquisitors, some names that come to mind include:

• Google (potential integration with Blogger)
• Yahoo
• Six Apart
• Any social network - though most have implemented their own status function, the user base is the key incentive.

Do you think Twitter will get bought any time soon? If so, by who?

As Mark Evans points out in a recent post, there is a Facebook application “gold rush” taking place right now. Everyone and their dog is scrambling to launch an app to capitalize on this fad opportunity. Many are seeing astonishing growth - from zero to tens of thousands of users in a mere couple days. But is this truly sustainable? Even more importantly, is it really worth it? I don’t think so. But don’t tell that to Facebook or the application creators.

Anything that vaults to stratospheric popularity levels in a short period of time is bound to see a fall-out or backlash of some kind eventually. In this case, the novelty of apps will eventually wear off. Some may disagree, but I would wager that ’superpoking’ and ‘throwing food’ are only cool for so long. Frankly, I’m already tired of all these ridiculous app invites after only a couple months.

The promise of monetization or a sale is what is driving this boom. But let’s be honest here - how many will actually profit from a sale or achieve reasonable revenues? My guess is under 1%. In other words, Facebook is almost creating a false sense of hope for developers. Subsequently, facebook profits from additional PR, user growth, and developer evangelism.

To me, Facebook applications are no more than a marketing funnel to an outside web presence. If you plan on making the app the entire business, you are walking a dangerously fine line. Forever more, you will be at the mercy of Facebook. If they decide to change course, you could be screwed.

My intuition tells me that the introduction of the developer platform was simply a move by the company to create short terms success and fuel PR ahead of an IPO or potential sale. Let’s analyze this further:

1. Facebook launches the developer platform.
2. Developers experience exponential growth and boast about their success.
3. The press takes notice; widespread PR ensues.
4. More developers jump on the bandwagon.
5. A positive feedback loop is created: success feeds PR, which fuels further applications. Repeat.
6. Eventually, a bubble is created as the app market is saturated and over-crowded. The dilution leads to a fall-out.

In other words, I believe that the developer platform is a short term ’stunt’ to raise awareness and exposure for the company. Over the long term, I see the move as being more detrimental than beneficial. I, for one, am already starting to get disgruntled by the addition of clutter and useless knick-knacks. The Facebook crowd, for the most part, is an older group. Such silly applications should be left for the MySpace or hi5 crowd. They degrade the quality of the experience. A seeming endless amount of scrolling is now needed to browse most profile pages. Is this the Facebook that we all remember?

Note: I refuse to make any parallels to MySpace or Geocities just yet…

Today, News Corp and NBC Universal announced the name of their much anticipated YouTube killer - Hulu. A couple of weeks ago, the unnamed venture raised $100 million via Providence Equity Partners in exchange for 10% of the company. A quick math calculation equates the valuation to a whopping $1 billion. While many scoffed at this ridiculous valuation, I’m not so quick to count out this potential industry player.

Why is YouTube as big as it is? Obviously their video widget provided a viral marketing channel, but that only funnels potential users to the site. It still doesn’t explain the ’stickiness’ and allure of the video-sharing portal. Nonetheless, it quickly becomes clear that illegal content is the driving force. YouTube is nothing with it. Millions of users hit the site everyday to watch music videos, TV shows, and movie clips. Not many care that Joe from Connecticut can juggle. The only exception I can think of are how-to videos. These non-commercial, useful UGC clips provide value to the viewer, regardless of whether you know the creator or not.

So how can Hulu compete against YouTube and the other big boys? Simple. Hulu has one thing that nearly all of other video sharing sites lack - the rights to production-quality content*. Sure, YouTube and others will continue to stream illegal content, but is this truly a sustainable long-term strategy? I’m not so convinced. What catapulted YouTube to the top in the first place may ultimately lead to its demise in the end. This is imminent flaw of social media. Just ask Digg.

So now anyone can watch legitimate, high-quality episodes of Heroes, madTV, 24, The Office, Family Guy, and Las Vegas (to name a few) for free, on-demand, anywhere in the world? Sounds pretty compelling to me. What does all this mean for traditional TV? Well, traditional folk can still view News Corp/NBC programming via the old tube, whereas tech-savvy users will turn to the Internet. Moreover, if you were to miss a given episode on TV or you happened stuck in Kenya without a TV, you can still tune in and watch on Hulu.

This brings up another huge advantage that Hulu has over the competition - a stunning revenue model. Hulu can command huge ad dollars and premium CPMs as they have complete control over the content. Furthermore, the site can leverage pre-existing relationships with advertisers at News Corp and NBC Universal. As opposed to traditional TV where viewers can’t click or ‘follow’ the ads, this form of programming is interactive and opens the door to new advertising opportunities. This conversion process is not only more effective, but also measurable.

It’s still too early to speculate the potential features and functionality of the offering. For what it’s worth, the portal may only stream old episodes or segments of episodes. I highly doubt this, but we will soon find out. Hulu isn’t currently operational. The home page is simply a landing page where interested parties can enter their e-mail to get a sneak peek of the BETA product when the time comes (apparently sometime in October according to Hulu).

I look forward to catching of glimpse of this potential industry-changing venture. Many aren’t giving it a chance, but I wouldn’t be so quick to make a judgment just yet.

*Note: As far as I know, there will be no user-generated content (UGC) on the site. It will strictly consist of company-owned premium content. Please inform me if you know otherwise.

Here is a stunning revelation: the BETA invite system has nothing to do with actual testing. Rather, it is simply a marketing ploy aimed at attracting new users. Is this truly a stunning revelation? Or did I just state the obvious?

Historically, a start-up would quietly seek out BETA users to test the product. These individuals would try to break it and take note of any bugs. Feedback was key. This was back in a time when the BETA system was legitimate. Does this sound like a typical ‘BETA tester’ of today? It seems that every start-up graduates from the cliched ’stealth mode’ to the cliched ‘BETA mode’ at some point. Nowadays, these terms are so common that their marketing value has diminished to zero. In other words, these buzz words do not attract the attention and exposure that they once did. Furthermore, the misuse of the term ‘BETA’ is so widespread that rectification cannot be achieved.

Not surprisingly however, this tactic has been succesfully leveraged many times in the past, most notably by Gmail. More recently, Joost caused quite a stir with a similar strategy. But such a system is just not cool any more. People frown upon BETA logos and invite systems. They have become overused to the point of saturation.

BETA products are supposed to be full of bugs. They are supposed to contain errors. But nowadays, it seems that these BETA products are shipped in perfect condition. Why? Because they are intended for the end user, not the supposed BETA tester. Think about it. Who uses a BETA product nowadays? Everyone. This isn’t the way it’s supposed to be. If everyone is truly ready to use the product, the ‘BETA’ badge should be dropped. Here’s the way the system should work: if a company is truly in need of BETA users, they should methodically seek out a specific subset of people, rather than proclaim the need over a figurative megaphone. This will attract the wrong crowd.

So just how hot is the BETA invite market? Well, many hard-to-acquire invites have landed on eBay and sold for much higher than their actual value ($0). In addition, TechCrunch recently purchased InviteShare, a BETA invite-sharing community. Interest in the area is obvious and this will further change the shape of this newfangled marketplace/industry.

To close, I have some words of wisdom for any new start-up… “The BETA invite marketing tactic has been played out. It’s really not that sweet any more. Do us all a favour and drop the BETA… Ok? All the best.”

It’s been 112 days since the Digg meltdown. Contrary to what many had predicted, the social news site seems to be back to normal. Not much has been said about the pending lawsuit(s). Digg ringleader Kevin Rose seems unphased. His new start-up Pownce seems to occupy a considerable chunk of time. My conspiracy side tells me that Pownce is an insurance policy should the Digg fiasco take a turn for the worst. The clever bastard has a back-up plan…

So really, what has happened to Digg since the user backlash? Nothing. Simple as that. Ok, sure, the blogosphere went nuts for a couple days, but everything returned back to normal pretty quick. 

What has the Digg kerfuffle taught us about social media?

• The viral component of social media that induces explosive growth can work just as effectively in an opposing manner. In other words, the very mechanism that creates community can just as easily destroy it.
• Don’t mess with your users. Seriously. Even a hint of dishonesty or deceit will likely result in detrimental consequences.
• Be quick to respond. Should an unfortunate event unfold, provide prompt communication to mitigate user anxiety and explain the situation.

This was truly the first time we witnessed the collapse of social media. It finally *broke*. Much has been said about the benefits of social media, but little has been mentioned about its potential flaws. I’m not a critic of social media, but rather a unbiased observer. The spontaneous, uncontrollable nature of this beast may never be tamed, but it can be studied and understood. It is my hope that this will help prevent similar catastrophes in the future.