8 posts tagged “myspace”
Co-founder and CEO of MySpace, Chris DeWolfe, will soon be stepping down from his executive role at the company.
There is little information on the reasons behind Chris's departure other than the following internal email that was leaked on the web.
This email was sent to Fox Interactive employees by Jonathan Miller, News Corp CEO Digital Media.
To FIM Employees:
I am writing to share the news that MySpace CEO Chris DeWolfe will be stepping down from his executive role in the near future. He has agreed to serve as a strategic advisor to the Company and will remain on the board of MySpace China.
In addition, I am currently in discussions with MySpace President Tom Anderson regarding his role within the organization.
I want to take this opportunity to thank them both for their incredible contributions to the Company, and for pioneering one of the greatest social media revolutions of our time. I wish Chris nothing but the best in any new endeavors and, like many in this industry, am eager to witness his next innovations.
I understand the importance of having a dynamic, inspiring and innovative management team, and am dedicated to ensuring that MySpace continues to benefit from the highest levels of passion and enthusiasm.
I also want to thank everyone across FIM for giving me the opportunity to work with all of you. With MySpace, IGN, Photobucket, Fox Audience Network and our Digital Publishing Group, this is an exciting collective of properties and I’m enthusiastic about the opportunities that lie ahead.
I hope to meet and work closely with many of you over the weeks and months to come.
Best regards,
Jonathan Miller
If anyone has any other details to share, please spill.
I’m curious to explore whether it is possible that social media and new technologies can be directly linked to today’s growing emo culture. Before I get into this, let’s first take a look at the latest statistics from eMarketer regarding teens and their online consumption.
Although these statistics are based on research with U.S teens, I am highly inclined to say it’s indicative of what we are seeing in this part of the world.
- 19% of active Internet users in July this year (32.4 million people) were under 18
- 82% of US teens (12-17 years old) will use Internet monthly next year
- Nearly 2/3 of all teens have a mobile phone
- They navigate between different options for communication (text messaging, IM, social networking, email) – and expect the transition between these options to be seamless
- Teens DO NOT care about nor distinguish between ‘online’, ‘offline’ and ‘mobile’ communications – it’s purely about ‘COMMUNICATION’
- The tools they use to interact with one another are less important than how simple the actual interaction is, how seamlessly they can move across devices and how engaging the actual experience is
These teens don’t care about the mobile devices they use nor do they consider how it is made possible that they can jump online from anywhere. They are only actively thinking about the conversations they are having with their friends online – I can chat with my friends via IM, email, we can connect on Facebook and MySpace, we can text message, we can even catch up in cool virtual worlds. Today’s 'digital natives' expect to be able to communicate online from anywhere and at anytime.
I have plenty of questions. Will there be dire implications with the fact that teens make no distinction between ‘online’ and ‘offline’ communication? Is social media creating the Great Social Divide? Is this audience highly sociable online but less attentive in real life? Will we see a growing number of social media junkies turn real life recluse?
As Jack Sargeant put it in The Australian last year: “Youth subcultures emerge, vanish and mutate continually. Often this happens beneath the radar of the news media and is of interest only to the adherents of the trend and perhaps their peers. When these subcultures do enter the spotlight it is almost invariably because of a perceived crisis; traditionally, narcotic and sexual abandon, crime and suicide.”
This is indicative of what we have seen with the rise of the emo on the likes of MySpace. Is social media responsible for the emo-generation? I had never even heard of the term ‘emo’ until social networking site, MySpace, was launched.
Last year, two girls committed a double suicide. Unfortunately, this is a tragedy that could have been avoided. A message was even posted on their MySpace profiles - "RIP Jodie and Steph" - a day before the girls went missing.
Are teens breeding unhealthy habits online? When I was a kid, my parents told me to play outside and get some sunshine. There’s something to be said about the amount of time teens spend online today.
Really interested to hear your thoughts? Is social media playing a part in the growing emo subculture? Should we be monitoring the online activities and rituals of those that are under 18? Penny for your thoughts!
I've been curious to get a better understanding of companies in Australia that are using social media in some way, shape or form as part of an overarching business strategy. I'm not really seeing too many brands using consistent and long-term social media as a vehicle for communication with their audiences.
This is not to say that there aren't companies operating in this space. However, I am finding that companies in Oz are mainly using social or new media in short-term campaigns to meet short-term objectives. For example, there are companies using social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace to launch products or make announcements. What we need to keep in mind here is that once we create a network such as this, it really needs to be maintained. You need to be in it for the long haul.
This thinking sparked after a conversation I had with a journalist earlier this week. I think [and emphasis on 'think'] we both came to the conclusion that there is more that we can be doing in this space in Australia. We need to see more companies here using long-term social media activities such as corporate blogging for long-term gain.
Social media can be a successful tool when it is used as a long-term vehicle. Most importantly, it lets you listen to what conversations are happening online around your brand. Once you have a listening strategy in place it provides you with an opportunity to build relationships with those influencers that are having those conversations - and finally, it provides you with the platform to directly engage with them.
And in the wise words of The Cluetrain Manifesto - "markets are conversations". Today is about building and maintaining relationships with your audiences and the best method to do this is by engaging in direct and ongoing conversations with them.
An excellent example is Telstra's nowwearetalking. The site is a platform for open and direct dialogue between Telstra and its audiences. It lets the public have its say and voice any concerns on issues affecting Australians and the telecommunications industry. This site is a long-term tool that has been implemented to increase Telstra's transparency, ultimately enhancing its public perception, reputability and credibility in Australia.
The other great aspect of this site that seems to be working in Telstra's favour is that it provides a vehicle for Telstra to tell its own stories and announce its own news first. Thanks to this site, Telstra is able bypass the gatekeepers and rather than relying on the media to communicate the news, Telstra is able to do this itself. In fact I think Australian journalists' even regularly frequent the nowwearetalking site to collect research for their own stories.
I also recently read about what Nestle is doing with social media in Australia. Nestle will be solely relying on social media advertising to launch a new character for the Kit Kat Chunky. According to Lara Sinclair, "Nestle confectionary will not use any traditional media to promote the brand."
The reason for this - social and new media allows you generate fast word of mouth and peer-to-peer recommendation. Furthermore, it allows you to act local and reach global! And as we know, statistics these days tend to be tipping in favour of peer-to-peer recommendations as trust in traditional advertising and corporations is on the decline.
I'll be tuned in to this space. If you have any case studies that you can share with me of Aussie companies using social media for long-term benefits - please let me know. Also - are there any tangible results that you can share? Examples of companies that have used social media and it has positively impacted on the bottom line?
Are social networks such as Facebook and MySpace over-valued today? The price tags we put on them are steep in my opinion - in the billions of dollars! Although, are these sites and other online communities just a fad that will be replaced by the next big 'It' technology shortly down the line, or will they all see a long and prosperous future?
MySpace was a huge success in its early days and managed to stay on top for a good while. However, many people today consider that MySpace, as a brand, has lost its champion title to Facebook.
I slightly digress from my original thoughts but want to put this perception to the test and undergo a couple of benchmarking tests.
Step One - The Site Traffic Test
I got some interesting results whilst conducting a traffic rank comparison between Facebook and MySpace on traffic ranking site, Alexa. For your reference, all the following figures are based on a snapshot of a three month average.
MySpace receives a traffic rank of 6 [this traffic rank is based on a combined measure of page views and users (reach)]. The number of unique pages viewed per user per day on MySpace is 34.52.
Facebook comes in just behind MySpace with a traffic rank of 7. The number of unique pages viewed per user per day on Facebook is 21.26.
The graph above, however, shows us that the traffic rank of MySpace has dipped over the past two months. Over this same two month period, Facebook has grown considerably.
To be completely honest, i'm a little surprised with these figures. I definitely thought that Facebook would have had a bigger lead on MySpace.
Step Two - The Member Test
This next step isn't really a fair test but I thought I would throw it in to add a new dimension into the mix.
An interesting sociology study was posted on Mashable about one year ago now addressing the difference between Facebook and MySpace users. According to the study 'jocks', 'athletes' and 'goodie two shoes' are the types that frequent Facebook whereas MySpace is the hang out for the 'alternative' crowd, 'punks', 'emos' and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm!
Based on the vast differences between the member bases of these sites, I am starting to feel a little guilty for comparing the two. Apples with oranges? :)
After completely digressing from my first questions in this post, I want to go back to my original question on the longevity of these online sites. And are we or are we not over-valuing them?
LinkedIn recently valued itself at $1 billion. Similarly, according to Computerworld, Facebook received a market valuation of around US$15 billion after Microsoft bought 1.6% of the site for US$240 million last year. Other networking sites have had valuations between US$200 million and US$560 million, based on transactions from this year. In the same vain, Facebook received a market valuation of approximately "...US$15 billion after Microsoft bought 1.6% of the site for US$240 million last year..."
I'll leave this one with you to ponder on. Will this bubble burst?
Steve Rubel raise a very interesting point in his latest blog post, which basically concludes that the portals such as Google, AOL, Yahoo and so forth will win the social netoworking battle. The winners. The losers. Who will reap the benefits/ money? I find this particularly interesting and would have to agree with Rubel's portal argument - it's based on sound judgement given the trends we have seen in this space over the past couple of years.
We are currently being bombarded with all things 'social media' and more and more social networking sites are launching each day. You have online networking groups for cats, dogs, the elite, movie lovers, music lovers, wine appreciaters and the list goes on. Some hit a lucky streak and experience huge spikes in popularity and others are only given 15 seconds of stardom.
How many people were obsessed with MySpace when it first launched but then ditched it when the cooler, more user-friendly Facebook launched? This is just one exaple of what we are seeing and what is to come. I'll allude the social networking war to that of a loan so each and every one of you understand it. Social networking sites such as the ones I have mentioned are the variable interests in this battle and the portals are the fixed interests. It is in fact the portals, that Rubel describes as owning the 'glue', that holds these networks together. We may not necessarily be loyal to only one social networking site, and there are certainly a few of us that are not monogamous, but the fixed interest is the portal/ the tools that will always allow you to manage/share/distribute content no matter where your interests are. This includes web-based email, RSS, IM and mobile tools. We are using these daily to communicate more effectively with one another on social networking sites of our preference. This remains our true constant.
There are likely to be more applications such as these that supercede or enhance the current qualities of even tools like IM and email - and each and everyone of us are generating income for these portals in our daily romps with these social sites. These interactions equite to $$$.
Rubel sums it up nicely, so i'll leave you with this: "...more social networking translates into more bacn, emails and IMs from contacts you want to follow, RSS feeds, voicemails, etc. This cascades into more ad clicks, searches and banner/rich media ad views. The result? Free money for the portals..."
Just another side of the coin folks! Feel free to add your 2 cents.
It has been widely talked about for a while now - that the older generation are starting to join the conversations online because they are, in fact, spending much more time on the internet. This older generation has been identified as the plus-50 group and are being referred to as the 'silver surfers', which I have taken a liking to since stumbling across the term on Wired.
There is obviously a lot of untapped and extremely niche market potential with this group. It makes me think that there needs to be social networks out there such Facebook and MySpace that particularly target this demographic. There is a lot of money out there to be made if this is done by marketers properly. The market opportunity should not be ignored. Perhaps this will be my next business venture.
Watch this space!
You know me and my rants by now. I get fired up with things i'm genuinely passionate about. A mate/ colleague of mine, David, shared a weblink with me to a post that appeared on Strategic Public Relations. The post regards Facebook-based media relations, and gives it a big thumbs down - and I personally could not agree more.
I disagree with people pitching to media via Facebook. I even, to some extent, believe that most pitching should be conducted via the telephone, should this be the journalists' preferred method of communication. Granted, we should obviously take into consideration that we need to be "...connecting with them in the way that best suits them" - as the very same mate above pointed out.
I understand that tools such as Facebook, MySpace and even email are all very useful in helping us keep in contact with one another, but I also feel that they are increasingly being used to create profiles in which we, as PR professionals, can hide behind. I cannot completely criticise as I also very much fall under this at times (specifically, email). I strongly believe, however, that if you believe in what you are pitching out to media that should have the courage to pick up the phone and engage in direct dialogue with them. It is very hard to hide behind a facade over the phone.
Back to my earlier point though, I do realise that some journalists prefer to be pitched to over email (which is fine), but I just don't think there are too many journalists out there that would find a media pitch professional if it was posted to their wall on Facebook.
We also need to remember that we should be able to separate our private and personal lives, and this in itself is becoming increasingly difficult with the emergence of Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook. Understand that social media tools these days are at the heart of helping companies/ professionals create a direct dialogue with their publics, but this does not mean as PR professionals (the intermediaries) that we should be using all the latest tools to engage media and all the time!
So I leave you on these notes:
There is a fine line where a professional relationship becomes stalking and I think, in most situations, chatting to journalists' using this medium is just that!
We need to remember what is at the heart of PR - 'building relationships' and not 'runing them'!
A lot of people are talking about it and many people are using it but if you are interested in social media and have had a deep dive into it, chances are you are flooded with definitions and explanations that could definitely be simplified.
There is plenty of buzz around sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace - but what does this mean for the communications landscape? Is it really changing dramatically, to the point that we should all being paying attention? Is it changing the way i communicate my client's values? ...and so you get my point.
Dion Hinchcliffe, Web 2.0 and social computing expert, has worked up a skeleton outline of some of the parameters for explaining what social media is. It is also explained in a little more depth in Social Computing magazine.
The main differences between traditional media and social media have been wrapped up as follows:
Communication in the form of conversation, not monologue:
This implies that social media must facilitate two-way discussion, discourse, and debate with little or no moderation or censorship. In other words, the increasingly ubiquitious comments section of your local blog or media sharing site is NOT optional and must be open to everyone.
Participants in social media are people, not organisations:
Third-person voice is discouraged and the source of ideas and participation is clearly identified and associated with the individuals that contributed them. Anonymity is also discouraged but permissible in some very limited situations.
Honesty and transparency are core values:
Spin and attempting to control, manipulate, or even spam the conversation are thoroughly discouraged. Social media is an often painfully candid forum and traditional organizations -- which aren't part of the conversation other than through their people -- will often have a hard time adjusting to this.
It's all about pull, not push:
Like John Hagel and John Seely Brown observed in the McKinsey Quarterly a year ago or so, push-based systems, of which one-way marketing and advertising and command-and-control management are typical examples are nowhere near as efficient as pull systems. Pull systems let people bring to them the content and relationships that they want, instead of having it forced upon them by an external entity. Far from being a management theory, much of what we see in Web 2.0 shows the power of pull-based systems with extremely large audiences. As you shape a social media community, understanding how to make embrace pull instead of push is one of the core techniques. In social media, people are in control of their conversations, not the pushers.
Distribution instead of centralization:
One often overlooked aspect of social media is the fact that the interlocutors are so many and varied. Gone are the biases that inevitably creep into information when only a few organizations control the creation and distribution of information. Social media is highly distributed and made up of tens of millions of voices making it far more textured, rich, and heterogeneous than old media could ever be (or want to be). Encouraging conversations on the vast edges of our networks, rather than in the middle, is what this point is all about.
There isn't really any new insights in the above, but it's nice to have all the core information on social media pulled together nonetheless. I particularly like the 'distribution' idea - I love that we now have a model that has moved from a one way information flow to a multi flow. Now all of us are citizen journalists and we don't have to rely on traditional media being the only source of information. I will have to find the exact percentage, but these days more and more journalists are looking online and particularly towards blogs for story ideas and information.
Don't get me started on immediacy. The real-time nature of the internet opens up many other other conversations. I might take this one offline for now :)
