So Proud of my Alma Mater

Purdue University has developed a system that will soon integrate social tools such as Twitter and Facebook into the classroom. Taking a cue from many tech conferences, students will be able to post questions to a public forum visible to the professor and rest of the class. In addition, the system employs a Digg-style system which lets students vote up and down questions that they think is most important.

I'm incredibly proud of my former school for not just using this kind of technology, but for BUILDING it. 

Go Boilers!

5 Reasons Facebook Lite Won't Hurt Twitter

1. Different Populations. Despite the overlap we now see between our networks on Twitter and Facebook, the popular microblog was a channel for a very specific group of friends. Whether they be tech heads, ad junkies, or simply early adopters, Twitter has emerged as the place to sync up with X niche focused people whether you know them personally or not. This culture (and the type of conversation) has continued to grow. Although Facebook has updated itself as a tool to mirror Twitter, the people you're connected to remain the same. Will you therefore want to have the same style conversations with that group of individuals?

2. Asymmetrical relationships. Twitter established itself early on as a place where you could connect with people you DON'T know. While Facebook is moving in this direction with fan pages, the core audience of users has essentially grown up with building a network out of our actual "real" friends. Additionally, this psychology places Twitter into a higher bracket of credibility when it comes to information gathering. On Facebook we're all equal because we see updates from people who also see ours. On Twitter, a person with 10x more followers than friends is assumed to be smarter or more resourceful.

3. On the Go. While the Facebook iPhone application is absolutely stunning, let's take it out of the equation. Twitter updates and feeds can be much more easily digested on a vast arsenal of phones. Facebook has not had the benefits of this kind of mobile usage and thus has been branded as a web based destination not a mobile one. Although a slew of apps will most certainly come out now to support Facebook Lite, the Pavlovian behavior of updating your status when something interesting happens from the street has been established with Twitter.

4. Speaking of Apps. There are literally hundreds of applications built for Twitter. This creativity came from the fact that Twitter was extremely simple. Facebook conversley, went from very complex, to now relatively simple. Most of the interesting features coming from 3rd party Twitter apps for Twitter, can be done for Facebook Lite via Facebook regular. This potentially means that developers won't want to focus their creativity on Facebook lite and rather keep creating the innovative new tools for Twitter (thus driving more attention to the microblog with positive press).

5. Conditioning. Remember back in the 70's when Japanese cars revolutionized the product and how it was produced? When U.S. automakers started matching their Asian counterparts in quality and build (and they really did) did you see a massive migration back to domestic vehicles? The sentiment and buying decisions seem to favor the Japanese still. Twitter has made some tweaks since its inception but the essential function of the tool has remained the same. I've now lost count of how many times Facebook has drastically altered the structure of its home page. Let's just say it's 5 though. That's 5 times now that long time users have had to readjust their social networking habits to fit the model that Mark Zuckerberg thinks is best at the time. It's no secret, but humans don't like change. Where Twitter is a steady upward trending line with subtle increases in function over time, Facebook's life line looks more like the stock market. 

I'm sure there are bits and pieces of the story I need to investigate further that will strenghten or weaken my arguments. Would love your input.

Iran and Social Content. Tread carefully.

I usually don't talk about politics or philosophy on this blog, but as the Iranian situation is now intersecting with technology, I wanted to share some thoughts...

As Iranian leadership continues to shut down communication with the outside world by banning foreign journalists and blocking certain web channels, we here in the U.S. are applauding the power that social media is giving to Iranian protesters in terms of sharing their voice with the rest of the world. Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc are being filled with peepholes into people's lives and struggles and it's obvious that the majority of Americans and our media support these actions.

Let me be clear, I support the freedom of speech and I support what the protesters are doing. But I do wan't to offer a reality check:

The power that social media now wields in Iran to help act on the behalf of what is "right and good" as we percieve it, can just as easily be used for the opposite.

"Evil doers" are going to figure something out. They're going to figure out that they can't block this wave of information anymore. So the only option they are going to have is to fight fire with fire and stage their own information to pull the will of the crowd towards what they want to happen. Let's pretend for a second that the Iranian opposition leader Mousavi was in fact "evil." That once his green wearing supporters somehow managed to get him into power, that he would commit worse crimes against his people and the world than Ahmadinejad. AGAIN NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE, JUST CREATING A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. If such a thing were to take place it would be a very scary reality wouldn't it? It would mean there was an entity thatl was able to stir up the power of the masses, to flood twitter, to turn our avatars green, and to make us collectively bring something horrible into the world.

My point? We need to step back and be more critical than ever. Social media has the power to sway the hearts and minds of people around the world. This time it's for a cause you believe in, but next time it may not be.

Love Don't Cost a Thing (To The Consumer)

J-LO may not be the go-to source of information when it comes to the world of digital media, but in this case her song lyrics are right on the money (or rather, lack of it). According to a recent post by way of tech crunch, free online dating sites may soon give their paid counterparts a run for their money. (Ok no more bad puns...)

The full article can be found here, but to quickly recap:

-IAC, which owns and operates popular paid dating sites Match.com and Chemistry.com, launched a completely free dating site called DownToEarth.com

-The somewhat counterintuitive move is IAC/Match.com's answer to Plentyoffish.com, an incredibly popular dating site run by one man out of his apartment.

-IAC believes if someone is going to put Match out of business, it might as well be Match.

This situation seems to be indicating that content providers are quickly starting to understand that the "Freemium" model is very much becoming a reality, especially when it comes to the social networking space. Some of the most popular social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc are built around free access with monetization coming mainly from premium features.

Although the end goal of users wish to have on a dating site is different from other "traditional" social networks, the experience is still very similar. Users are being conditioned to message, view profiles, and chat on social networks (all for free) and having to pay for such activities on dating sites is clearly becoming an obstacle for consumers of these types of sites. It's obvious that these services can be provided for free, and as more of the target audience starts to realize this, the more important it will be for companies like IAC to come out as the BEST free resource for this niche social network.

IAC is showing a great deal of foresight here by leveraging its current infrastructure and use base towards pushing its own free version to the top of the charts. (with a strong advertising support model of course). There's no doubt they will try to milk the paid model for as long as they can, but building a safety net of sorts in the form of DownToEarth.com is a smart move.

In terms of other brands that are seeking to enter, or maintain their foothold in the social networking environment its important to remember that the above psychology is going to apply to many situations. Let's say you're a brand that is offering desired content. Perhaps it doesn't cost the audience any actual money, but if they are being advertised to, or somehow being asked to engage a brand, then in effect they are somehow paying for what they are getting. That being the case, the question that needs to then be asked is, can that audience go somewhere else to get the same content for free without the clutter of advertising intrusion?

Does the above point mean that all cobranded efforts are a waste of money? Not at all. However it needs to be understood that the brand, product, messaging needs to tie into the content or services in a way that enhance the original iteration. If you plan on competing with "free" you need to bring to make sure the customer is getting value from your intrusion so they look to your brand for content and not the countless other resources on the net.