Facebook users decline in 14 of top 20 markets over last 3 months

Facebook has been in the news a lot this week, Facebook home is certainly an interesting development but that’s not what I want to write about today, its this:

Social bakers

That data is taken from Social Bakers for Q1 2013, it shows that Facebook users have declined in a whole load of markets. Europe and the USA are most numerous in the list of markets but the biggest % declines are in Indonesia and Malaysia.

This is a concern for Facebook, when combined with other recent surveys about Facebook losing their younger user base this could become a real problem.

Now the real question is does this mean that Facebook only continues to show paper growth as older users and lagards get into it and due to a few developing markets (Brazil etc.) but it’s not as important as it was 12-24 months ago as sites like Tumblr, Twitter etc. grow?

What do you think?

Taking on a new challenge

I know, I don’t blog often enough. This isn’t because I don’t have enough to say, as anyone who knows me will testify, it’s mostly because I have been very busy with work, moving house, and training for the Brighton Marathon (sponsor me!)

This blog post is about the first of those things that generally keep me from blogging, work. I love my job, I get to do amazing things like this:

And work with some awesome people. Nokia’s been through one hell of a transition in the last couple of years, it’s something I am proud I am part of and am sure the experience will serve me very well in the future.

Old Nokia logo

Now a new challenge has presented itself within Nokia and from the 2nd of April I will move out of the global social media team and start as Head of Digital Marketing and Advocacy for Nokia Europe. I’m excited, very excited, its a big and exciting job, in a new team with new challenges and responsibilities.

I am proud to have done such great work with some great people as global Editor in Chief, hopefully this is the start of something else I can be proud of.

But first: I have a marathon to run, will blog more after that, promise.

Aside

We often joke that the only thing you can be sure of in our team is that everything will change! The below kinda proves that point for large organisations:

It really validates the “mission leadership” approach to management, where a clear vision and mission is given to each team and sub missions to individuals or working groups within the team, everything works toward the mission and adapts to changes around the organisation to achieve it.

In today’s world it seems that organisations are changing far faster than they ever did previously, making clear missions and focus for individuals and teams a very necessary anchor.

Dan Wieden on the future of TV and social

Really interesting interview:

What I find particularly smart is the view on broadcast media as a conversation starter. The message here is simple really: Integrated marketing works. 

Manchester City vs QPR was a microcosm of all that is great and terrible about the Premiership

The 13th of May 2012 will go down as one of the most exciting days in Premiership history, if not footballing history. It had so many sub-plots I could barely keep up…

Man City with no top flight title since 1968 lead their greatest rivals Man U with a massive goal difference in their favour, all they have to do is not slip up against relegation fodder QPR, that is QPR managed by ex-Man U legend Steve Bruce, unceremoniously dumped from a management job at Man City after the money came in and he failed to deliver. Several of his key purchases from City starting against him.

But on the other end of the table there is the fight for survival between QPR and Bolton. QPR struggling to retain their premiership status after promotion last year and Bolton suffering from insane injury troubles this season including the shocking collapse of Muamba on the pitch against Tottenham earlier this year.

That is to say nothing of the fights for European places between Tottenham, Arsenal, Newcastle and Chelsea.

But that’s all by the by. Let’s focus on the Man City vs QPR game:

First off what was great about today at Man City:

Games like this always have the potential for poetry, matters of relegation and the championship are decided on the final day of the season in battles between those fighting to avoid the drop and those fighting for long-eluded glory. That is great. Today lived up to the hype, it was a great game of football, both sides fought to the end, both gave their all, as did the fans, there was real passion and that’s exciting.

There are not many sporting events in the world that can, organically, produce such amazing tension and so many BIG personalities (ahem, Tevez) and throw them all together with such skill to produce something awesome that also means so much to so many people (whatever else you can’t take anything away from the fans of Man City, they wanted it!)

But…

And it’s a big but. This match up should never have been the title decider, whatever we say about the passion of Man City, the players and the management no one can argue with the fact that the title really belongs to Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. He paid for it.

That makes me sad, teams get good, they make money out of being good, but that money and that success comes from developing young talent, from great management, coaching and everything else that goes with it. They are built over time. Look at Manchester Utd and Arsenal, even Tottenham (2,3 and 4 respectively this season) all have been built, long term. Yes Man U’s team is “worth” more than Man City’s (169m to 162m, I think) but it doesn’t matter, they didn’t have a single investor come in and buy all that in the last 3 years like City did.

The problem here is it’s unsustainable, teams owned by oligarchs and monarchs don’t put down roots, they pick off the best talent, pay obsene money and further the insane levels of unsustainable economics that exist in modern football, they drive smaller clubs salaries up, they drive the expectations of young players up, they create a vacuum that uses large amounts of money to substitute everything else, it sucks… (excuse the pun)

And then there is Mr Barton.

A troubled young man to say the least, probably to be subject to one of the longest violent conduct bans ever seen, but he will probably play again, somewhere. This is the kind of person being created by the modern game, we’re taking people with well co-ordinated feet, who love a sport, we’e throwing literally £100,ooo’s a week at them, then putting them up on a huge pedestal and scrutinising their every move as they are mollycoddled by a team of people who take care of everything for them. We then wonder why some of them are nuts.

Today was a great day

Full of drama, passion and goals, but I wonder how, in the long term, football will continue to produce such spectacles.

Is community management a bad idea?

I had an interesting conversation on Friday with a marketing agency called Qube from Brighton, we sat on the roof terrace at Nokia’s Soho office and began by discussing the state of the industry, a point I made in that meeting and a point I fully planned to carry through into a blog post was that community management is, to an extent, becoming a commoditized offer, as the scale of online communities grow managing the 100′s, 1,000′s or even 100,000′s of engagements every day with large brands social accounts, on key networks, Twitter, Facebook and blogs to name a few becomes a huge scaling challenge. So how do brands solve that challenge? They look at technologies and outsourced or in-house solutions (people) to solve the scale issue, to deal with these queries efficiently.

The problem we have at the moment are that most of those solutions are driven from comms and marketing, but these are not comms or marketing problems, many brands still look to marketing or comms agencies (be they social media specialists of not) to run their social presences and engage on their behalf. Agree or disagree with this approach scale makes doing this for much longer untenable, in the same way that you don’t pay marketing agencies to staff your inbound call centres you don’t pay them  to engage with customer service queries in social.

So we begin to look to the same technological and outsourcing solutions we looked at for our customer care (read: call centres), we implement systems to find, batch, and present these Facebook or Twitter queries to lower-skilled and (crucially) lower priced customer care representatives who duly answer from their digital call centre, or “social media hub”, “war room”, “control centre” or whatever you want to call it. Even back in my days at 6Consulting (Now Radian6 UK) selling monitoring software I pitched, and sold, to call centre operations looking to get in on this game…

So that’s it, as these brand social presences evolve then the CS teams come in and take on the reactive elements, leaving marketing to get on with using the “reach” and “engagement” to generate “buzz” and sell stuff while CS clean up the mess, everyone is back in their box and we all move on.

No way! The problem is that as we look to engage at real scale we industrialise the process and it loses the point. Sure you can tick your hypothetical “social business” box and tell your CMO or CEO “we’re engaging X people per day” but you’re missing the point. Why did customers come to bitch on your Facebook page (for example) in the first place? They lacked a voice, they felt like a number stuck on hold to a call centre to talk to someone who didn’t care, didn’t understand and read a script, so they found a new place to go. If you turn this new place into a microcosm of the old place (marketing broadcasting messages and a cost-managed “social call centre” team dealing with complaints) then you have failed and missed the point: Customers are complaining for a reason.

Instead of thinking about how best to segment or manage your customers, promoters and detractors between different silos, cost centres and processes, why not put your customers at the heart of your business? I mean right in the middle, forget trying to “manage the community” and instead listen to them. No that doesn’t mean listen as in “I got me a monitoring tool and an analyst / agency to give me a monthly PowerPoint” I mean active listening, horizontally across the business. Democratise within the organisation and give your employees the power to listen, engage, learn and act, give them tools to help, tie bonuses to it, make it part of the contract that they have to spend 1 day a month responding on facebook or whatever it might be!

But what about managing the community? Is it really a bad idea? Well, as usual there is no easy answer, but my response would be to think about this differently: Manage your community by showing them you care, really care, not by @replying them and saying so, but by fixing the problems, by making better products and by making sure they get a first class experience at all touch points with social as a key feedback loop. 

In short, Community management is only a bad idea if it’s done badly. Find the problems and inefficiencies that lead to people coming onto your social properties and bitching, fix them. I have said this before and I will say it again:

Forget trying to be a social business, be a good business!

There won’t be a Facebook killer…

When Mark Zukerberg first started thinking big about Facebook he wasn’t thinking about the company as “cool” or about how to maximise revenue (he actively opposed advertising on the site) he was thinking about how to create a utility, something that became part of the collective routine of the internet generation. Not an easy thing to do, but now Facebook sits alongside Google as a true internet utility, it is THE social network.

And that’s the thing, the ubiquity of the site, particularly in the sub 30 demographics, have led to investment among its users, by that I mean investments of time… People have invested a lot of time learning Facebook, adding friends, uploading photos, building networks and it has entered our lexicon, “Facebook me” or “I facebooked them” is universally recognised.

So when you think about “the next facebook” or “a facebook killer” you are thinking in the wrong way, the development cycle in social networking has gone beyond that now, just as the search engine wars ended and are now dominated by Google the social networking wars are now ending with Facebook and twitter dominating the mainstream. That does not mean there is not room for innovation and new ideas, sites like Pinterest show that all too clearly, but these sites need to think about how they work with the big boys, not how they usurp them.

Let me put it really simply: Who wants to spend a load of time setting up and maintaining ANOTHER site like Facebook. The next big innovation will integrate it, not replace it!