Archive for June 11th, 2009

What’s a friend worth? … Not to you, to marketers, that is.

June 11, 2009

Ken’s Take: Part of my summer research, I’m trying to learn more about the the marketing power of search engines (i.e. Google) and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn). As a proponent of the Customer Lifetime Value methodologies, I’m intrigued by the “value of a (networked) friend”. 

Below are highlights from a Business Week article on the subject.  Short on answers, but sets up the problem …

* * * * *

Excerpted from Business Week, “Learning, and Profiting, from Online Friendships”, May 21, 2009

Friendships aren’t what they used to be. Practically every hand we shake and every business card we exchange can lead to an invitation, sometimes within minutes, for a “friendship” on LinkedIn or Facebook.

What do these relationships say about us and the people in our networks? Companies armed with rich new data and powerful computers are beginning to explore these questions. They’re finding that digital friendships speak volumes about us as consumers and workers, and decoding the data can lead to profitable insights.

Companies are working fast to figure out how to make money from the wealth of data they’re beginning to have about our online friendships.Calculating the value of these relationships has become a defining challenge for marketers.  They’re finding that if our friends buy something, there’s a better-than-average chance we’ll buy it, too. It’s a simple insight but one that could lead to targeted messaging in an age of growing media clutter.

An immense new laboratory of human relations is taking shape. Millions of us are playing, working, flirting, and socializing online.  —. The network behavior of 295 million e-mailers and legions of the 200 million Facebook users is producing oceans of data, 

A critical finding: “The value of most information has collapsed to zero. The only scarce resource is attention.”   This has created what many call the “Attention Economy.”

The easiest way is to get tips from friends. They’re our trusted sources. At least a few of them know us better than any algorithm ever could. Little surprise, then, that the companies most eager to command our attention are studying which friends we listen to.

Statistically, friends tend to behave alike. A couple of years ago researchers at Yahoo found that if someone clicked on an online ad, the people on his or her instant chat buddy list, when served the same ad, were three to four times more likely than average to click on it. It makes sense. Friends share interests.

But it raised lots of questions. Which types of friends have the most meaningful correlations with each other? People have always confided in a small circle of intimates, often only two or three. They’ve also had wider circles of experts for specific advice, whether on cars or cooking. Then there’s a broader circle of acquaintances whose opinions count far less but who can still generate buzz about a new restaurant or senatorial candidate.

By studying patterns of interactions on networks, researchers are working to predict which friends we trust and which we pay attention to in each area of our lives. A research scientist at Facebook, has perhaps the greatest lab in history for studying friendship. He can study social media communications including wall posts, shared photos, pokes, and friend requests among 200 million people.

For all its popularity, Facebook has yet to prove itself as an advertising platform. Visitors, it seems, focus on their friends and pay scant attention to ads. Few click on them, and advertisers pay pennies for page views. Consequently, Facebook, with its estimated revenue of $300 million this year, brings in scarcely a dime a month per member.

An average Facebook user with 500 friends actively follows the news on only 40 of them, communicates with 20, and keeps in close touch with about 10. Those with smaller networks follow even fewer.

image

What can this teach advertisers? People don’t pay much attention to most of their online friends. By focusing campaigns on people who interact with each other, they’ll likely get better results.

In an industry where the majority of ads go unclicked, even a small boost can make a big difference. In one market test, tailoring offers based on friends’ responses helped lift the average click rate from 0.9% to 2.7%. Although 97.3% of the people surfed past the ads, the click rate still tripled.

All of networked humanity mingles in avast marketplace, trading information, creating alliances, doing favors. We may not think of our connections in such mercantile terms. But for business and individuals alike, the value in online friendship is a central focus.

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_22/b4133032573293.htm?chan=magazine+channel_in+depth

Jumping over the limbo bar …

June 11, 2009

Back on Feb. 16, I suggested a stake in the ground for measuring the success of Team Obama’s stimulus spending –- namely,  the 8% to 8.5% unemployment rate that economists were predicting under a “do nothing” scenario. 

Well, now that unemployment has blown past 9%, the “saved or created” math is getting pretty creative to say the least …  and the shaky argument “it would have been even worse” is taking center stage.

Below is a reprise of the original post.

* * * * *

Obama’s team sets the stimulus bar at limbo level …”,

Obama says the trillion dollar pork-laden, faux stimulative program will “save or create up to 4 million jobs”.

Last week, I pointed out that “up to” provides mucho definitional cover by itself, but that the serious wiggle room comes from “jobs saved” — a comparison against some fabricated “what if” number.

Well, the fabricated “what if” number is already being planted:

Austan Goolsbee, one of Obama’s chief economic advisers, says  he’ll consider the effort successful if the worst scenarios don’t come to pass, “if by the end of 2009 we aren’t looking at GDP numbers that are huge negatives, if unemployment rises to the 8% range rather than the 11% that some are predicting.”

I can’t find any non-Obama paid economist saying 11%.  Most economists are saying that the unemployment rate will peak in the range of 8 to 8.5% if we do nothing.  Apparently, Team Obama is prepared to declare success (i.e. claim millions of jobs saved) is the stimulus plan does about as well as doing nothing. The jobs saved will be calculated against a disaster scenario that they’ll specify, thank you.

In other words, a victory party is guaranteed …

* * * * *
Reference for Goolsbee quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/easton_economicteam.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021310

Original post:
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/obamas-team-sets-the-stimulus-bar-at-limbo-level/