Who the hell uses mobile for social networks anyway?

You might have noticed the blog has been quiet for about 2 weeks now, and although i would like to cite "lack of inspiration", twitter and procrastination probably answers it better. However, i just read an article ran on MobiAd on BuzzCity's founder KF Lai on his experience with MyGamma, a rapidly growing mobile social network.

MyGamma serves ads in over 100 countries and is rapidly showing a proven revenue model on the much lauded promise of social networks and location based targeting. In My Lai's words " mygamma is targeting “un-wired” consumers. In other words, people who do not have regular access to a PC and so their only means to connect to internet is through mobile." .. Wow.

Wow because for the first time, someone is making a point that demand based services on mobile isn't the only differentiating factor. THE ENTIRE MARKETPLACE is. We have been assuming the mobile target is an evolution of the 2.0 user experience. E.g we develop facebook mobile to cater to the facebook audience on the go , similarly for myspace etc etc.

But what Buzz City has done is to create a mobile social networking experience for the person that has no access to any wired device. And this is the essence of why his mobile community thrives. The difference is that once again, scarcity leads to demand. Not as a software but as a channel.

This is advantageous in so many ways. From barrier of entry fences to innovation adoption, having a purely mobile community is genius in my book.

How can we apply this? In developed countries where web and mobile is more interlinked, is it possible to find an audience that depends solely on mobile from an infrastructure standpoint? Maybe not, but let me try to challenge the demand marketplace again.

How about Taxi Drivers? Housing brokers? Insurance agents? Basically anyone who is mobile 3/4 of the working day. Will a mobile networking site that is productivity centric make more sense? A Taxi driver may not go home after a long day to update his facebook, but he may be enticed to update a cab mobile social network on traffic conditions, get updates on road blocks etc. Could this same driver be susceptible to location based ads?

It's certainly not proven , but what i hope you takeaway is that our assumptions on WHO mobile consumers and adopters are may need to change. How platforms monetize mobile may rely not only on services innovation but on channel innovation.


Song of the blog : "Run' by Amy Macdonald

A little less conversation... A little more action

You've read it before, probably blogged about it too. These days, it's all about the conversation isn't it? Everywhere we turn our head, somebody out there seems to be preaching that brands need to open up conversation in order to understand, improve and connect with their audience. There is this idea that in every boardroom, there is this 1 man, tight lipped, arms akimbo refusing to talk.

Dont' get me wrong, brand to audience conversation makes sense to me except i can't help but think it's been taken a little too far off the rails . Let me explain, in a perfect marketing world, we would love to think that brands have our interests at heart and therefore the conversation is genuine. But, how can it be deemed a genuine conversation if the bottomline agenda from brands is " I need to know how to sell more of my stuff, talk to me so i know how to strategise better." When did conversation become consultancy?

You see companies "embracing" social media and suddenly, every consumer ( guilty as charged) starts clapping our hands and nodding our heads. This is hilarious, note: If the product has a problem, fix it. Don't wait for me to complain about it. Fix it. If you want to advertise, advertise. Don't name drop in my ear and expect me to play chinese whispers for you.

Yes Dell was hugely successful in utilizing conversation to push sales, but let's put the product in context. We are talking about a neccesity in today's world. When a product leader in a neccesity market asks the bottomline question (see above), it's not a hoax anymore. We want to buy laptops, we want to get a good Dell product. We need this therefore it's in our interests to contribute to the product development. How many brands/products fall under this category? Do we need to talk with Pepsi?

When we question why big brands still refuse to engage in the conversation, the answer generally rumbles along the lines of inertia or fear. I propose that it's way, way more simple. In my opinion, they have nothing to say.

And honestly, that is fine, look at Skittles. They had nothing to say, so they opened up the front door and let the whole world sit on their front porch shouting obscenities for them. Conversation yes. To what point?

I suggest having nothing much to add to the conversation is fine. Creating drivel to create the conversation smacks of desperation. Much like the nervous first date who mentally notes down carefully pre planned conversation topics only to find his palms getting sweatier with each passing mouthful.

In these instances where the conversation is not required, then more action is. Don't talk, do something. Engage in a social media push campaign. Rainbow colored candy? Sponsor and raise funds for the rainbow foundation. How about nice colorful widgets that help diabetics track their sugar intake?

My point here is that, conversations aren't magical wands that will somehow unclog the sales funnel. In most cases, there really isn't any content in these conversations. Yes, it's still relevant and i am an advocate of permission based marketing but the who where how and why still needs to be answered when a brand decides to jump on the conversation bandwagon. And if you realise that you don't have anything much to say in any open channel to no one in particular, then perhaps it's best to stop thinking about talking and start acting on those thoughts.


Song of the blog by Elvis