Justin Gibbs » Social Media

Will social games push users to open data standards?

justingibbs — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:53:21 +0000

Social gaming is getting a lot of buzz lately. Not only is the industry profitable but it’s driving a lot of Facebook usage – the killer-app of social networks. A recent study from PopCap showed that many are using Facebook as a game platform.

Nearly half (49%) of the times when they log into social networks, social gamers do so specifically to play social games.

But no industry likes to be dependent on one company. Zynga has already begun to try and move away from Facebook by launching FarmVille.com. Social game developers love the Facebook firehose but don’t want to be dependent on it, which makes the latest version of BuddyPress interesting. With version 1.2.1 installation is as easy as adding a plugin to a standard WordPress blog.

Now you can use BuddyPress with your single site installation of WordPress, and you can keep your existing theme. Seriously, could BuddyPress have made it any easier for you to add social networking to your site? I know I can’t wait to try it out this weekend, how about you?

Which leads me to ask – will the growth of open independent social networks and protocols become a new platform for social games? And if they do, will social games in turn push users to these open data standards?

The first hurdle is registration

Having to register and setup an account had already kept me from participating in many an online forum and the same is likely with social networks. I can barely keep my Facebook account up to date much less MySpace, Friendster, and Orkut. With Ning I only have one login to access any social network they host. BuddyPress could integrate a similar type of solution using Gravitar or OpenID.

Second hurdle is content over connections

Ning has certainly made a good business out of servicing independent user-generated social networks. They aren’t exactly open but as an example they can be very telling. For one, Ning shows that it is more a content play than connecting with friends like on Facebook. Ning users setup networks around a club, organization, or a fan club. Much of its social networks can be considered niche.

Get a boost from social games

Ning has already proven that independent social networks can work, but like name brand social networks they can probably benefit from an infusion of social games. BuddyPress already supports a plugin framework which can be used to create some types of social games. Knowing that these independent social networks will be about content, imagine a social network about bread having a social recipe game? And if you don’t want to build it how about pulling from the WordPress plugin community or social game companies – who wouldn’t want more distribution.

Push for open data standards

If BuddyPress proves half as succesful as WordPress it will be a huge win for open data standards. It will also lend support for OStatus and other open standards. Combine that with Google Buzz, built on open data standards, and you can see a few cracks forming in Facebook’s walled garden.

But I think the biggest push might come from the social game developers trying to lessen their dependence on the Facebook fire hose. That might explain why Streamy CEO, Don Mosites, recently joined Zynga to work on a special project.

CEO Don Mosites, for one, is heading to Zynga to work on a “new, special project”. He won’t tell me what it is, but he promises it will be “big”. To be continued, I suppose.

If it’s true and social games are the killer-apps of social networks, it isn’t too much of a stretch to see their migration to open data standards migrating users there as well.

Will Google Buzz support social games?

justingibbs — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:56:17 +0000

I’m catching a lot of flack for being a believer in Google Buzz. Interestingly enough most of the flack is coming in through Google Buzz itself. One theme I keep hearing is “Where’s the social games?” The launch of Google Buzz brings up an interesting debate – are social games are the killer app of social networks.

With Google’s launch of its social networking feature for Gmail and mobile devices, Google Buzz, Tuesday, some are already speculating what’s next for new service. A killer app for Buzz? Social games.

If social games are the killer app, the question then becomes – is Google Buzz going to support social games? Off of the top of my head I can think of a few reason for and against it.

Reasons not to support social games

Facebook is already having difficulty striking a balance between viratlity and spam
Social games have the potential to change the dynamic of the social network itself – A-ya Chiu of Taiwan added over 4,400 friends on Facebook to decorate her virtual house in Pet Society
Have to deal with app developers – It can be a pain as we’ve seen the flack over Apple’s app store, however Google has already dived into this with the Android app store

Reasons to support social games

Certainly promotes usage – Facebook has a good idea of how important social games and apps are to its daily usage numbers
It can promote mobile use of Buzz – People have to get the game fix on wherever they are
Promote location-based features through augmented reality games – Also lends nicely to Google’s geek cred

Reasons for supporting social games beyond Buzz

Can push Android and Chrome OS for netbooks – If they’re also working on a tablet version of Chrome OS, the games piece might be critical to its adoption
Drives transactions – Anyone remember Google Wallet, maybe they can dust it off
Push open data standards which will loosen the grip Facebook and Twitter have on users
Push Google’s campaign for HTML5 and 3D in the browser – Google Chrome OS doesn’t support Flash; they spend their own money building out O3D while at the same time supporting it’s open competitor WebGL

Google hasn’t always been consistent in their message but overall they seem to support open web standards over proprietary formats. My guess is that open standards are in their blood and they think they can out compete anyone no holds barred. If the world was using HTML5 and WebGL at the expense of other game engines and Flash they couldn’t be happier. Some have already speculated that Google could change gaming and that’s a whole new market for them to cash in on.

Problem is Gmail is a tool, not a service

Of course Gmail, the home of Buzz is a tool and not a true social network. I use Gmail for personal and business where as I use Facebook more for fun – wasting time. Google search is also a tool, and we’ve seen how much they’ve cluttered their search homepage with ads or anything else that might be of interest. Google knowingly leaves hundreds of millions of dollars on the table not putting ads on their homepage.

I’m betting that Google won’t be able to resist the chance to dive into the social game market, the question is if they do it in Gmail or outside of it? They could easily launch Buzz as a stand-alone site – get people use to it in Gmail but let it all hang out on the stand-alone site. Then again maybe they have a few tricks up their sleeve to strike a natural balance between virality and spam? It might be odd to play a game inside of Gmail, but they could also let you jump off site for the playing experience. In this scenario Buzz is just the communication piece. If that’s the route they go I would also expect them to require O3D or WebGL as they’ve already stated that they restricted Chrome OS to only web apps for security reasons.

What do you think – will Buzz support social games?

Google Buzz will nullify Facebook

justingibbs — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:16:43 +0000

The echo chamber is abuzz with, we’ll Google Buzz. While some are negative:

But like many Google services, it lacks any imagination or compelling reasons to use it. (Starting with the name, a rip-off from Yahoo.) As a result, it’s probably not a threat to any of the services it’s trying to disrupt.

I’m a little more positive. Google Buzz relies on Google’s strengths – email and algorithms to surface your connections automatically based on who you correspond with. This is your own social network without the setup.

Won’t kill Facebook but will nullify it

The Silicon Alley Insider article asks who would make the switch to Google Buzz.

Why would they switch to this Google service when there are no compelling reasons to do so?

And if Google isn’t going to actually kill Facebook with this thing, what’s the point?

I disagree that the point is to kill Facebook. Users have been notoriously transient with their Internet use. First it was Friendster, then MySpace, then Facebook. Some say many have already moved from Facebook to Twitter. However one thing that has proven rock solid is email. Google Buzz is an instant social network, better than that it self-adjusting. People I haven’t talked with in a year will fade to the background, rather than hang around on Facebook prompting me to ponder when and why I added them.

Even today I hear, “don’t Facebook me, just send it to my email.” Email is where users return to time after time. It’s what goes at the top of their resumé. It’s the most sure-fire way to get in contact with someone besides their phone number. When users return to Gmail they’ll slowly begin to use Google Buzz and over time nullify Facebook. It won’t kill Facebook but it will take a chunk out of it.

What does it mean for social games and Flash?

I wonder what Google Buzz will mean for social games? With Facebook trying to strike a balance between virality and spam, how will Google tackle the issue?

There is also the issue of Falsh. Flash is to work on Google’s mobile OS Android, however not on Chrome OS for netbooks (and possibly tablets). Google is also a big proponent of HTML5 and pushes O3D as a direct competitor for Flash.

Social media can get you in the conversation, but are companies ready?

justingibbs — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:57:43 +0000

Seems like everyone is getting into social media these days. And why not, it’s replacing ad buys in old media. However it’s almost comical how most seem to forget that social media is about joining the conversation and conversation denotes two way exchange. It’s odd to see companies like CBSNews and Chevron_JustinH on Twitter. Other than a one sided conversation I don’t know what anyone would hope to gain following companies like this or more importantly what a company would hope to gain? Companies like this already speak through press releases and I seriously doubt they’re ready to divulge anything more. If you’re a faceless company, that’s what we expect you to be.

However now it seems like every company is hiring a social media expert to come in and ready the company for the future, but how can they if the company isn’t ready to get into a conversation? Almost anyone can start a Facebook page for the company or a Twitter account but they can’t make the company ready to talk.

But if the company is ready to talk social media can expand the conversation. Just check out ChromeBagsSF or SouthwestAir.

Social media is the death of old media

justingibbs — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:45:18 +0000

Who would have guessed the downfall of old media would be social media? There was a time when people thought it would be the banner ad. When I worked at Yahoo! at the turn of the century and a small advertising company after that, we just took if for granite that advertisers would eventually migrate to the Web. It offered superior analytics and was where all the eyeballs were going, but the reality is people just didn’t click. I saw the eye tracking studies at Yahoo!, it was amazing how we could block out all advertising on the Web. When I worked at Experian I was convinced that it was only the older and novice users who clicked – that is outside of search marketing but Google pretty much has a lock on that.

Today traditional media is tanking, even CBS is on the brink. The economic meltdown certainly didn’t help but probably only accelerated a trend toward social media. Companies are taking money out of online marketing campaigns and transitioning that into their own websites, into social media. Funny how years ago we thought it would be the banner that silence old media.

Positioning as more than just marketing

justingibbs — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:48:50 +0000

I’m reading Peter Drucker’s seminal book on management and came across the interesting story of Sears expansion into new markets. It was meant to be a cautionary tale to learn from failure and reexamine your theory of the business. However I wonder if it can also be a cautionary tale of positioning.

Seventy years ago, in the midst of the Depression, Sears decided that automobile insurance had become an “accessory” rather than a financial product and that selling it would therefore fir its mission of being the informed buyer for the American family. Everyone thought Sears was crazy. But automobile insurance became Sears’s most profitable business almost instantly. Twenty years later, in the 1950s, Sears decided that diamond rings had become a necessity rather than a luxury, and the company became the world’s largest – and probably most profitable – diamond retailer. It was only logical for Sears to decide in 1981 that investment products had become consumer goods for the American family. It bought Dean Witter and moved its offices into Sears’s stores. The move was a total disaster. The U. S. public clearly did not consider its financial needs to be “consumer products.”

Was it that the consumers didn’t see them as consumer products yet or was it more due to the fact that they didn’t see Sears as that type of company? Al Ries and Jack Trout explained in their book Positioning, the proliferation of marketing messages has forever changed how we market to consumers. It’s moved the battle field into the mind of the consumer and they only have one slot, or if you’re lucky a few slots, for any product category. If you already see BMW as the leader in driving performance it’s nearly impossible for another car to knock them off and you’re better off trying to create another slot to own – Volvo and safety.

Sears expanded into auto insurance and diamonds when there were much less messages plastered everywhere. Consumers hadn’t yet built up processes to deal with the influx of messages. By the time Sears bought Dean Witter the consumer had already put Sears into a slot, a slot that didn’t include consumer products. Of course that in itself should prompt Sears to reexamine their theory of the business as Drucker advices.