From Twitter Blog, we got a new advertising model: Timely Tweets.
"we're introducing a way to ensure that the most important Tweets from the organizations you follow reach you directly, by placing them at or near the top of your timeline. These Promoted Tweets will scroll through the timeline like any other Tweet, and like regular Tweets, they will appear in your timeline just once. Promoted Tweets can also be easily dismissed from your timeline with a single click."
"We’ll be rolling out and testing this new offering over the next several weeks with a select group of partners, including Best Western, Dell, Gatorade, Groupon, HBO, JetBlue, LivingSocial, Microsoft Xbox, Red Bull, Sephora, Starbucks, Summit Entertainment’s “50/50”, TNT and Virgin America among others — with more to come soon. During this phase, you may also see Promoted Tweets in your timeline from non-profit organizations you follow, including charity: water, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Room to Read, The American Red Cross and Water.org."
This strategy is really smart. There are several reasons:
1. Most people hate ads they are not interested in. But now users choose to follow the promoted tweets themselves, which will definitely reduce their dissatisfaction.
2. The tweets have few infulence to the timeline because they only appear once and people can remove easily.
3. Both ads from business and NGO will be combined together, thus people will smell less "commercial atmosphere".
Twitter used to promote ads by placing ads on the top of timeline. Many people regarded it as unuseful, unmeaningful, and invaluable things. This strategy got low achievements. I think the new strategy will have a better future. Well rounded free service plus commmercial ads can still generate customers' attention and interest. Google's success is a good example.
PS: sorry for the inconvenience that you have to read Chinese part, guys. I try several times, but still can not resolve the language problem. My language setting in dashboard is already English, but i don't know what to do.
PS2: I 've got a very ridiculous problem: each time i wana comment on your blogs, or even mine, i have to log in my account, and then type the letters, and then login again , type again, login again...it's an endless circle. I just can not comment on any post. Quite weird. I should have communicated with you guys more.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Can Google+ really succeed?
After several failure of social networking exploration, lots of people begin to believe that Google can not compete with Facebook in social network construction. The reason is quite simple: once a big company has plenty of loyal customers, it will be impossible for the new comers to succeed in the same market.
The author read two articles which shows two opinions about whether Google+ has bright future. The first one comes from Marco Arment, who designs instapaper. He did not use Google+ before.
"The network effect is extremely high in social networks. It’s absolutely a boil-the-ocean problem. For Google+ to be useful to you, most of your “friends” (in some context) need to be using it on a regular basis. And most people won’t use more than one social network regularly."
"To get widespread adoption, therefore, this needs to take a lot of users away from Facebook, and quickly. Google+’s specific features are far less relevant until after (and if) it gets widespread use and competes strongly with Facebook."
Macro's idea has a significant point: a social network must have a constant target group.
Google has millions of loyal customers and Google+ has powerful expansibility, thus there should be a galaxy of loyal customers. The only question is, how large this group is. Although Google announced that Google+ is not a substitute product of Facebook, almost every one knows there are too many functions that both of them are using. In other words, there will be a conflict in competing target customers.
Nowadays Facebook has over 7 billion users, that's vey big. Moreover, their "circles" have been there. If these people do not leave facebook, will they be interested in creating another circle?
"I don’t know the answer. I’m terrible at predicting what will and won’t be successful, especially socially. Navigating the demo site was frustrating and confusing for me, and it seems like more effort was spent making Google’s staff happy than considering its clarity and usefulness to users — a common complaint I have with Google’s products."
Google+ was firstly tested by Google staffs. This "internal" test may not be regarded so friendly if it is tested by general users. But Google+ opens feedback system to acquire more information to develop and improve in a fast way.It is clear to find their willingness to make a change.
To sum up, although Macro has some dissatisfactions about Google+, he never says that Google+ can not be succeeded. Acutally, Google+ are receiving warm welcome by so many users that even exceeds their expectation. The result is amazing.
Here is another article, wriiten by Jon Bell, who works in the team of windows phone. In his opinion, he disagrees with people who think Google+ will fail soon.
"Even as everyone explains all the reasons it won't work, and ticks off why it's just a me-too effort, and I know that I'm seeing things through the lens of a designer, and not necessarily a business man, and I think of all the reasons it can still fail even if I'm getting the feeling ... the feeling is there. And I've felt it before, through the anti-hype:
The author read two articles which shows two opinions about whether Google+ has bright future. The first one comes from Marco Arment, who designs instapaper. He did not use Google+ before.
"The network effect is extremely high in social networks. It’s absolutely a boil-the-ocean problem. For Google+ to be useful to you, most of your “friends” (in some context) need to be using it on a regular basis. And most people won’t use more than one social network regularly."
"To get widespread adoption, therefore, this needs to take a lot of users away from Facebook, and quickly. Google+’s specific features are far less relevant until after (and if) it gets widespread use and competes strongly with Facebook."
Macro's idea has a significant point: a social network must have a constant target group.
Google has millions of loyal customers and Google+ has powerful expansibility, thus there should be a galaxy of loyal customers. The only question is, how large this group is. Although Google announced that Google+ is not a substitute product of Facebook, almost every one knows there are too many functions that both of them are using. In other words, there will be a conflict in competing target customers.
Nowadays Facebook has over 7 billion users, that's vey big. Moreover, their "circles" have been there. If these people do not leave facebook, will they be interested in creating another circle?
"I don’t know the answer. I’m terrible at predicting what will and won’t be successful, especially socially. Navigating the demo site was frustrating and confusing for me, and it seems like more effort was spent making Google’s staff happy than considering its clarity and usefulness to users — a common complaint I have with Google’s products."
Google+ was firstly tested by Google staffs. This "internal" test may not be regarded so friendly if it is tested by general users. But Google+ opens feedback system to acquire more information to develop and improve in a fast way.It is clear to find their willingness to make a change.
To sum up, although Macro has some dissatisfactions about Google+, he never says that Google+ can not be succeeded. Acutally, Google+ are receiving warm welcome by so many users that even exceeds their expectation. The result is amazing.
Here is another article, wriiten by Jon Bell, who works in the team of windows phone. In his opinion, he disagrees with people who think Google+ will fail soon.
"Even as everyone explains all the reasons it won't work, and ticks off why it's just a me-too effort, and I know that I'm seeing things through the lens of a designer, and not necessarily a business man, and I think of all the reasons it can still fail even if I'm getting the feeling ... the feeling is there. And I've felt it before, through the anti-hype:
Facebook will never succeed because everyone's already on MySpace.
Wii can never succeed because gamers go for graphics.
Apple should just liquidate and give the money back to the shareholders.
iPod? Less space than a Nomad, no wireless, lame.
The iPhone can't possibly gain any real market share.
iPod nano makes no sense, all they did is make it smaller. It'll never work.
People have been predicting a market correction for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
Land never loses value. iPad is just a big iPod.
Windows Phone? The world is moving to Android. Why bother?
I used to try and respect pundits, but then I compared my track record against theirs.
I've spent all night on Google+, and I'm excited. I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not predicting mainstream success. But I'm impressed.
And I've learned to trust this feeling."
No matter how popular a product is, it can not be perfect everywhere, and there should be something it need to improve. However, the reason it becomes popular, is that it leaves unique impression to people. Once people get the feeling to use it more, they begin to become loyal users. Foor Google+, it is similar. Although it has outstanding competitors, it has lots of things to be developed, once people try it, then they will get the feeling to continue using it, and then Google+ will be more and more successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)