So the folks at ad:tech is helping to solve this rather large problem. Innovation Alley is a new section of the ad:tech exhibit floor that is dedicated to interesting new startups in the advertising technology world. There are plenty of conferences that focus exclusively on technology and web startups but they’re attended largely by people within that world. You rarely find customers at these kinds of startup conferences. Industry conferences for different verticals such as advertising, healthcare, transportation, etc., could take ad:tech’s example and devote space to highlight innovative new startups that would normally not have resources to buy exposure to influentials and decision makers from the industries they’re targeting.

The startups I found most compelling at Innovation Alley were ones that addressed the emerging importance of social media in advertising and marketing. I haven’t watched television for a long time. Most of my friends haven’t as well. Not only do we not see mass market television advertising, we don’t trust it anyway. And while we begin many of our purchases online through search engines, we will increasingly get influenced by our social networks of friends, colleagues and relatives to buy things we hadn’t considered before. This is why Google the Goliath is afraid of David Facebook.

Peerset helps advertisers improve their audience targeting. From what I gathered by talking to some of Peerset’s employees, the company combs through social network profiles to construct anonymized data sets of interests and behaviors. The more you reveal about yourself on your profiles and social status updates, the more you will receive relevant advertising. As much as we’d like to believe that we’re individuals with unique tastes and opinions, we’re very much like the rest of our friends. We are more easily put into a group or several groups that share common characteristics than we believe. What I’d like to see is “data profiling” companies like Peerset and probable competitor Rapleaf use their technology to not only help advertisers serve advertising more accurately but to also just produce more interesting content. Sort of advertising by not advertising. Yes, that’s very vague and unhelpful but I think someone will figure out what I mean.

140 Proof delivers advertising exclusively on Twitter. The company helps brands target the right people in the Twitter universe. This is another example of the increasing importance of social networks and the opportunity to customize messages based on personal, yet public, information. 140 Proof claims that great tweets get retweeted. The retweet function, which was invented by users and not Twitter’s management, is one of the most simple, brilliant, and elegant ways to make a message viral. It would be interesting to get real hard data on how often marketing and advertising messages get retweeted versus “regular” tweets.

Brickfish helps brands create campaigns that get consumers to create user-generated content revolving around the brands. Many startups have tried to accomplish this kind of concept. It’s really difficult. As much as we’re becoming more social, we’re also becoming more cynical or skeptical. Consumers are trained to beware of blatant advertising. We might be even more cautious of blatant attempts to get us to help create still more blatant advertising. I’m sure that Brickfish has encountered resistance in some of their campaigns. Perhaps they’ll figure out how to systematically incent customers to sing the praises of brands. If someone can figure this out, I think they have a big hit.

I’m looking forward to the next ad:tech in New York. I hope they will continue to allow startups onto the show floor through the Innovation Alley program. You expect to see the big guns like Microsoft (MSFT) and Google there. There should be room made for pleasant surprises.

We are all early adopters now. Everyone is looking for the new new thing. When someone finds the latest new new thing, technology helps everyone else find out about it and we get to decide if we want to follow along. When done right this process moves lightning fast and blockbuster products surface almost instantaneously. New products cross the chasm faster than they’ve ever crossed before. For remarkable products, the chasm has shrunk.

Despite all this progress, there remains a lack of both art and science in the field of new product launches. We’re simply not moving fast enough or smart enough as we introduce new products because most entrepreneurs and brand managers don’t know how to launch. Billions of dollars go into research and development of new products every year. Billions more are wasted launching new products with misguided attempts to buy attention, interrupt audiences, and reach out to old, mainstream media. Thousands of products die early deaths because of bad launching.

There is a better way.

That’s why I’ve teamed up with Alex Krupp to change the world with LaunchHear. The idea for LaunchHear came out of an experiment called Swagapalooza Alex did during Seth Godin’s Alternative MBA program. We were both very lucky to have been given the opportunity to learn from Seth about bootstrapping, shipping, marketing, creating change, overcoming the lizard brain, becoming linchpins, making art, leading tribes, and being remarkable.

Equally exciting, we recently received seed funding from Y Combinator as part of the Winter 2010 batch. Wow! Y Combinator is without a doubt the best startup incubator in the world. No other incubator has been as consistent and prolific at picking great teams, seeding good ideas, and nurturing solid businesses. Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston invented the modern incubator model. They layer on value by teaching kick-ass product development and exposing us to mentors like Joshua Schacter, Paul Buchheit, and other successful technology entrepreneurs. The seed funding from Y Combinator is insignificant. What matters most is that the YC team has great taste and an incredible network of people.

So we’ll bring to bear all the goodness we learned from Seth combined with the special Silicon Valley way of building scalable technology businesses we learned at Y Combinator. And we’ll be looking to change the worlds of PR and advertising as applied to new product launches.

To bring about that change, we’ll focus on a few things:

• answer the burning question – what’s new?
• answer the passionate question – what’s interesting?
• make select bloggers, tweeters, and netizens happy by providing interesting things to point to
• help new and remarkable products cross the chasm faster
• level the playing field for companies regardless of launch budgets

There isn’t a lot here about tactics or the specific products or tools we’ll build. I want to focus on the big picture and the fundamental core values.

We’re barbarians at the gate, outsiders with strong opinions about what needs changing in public relations and advertising. We’re optimists. We believe that remarkable products can still make the world a better place. We’re passionate. We’re looking for great people who feel as strongly as we do.

Because of our posture and worldview, we’re going to make a lot of people in the PR and advertising worlds very nervous. That’ll signal we are on the right track. Fortunately, there are also a few linchpins, mavericks and brave souls within the castle walls who see the opportunity we see for drastic change and progress.

If you’re one of these brave souls, you can reach me by email at Allan[@]LaunchHear.com – we’ll have loads of fun!

Seth said something that really boggled my mind.

“Instead of fitting the marketing to the business, fit the business to the marketing.”

“What?!?! What is he talking about?” was my initial reaction.

Turning things upside down and completely rearranging the order and relationship of things seems appropriate in times like these. Wise men throughout history have championed the art of contrary thinking as one way to develop new ideas, options, and decisions.

Instead of Marketing as an afterthought designed to fit whatever product or service you’ve already decided to create, the business you create will depend entirely on how you want to live your life and what you want your day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, year-to-year activities to look like. What a refreshing way of looking at things!

When Microsoft (MSFT) bought a small stake in the wildly popular social network, the price paid implied an overall value of $15 billion. The rumored prices at which Facebook insiders are trying to unload some shares carry an implied overall value of as low as $3.75 billion to $5 billion.

It is clear that Facebook currently cannot be worth $15 billion. The Facebook Apps platform that attracted so much attention from independent software developers has lost a lot of momentum. Independent developers who invested a lot of time, money, and energy into creating Facebook Apps have found it increasingly difficult to attract a significant audience. While finding users has been tough, monetizing their creation has proven to be a Herculean task. Special venture funds created to fund Facebook apps have not been able to deploy much of their capital as most Facebook apps are ill-conceived or frivolous with no clear business model. I would return that money to limited partners rather than hope a genius comes along to battle for market share owned by early movers like Slide and RockYou!

Advertising, the main business model of free social networking platforms, continues to disappoint, with click-through rates and conversion rates declining alarmingly. While international growth remains strong, domestic growth is decelerating noticeably. This could be spun as a positive, but I don’t think the youth of other countries have spending power approaching anywhere near that of American youth.

Will this mark the end of the current cycle of funding exuberance on the part of venture capital firms for all things Web 2.0 or social? The pace of venture funding in this sector of the Internet really picked up when Myspace sold for close to $600 million to News Corporation (NWS-A). Since then, millions have been poured into all flavors of social networks and social networking apps. It reminded me of the fin de siècle bubble that burst so painfully for all involved. Below is an essay I wrote for an investment letter published in June 2007 distributed high net worth clients.

Irrational Exuberance 2.0

We are not calling a bust of the current bull market. As much as we admire Barron’s editor Alan Abelson’s wit and literary style, we are cognizant of the ravages that might befall our track record if we were permanent bears. Still, we can’t help but imitate his dour tone of the 1990s when he repeatedly called too early for the bursting of the dot com bubble. Mr. Abelson eventually got it right when we entered the new century and collectively blinked at the stratospheric levels we had taken the market to. Then as now, venture capital funding of cockamamie business ideas served as a reliable indicator of an impending rinsing out of “frothiness.”

As we once again witness new highs in the stock market, it may be wise to examine the shenanigans our friends in the venture capital world are participating in. Are they helping to start companies “built to last” or are they throwing money at silly business ideas “built to be sold?” After a quick survey of recent startup financings, we think a strong sense of déjà vu might visit us.

While yesteryear’s absurd venture deals were justified as the obsolescing of brick and mortar business models by an online nirvana fueled by UPS (UPS) and FedEx (FDX) trucks, today’s venture activity centers around “social networking” and the wisdom and power of crowds, also known as Web 2.0 in geeky circles.

Take NaturallyCurly.com for example. It proclaims itself as the social network for people with curly hair. Purportedly, individuals with curly locks need an online support network for all their hair maintenance difficulties. Don’t forget the most important feature of any social networking community, the ability to make friends with similar interests. We delight at the prospect of spending all our time discussing hair. A technology industry veteran who sold his company to Compaq invested $600,000 into this dandy of a site.

A little less silly but nonetheless vacuous is a website called Flixster. This is the social network for all things cinematic. Users rate movies, join fan clubs celebrating famous thespians, read up on news regarding upcoming films, and make friends.

Websites that allow people to rate movies and chat about their favorite scenes already exist. They just don’t allow people to make friends. This ability to make online friends convinced Lightspeed Ventures, a very reputable venture capital firm, to invest around $2 million into Flixster.

If the dollar amounts involved look nothing like the wasted mega-millions of the late 1990s, we present Geni.com, a website for constructing family trees. The premise revolves around getting relatives to help by emailing them a digital “widget” with which they could plug themselves in the appropriate branch of the family tree. It is the wisdom of crowds, albeit a familial one here, that makes this a very compelling idea indeed. Unfortunately, it occurred to us that great great great grandpa Bob of many years before cannot respond by email from Heaven. That did not prevent Charles River Ventures from injecting $10 million for 10% of the company, effectively valuing the then seven week old company without any revenues at $100 million. We believe the large valuation might have something to do with being able to turn relatives into online friends.

The Big Bang that gave rise to all this Web 2.0 insanity occurred when Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation bought the top dog of all social networks, Myspace, for $580 million. Users of Myspace could create their own web pages and browse around the online community to make friends. Google (GOOG) soon followed by buying YouTube for $1.6 billion. YouTube users upload their homemade videos for the whole world to watch. One of the key principles of Web 2.0 is getting the community to contribute user-created content. Did we mention that YouTube users could also make friends with fellow wannabe Spielbergs?

Almost overnight, lemming-like venture capitalists funded dozens of Myspace clones with typically cute techie names like Tagworld, Bebo (TWX), Facebook, Facebox, Multiply, and Gather. Of course, all of these allow users to make friends.

YouTube copycats receiving venture funding include Veotag, Kyte, Mogulus, VideoJug, YeboTV, and Brightcove. Although we haven’t used these sites personally, we’re quite sure you could make friends on all these websites. How many News Corporations and Googles remain to stuff the coffers of venture firms by buying their portfolio companies? It seems as if entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in this space are banking on many more buyouts to come.

It isn’t just the private venture capital world that has fallen to the seduction of easy profits. When flimsy businesses with short operational histories try to tap the capital markets by going public through an initial public offering and find a receptive market, we are treated to such delicious examples as GoFish (GOFHE.OB) , a video sharing website in the spirit of YouTube. Debuting last October on the over-the-counter “bulletin boards”, the fishy company achieved a peak market cap of $147 million. With only $45,580 in revenue and no profits to speak of, investors in GoFish are swimming in a foamy sea of hope and greed.

Our favorite new social network? Stockalicious, a website that allows users to keep track of their portfolios and compare their performances against the market and each other. We wonder if Alan Abelson might jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon and become a member of this Internet community. We could sure use a friend or two.

A few days ago, I wrote about the commoditization of social networks or rather the social networking feature sets that currently make Myspace and Facebook so unique and neat. Pioneers in social networking like Friendster and Myspace introduced a new data and software architecture that, at the same time clumsily and elegantly, met Internet users’ desire to interact and share content with each other. Finding old friends, connecting with new friends, sharing music and videos, playing collaborative games, and expressing oneself to virtual audiences of thousands all were groundbreaking features or functions that captivated a whole new generation of Web users.

These features generated higher levels of engagement (or stickiness) many times greater than traditional web properties. This stickiness in turn attracted marketers and advertisers who wanted to be where the people were. This stickiness premium netted the founders of social networking startups wealth reminiscent of the dotcom bubble. Myspace sold for nearly $600 million in a buyout by News Corporation (NWS-A), Facebook was valued at $15 billion by Microsoft (MSFT), and Bebo’s owners sold out to AOL (TWX) for $850 million.

With great rewards come hordes of wannabes and copycats. Many people are staking their future on social networking. Some are attempting to create me-too social networks. Others are pimping themselves as “experts” in social networking and offering their “consulting” services. I did the same with my SocialOptimize startup. Although my now defunct startup was able to deliver good social networking applications to prominent venture-funded startups, I soon realized that social networking would become a game with few winners and many losers. I argued that once Web 2.0 methodologies become widely adopted and social networks become a feature set rather than destinations, those same Web 2.0 methods will become standardized commodities.

That march to commoditization may occur faster than anticipated. Google (GOOG) recently announced its Friend Connect program, which allows virtually any website to plug in a turnkey social networking suite. Owners of websites can, like Google’s AdSense product, embed a snippet of code in their webpages and immediately enjoy the benefits of offering social networking features to their site customers or visitors. Think of Google Friend Connect as a more powerful Google AdSense, but instead of offering relevant text ads it offers your site visitors the ability to connect with their friends, connect with new friends, interact with each other with messages, and share content.

Here are the search engine giant’s stated high-order benefits of Google Friend Connect (GFC):

• Anyone with a basic understanding of the Web can implement GFC, no need to hire an expensive programmer or self-branded “social media guru.”
• Drive traffic: people who discover interesting sites can bring their friends with them, and can opt-in to publish their activities on those sites back into their social network, attracting even more visitors.
• Increase engagement: access to friends and OpenSocial applications provides more interesting content and richer social experiences.
• Less work: any site can have social components without hiring a programming team or becoming a social network.

That last point is key. Google doesn’t want more “social networks” per se – it just wants more websites to have social features. A while ago, it signed a deal with Myspace to serve Google ads. At the time, Google paid a huge premium and there are reports that claim the Mountain View, CA behemoth has not recouped its cost. Signing advertising deals with mass market social networks can be expensive. Helping mom and pop sites to have social networking features will, in the long run, give Google a cheaper alternative. Google is simply facilitating the creation of more web pages (places to serve its ubiquitous ads), pageviews, and advertising inventory.

The message is clear. You don’t need to become a social network; social networking features are a commodity. Here, have a few social networking features for free.

First, Anderson argues that social networking should be a feature, not a destination. I agree wholeheartedly. The ability to interact with friends, share content, and engage in self-expression should be standard features on most websites. The unique methods of encouraging creative online behaviors known as Web 2.0 will filter through the rest of the Internet and, soon, your grandfather’s favorite website will allow him to engage in “social networking.”

Second, Anderson cites stats regarding advertising revenues or costs from Myspace (NWS-A), Facebook, and Ning. He shows that monolithic social networks like Myspace and Facebook, which attempt to be all things to all people, are having immense struggles with selling advertising at worthwhile rates. He also implies that Ning’s niche vertical social networks built by customers command higher advertising rates. Some marketers happily pay the higher rates because the engagement level is greater on these niche vertical networks. Advertisers also prefer the more intelligent targeting of relevant audiences. Myspace, Facebook, Bebo (TWX), and other undifferentiated mass networks are actively trying to improve their targeting abilities so it will be interesting to watch this competition evolve.

Finally, Anderson asks a pointed question about Facebook’s implied $15 billion valuation when Microsoft (MSFT) bought a small percentage of the company a few months ago. If Facebook is struggling to target its advertising and improve its advertising revenues, does its gargantuan valuation make sense? I think Zuckerberg should take the money and run. I also think that Lee Lorenzen, a venture capitalist, and his prediction that Facebook is worth $100 billion is a case of shrewd exaggeration. What I think is most funny is the fact that all of Lorenzen’s fanboys, the self-branded “social app gurus” and developers of tiny Facebook apps are all eagerly drinking the spiked punch. There are few better examples of confirmation bias in action.

My main problem with Anderson’s analysis is his implied assumption that the currently high advertising rates the niche vertical social networks enjoy will stay relatively high. Based on his personal experience, he concludes that Ning’s advertising rates are greater than Facebook’s and Myspace by at least a factor of ten. I don’t think this will last. Web 2.0 methods are precisely that, methods. They can be products, but they are also methods or general, conceptual best practices. As such, the ability to create robust social networks for different verticals will diffuse to a critical mass of software engineers. As that process accelerates, social networks and features of social networking will become commonplace or commoditized. I’ve alluded to the commoditization of social networking applications, which is a related problem. When this process nears its peak, advertising rates for all social networks will have diminished drastically. Self-proclaimed “social app gurus” and “social network gurus” who have staked their futures on social networking will ultimately prove themselves as less than prudent.

The technology sector gets a big surprise with Microsoft (MSFT) announcing that it will cease to pursue the acquisition of Yahoo! (YHOO). Most analysts and market pundits expected Jerry Yang & Company would ultimately accept a deal, albeit at a higher price than Microsoft’s initial offer. Expect Yahoo! stock to take a precipitous plunge at the market open and the announcement of class action lawsuits from its larger shareholders. While this saga of two tech giants unwinds, plenty of news in the rest of the tech sector deserves attention.

The Nasdaq Composite continues to roar back from the recent market slide with a strong 2.2% gain last week. This makes my tech market bifurcation thesis look increasingly faulty. The bellwether technology issues have performed well as predicted, but so has the middle tier and even the bottom tier. International growth accounts for much of the resilience and strong performance. Technology companies reporting satisfactory or better results included Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), a business processing outsourcing and information technology services firm, Ansys (ANSS), a provider of engineering simulation software, Expedia (EXPE), the online travel e-commerce company, TeleCommunication Systems (TSYS), a provider of carrier-class wireless technology, Concur Technologies (CNQR), a maker of expense management software, LoopNet (LOOP), a website for commercial real estate listings, and Symantec (SYMC), the security software giant.

What about the rest of the market? Hallelujah! The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, has openly stated that the worst of the recent credit crisis has passed. Many value lemmings and growth copycats will take this as reason to dive back into the market with enthusiasm. Indeed, we are an eager shareholder society and investing is both pastime and profession. Investing might very well be religion. It is so for the pilgrims that never miss the Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A) annual pow-wow to join in the proceedings presided over by high priests Buffett and Munger. The event occurred just this past week and, as usual, Buffett warned shareholders of smaller future returns for Berkshire. This warning is coming from the greatest investor alive, the prophet of profit, and the diminishing returns doctrine is probably the one part of the gospel the congregation finds hard to believe. We’ve all grown accustomed to his ability to outperform and deliver us from the evil of poor returns.

Macro

American taxpayers should be receiving their economic stimulus checks in the coming weeks. Will this provide the country with a sudden explosion of consumer spending? The bureaucrats in Washington believe that the increased spending will pull us out of the recent economic slump. But what will we probably do with our returned tax dollars? For the legions of homeowners who have seen the value of their most significant asset plummet in price, will they put the check towards a mortgage payment? Robert Shiller, the economist and father of the Standard & Poor’s/Case Shiller housing price index, predicts that housing declines have not come to an end and further declines could exceed the damage suffered during the Great Depression. In that scenario, homeowners on the brink of mortgage default would just walk away and spend their stimulus checks elsewhere instead of holding onto homes with values underwater.

Micro

Interactive Intelligence profit drops, sales rise – Confirmation bias, the cognitive error whereby investors search only for evidence that confirms their beliefs, is a very common mistake. With the second paragraph of this post, I run the risk of committing the more surreal non-confirmation bias, whereby I cite only evidence that refutes my tech market bifurcation thesis. So I best avoid this masochistic foible by pointing to Interactive Intelligence’s (ININ) somewhat disappointing earnings report. The company’s call center management software generated record sales but profits actually declined from the year ago quarter. There has been much debate about where corporations cut back expenditures in recessionary or slowing economic environments. The consensus is that advertising is the first thing cut. I don’t think so; I believe that short-sighted corporations tend to cut customer service functions and budgets. If true, ININ remains in trouble. Full Disclosure: I currently have a long or short position in ININ in one or more of my private investment partnerships.

MicroStrategy 1Q profit declines as operating expenses rise – Here is another case of a technology company that was able to grow sales while seeing profits decline. Are second-tier technology companies losing pricing and negotiation power? Are large corporate customers taking advantage of the slowing economy as an opportunity to demand better terms from technology suppliers? I remember when MicroStrategy (MSTR) generated as much hype as Salesforce.com (CRM); the promise of business intelligence software was as big as sales management software. Michael Saylor’s company took investors on an 18.6% dip last Friday.

Sohu 1Q profit soars with rising brand ad, online game sales – Last week, I profiled Sohu.com (SOHU), a Chinese Internet portal and online gaming company. Since then, the company reported record results and the stock rose an astonishing 25.6% in the space of five trading days. Sohu.com’s TianLong Babu massive multiplayer online game has become a best seller. The long term prospects for this company should be extremely bright and so are the long term prospects for the gaming industry in Asia. However, buyers of the stock now would be paying premium prices.

Perfect World Collaborates with Intel and Haier – Perfect World (PWRD) is another online gaming company based in China. The new alliances with Intel (INTC) and Haier give it some serious marketing muscle to push its massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs). They’re usually called “massively multiplayer online role playing games” (MMORPGs) but I’m going to keep it short and sweet. I’m also going to assume that future large scale games will not all be role playing game formats. Someone is going to produce a smash hit with a massive scale first person shooter like Halo.

Dolby posts higher Q2 profit; raises 2008 view – I used to take the public bus to high school in the ghetto and pass by the red brick building that houses Dolby Laboratories (DLB). San Francisco was an interesting place to grow up. One minute I’m riding the bus through the South of Market neighborhood and checking out the shingles of creative technology companies and the next minute I’m riding through the ghetto looking at beat up cars and pit bulls loosely chained behind chain link fences. Unlike in the digital video space, where scores of competing codecs vie for dominance, the digital audio space is in fact dominated by Dolby technology.

AgFeed Industries Completes Previously Announced Acquisition – China’s economy is bound to slow down just a bit as global macro factors diminish the competitive advantage of its low cost labor force. Nevertheless, population growth is unlikely to slow much and all those billions of hungry mouths to feed bode well for food companies. AgFeed Industries (FEED) produces hog feed and chicken feed. The company is aggressively expanding into hog raising and turning itself into a vertically integrated food producer.

“@kevinrose how do I get you to follow me back???” – anonymous self-proclaimed “social app guru”

This is Part 2 of a series that explores the science of Social Media Measurement. Let me preface this post by saying that this is a lighthearted post trying to come up with a simple measurement regarding a hugely successful social web service.

Previously, I explored the measurement of popularity, novelty, and attention on the very popular crowdsourcing news aggregation site Digg. My post was based on an arcane academic study involving the half-life of popularly “dugg” items. It turns out that stories frantically “dugg” by Digg members that make it to the coveted front page have a half-life of only 69 minutes. That’s a lot of work for a relatively short period of attention. Having that knowledge should prove useful to some marketers.

Why do we want to be able to measure social media? Why should we attempt to develop metrics? The ability to measure our efforts gives us valuable information to guide changes or course adjustments. It gives us baseline comparisons to measure against. It allows us to set measurable goals. It also helps us to make decisions when considering outside consulting help. In the social media space, there is a preponderance of self-styled “social media gurus” or “social app gurus” who try to trade off of non-existent influence. Like snake oil salesmen, they make grand claims about their reputation and expertise but their products or services are essentially worthless. Perhaps a few hard measurements could help marketers and advertisers identify the frauds from the really reputable experts.

This time around, I’d like to keep it a little lighter with a simple measurement I came up with to measure that amorphous quality called influence. This is a light-hearted attempt and nothing nearing the scientific exactitude I cited in my previous post. I consider influence as much more important than popularity, novelty, or attention. Indeed, influence implies popularity and attention. More specifically, I’m measuring influence on the hugely popular Web service known as Twitter. Twitter is a micro-blogging or mobile blogging service that essentially asks the question, “What are you doing right now?” When used correctly, it can be a helpful service for networking, sharing ideas, and staying abreast of buzz.

Twitter’s format is conducive to understanding and measuring influence because of its reciprocal structure of “follows” that makes for easy measurement. You can elect to “follow” other members of the Twitter service. Every time someone you are following “tweets” about something, you will get that update on your cell phone. People who elect to follow you are “followers.” Your followers get an update every time you twitter about what you’re doing or thinking.

Initially, most people “follow” their friends and family but eventually move to following other people on the Twitter network. Implicitly, people follow each other because they find each other interesting. I wouldn’t want to be following someone who is telling me and the whole world, “I’m going to the bathroom.”

There is a small group of highly influential members of Twitter that are so interesting and have such important thoughts to share that they quickly draw a whole army of “followers.” Their follower bases grow organically, naturally, and virally because they add a lot of value to the network and their followers. They don’t need to actively campaign for followers. Not surprisingly, their follower base is much larger than the number of people they follow.

There is also a larger group of sycophantic, self-branded “social media gurus” or “social app gurus” that have very little actual influence. We all know a few of these “leaches” and if they weren’t so spammy, they’d actually be mildly amusing. They are actively trying to get more followers. They spend a lot of time in self-promotion mode. They kiss your butt and play nice so that you might decide to follow them. They trade “follows” like high schoolers in a popularity contest. So instead of “I’ll vote you for best looking if you vote me for most popular,” they say “I’m following you so will you please follow me too?”

Not all “social media gurus” are frauds. However, you can spot the ones that are frauds when they try to build their follower base by asking truly influential Twitter members questions like this, “@kevinrose how do I get you to follow me back???” This is one case of a self-proclaimed “social app guru” asking Kevin Rose, the founder of Digg and a member of Twitter, to follow him. How inane is this? Please get a life.

So let’s get right into the Twitter Influence Ratio. It’s very simple really and very similar to the price to earnings or PE Ratio found in stock investing. In the financial PE Ratio – you get an idea of how much in earnings you getting for every dollar you pay for the stock. It’s a nice, convenient measure of how much value you’re getting or your bang for the buck.

Stock Price / Earnings = PE Ratio

EMC Corporation: 15.56 / 0.77 = 20.21

In the above example, EMC Corporation (EMC), a data storage company, saw its stock close at a price of $15.56 for the day. During the last twelve months, EMC earned $0.77 per share. Dividing $15.56 by 77 cents gets you a PE Ratio of about 20.21 – pretty simple right? Essentially, what the PE Ratio tells you is that for EMC Corporation stock, you are paying approximately $20.21 for every one dollar of earnings. Like I said, bang for your buck.

With the Twitter Influence Ratio, we’re going to try and get a read on someone’s true influence level. It stands to reason that if you are interesting, have neat thoughts, and add value to the network, people will naturally gravitate to you and “follow you.” Some of the most influential members of Twitter have many more followers than people they follow. So the Twitter Influence Ratio will attempt to express this relationship as;

Followers / Following = Twitter Influence Ratio

Example: 533 / 609 = 0.875

In the above example, one such self-branded “social app guru” has 533 followers and is following 609 others. This gives him a Twitter Influence Ratio of only 0.875 which means this person is not very influential. Intuitively, you ought to have more followers interested in what you have to say than the number of people you’re following. One might say that 533 followers is nothing to sneeze at. I agree, but the fact that this person has so many followers and is following so many more makes it highly probable that he is what is known as a “friend whore” or “follow whore.” Like the desperate high schooler, he’s just trading votes. Someone with a TI Ratio of less than 1 but is only following 30 others is probably not out there actively trading votes or follows. If I were looking for a consultant, I would run away from this guy and find someone more influential.

Let’s take a look at some folks who are truly influential. The aforementioned Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, is one of the most influential members of Twitter. As of this writing, he has a Twitter Influence Ratio of:

18,416 / 72 = 255.77

The Twitter Influence Ratio attempts to give you a sense of how influential someone is. In Kevin Rose’s case, for every one person he follows, he has just over 255 persons following him.

Justine Ezarik, or iJustine, a talented web designer is another influential member of Twitter:

12,652 / 1,047 = 12.084 Twitter Influence Ratio for iJustine

Of course, the TI Ratio doesn’t always work. If I claimed that it did always work, you could peg me as one of those phony, self-branded “social media gurus.” In the case of Robert Scoble, one of the most influential journalists and bloggers in the technology industry, he actually has a really low TI Ratio:

20,939 /21,243 = 0.985

Scoble’s a journalist so he has to follow as many people as possible to get the scoop. He is basically following as many people as he has followers. His Twitter Influence Ratio is almost a ratio of 1.

Well, there you go, the Twitter Influence Ratio is not a perfect measure of influence. But it does give you a sense of who is truly influential and who is just pretending. OK, this will probably be the last time you here me talk about the Twitter Influence Ratio. Tell that “social media guru” or “social app guru” you know to stop his Twitter spam before you “unfollow” him!

Update: I just found someone, Andreas Gohr, who wrote a script to tell you if someone on Twitter is likely to be a spammer. It’s based on the same principles as the Twitter Influence Ratio and is very well thought out. It helps classify users on Twitter in these categories: Newbie or Social Climber, Twitter Spammer, Twitter Caster, Notable, and Socially Healthy. Good stuff. My friend, the “social app guru” is definitely a Twitter Spammer.

Much attention has been given to the Web 2.0 generation of social networks and websites. Deservedly so, this next wave of Internet properties has quickly acquired humongous user bases, rich valuations, and cultural buzz worldwide. Venture capital investors are clamoring to fund the latest spin on crowdsourcing, content aggregation, social networking, micro-blogging, video sharing, and other different takes on social media. Fortune 2000 companies are all trying to figure out how to respond to this phenomenon; after all, they do need to be where customers congregate.

One of the big problems in this space is that advertisers and marketers are being duped by self-branded “social media gurus” and “social app gurus” who market their simplistic consulting and shoddy development services while demanding rich retainer fees. They promise “viral” adoption of inane and mundane “social networking apps” that lend little credibility to the corporate buyer. They promise “branding” efficiencies and opportunities by continually repeating their mantra of getting their clients “into the conversation.” But all good skeptical buyers should ask, “What does that conversation bring me?” More importantly, “How do I measure the effectiveness or ROI of anything that I am contemplating buying?”

At the root of the problem is the inability of the self-styled “gurus” to measure their effectiveness. Granted, social media and social networking are new fields and reliable metrics have not yet been developed. Nevertheless, progress is being made and this series will explore the emerging field of Social Media Measurement in order to bring some light and hope to what seems like a dark swamp of self-promoters looking to feed at the corporate trough.

Popularity, Novelty, and Attention

These three components are difficult to measure, but are critical to understanding how well a certain social media campaign is running. Any “guru” that advertises their expertise ought to be able to explain popularity and attention. Novelty is a little easier to define, we know what is new when we see it.

One of the great movements of Web 2.0 is the method of crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing can be defined as “leveraging a community (this needs to be more thoughtfully defined) to gather intelligence or opinion.” It is what James Surowiecki explores in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, and what Tapscott and Williams explore in their book, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything.

One of the great companies that has figured out a way to harness the power of crowdsourcing is Digg.com, a website that allows users to essentially vote or “digg” for interesting stories, articles, and blog posts. The items that receive the most votes rise to the top and garner even more attention. It is a useful website for finding out about what is important to others. Essentially, Digg is a good source of finding out about a particular story’s popularity, novelty, and attention.

Fang Wu and Bernardo Huberman, two researchers at Hewlett-Packard’s (HPQ) Palo Alto, California laboratory recently released a study exploring the mechanics of Digg. They essentially developed a mathematical model that describes how the popularity of a story decays over time. This decay algorithm is not unlike that which describes the half-life of radioactive material. Another victory for the Latticework Model of multidisciplinary scientific inquiry. At the core of their model is a function called a stretched exponential relaxation, which achieved the ability to measure the half-life of prominent Digg stories. Digg’s extremely popular front page, which has the power to generate vast amounts of Web traffic to stories that make the front page, features a half-life of 69 minutes! It takes a lot of work to get onto the front page of Digg but all that cumulative work results in a premium of just over 1 hour of premium attention.

Critique

I do have problems with this study and its conclusions. My issues aren’t with the conceptual idea of measuring popularity, novelty, and attention. I have caveats about their study design and assumptions. One of the well known secrets of Digg is that there are relatively select groups of Digg members who hold disproportionate influence in the community. Almost all the stories they “digg” or submit to the community habitually show up on the front page or home page. Everyone knows that there are ways to game the Digg engines. One could imagine loose “tribes” of Diggers that “help” each other digg stories in a reciprocal manner in order to get their stories to the top. This reciprocity has little to do with the novelty or newsworthiness of a story.

Another problem with the study design and assumptions is that a community is only as good or valid as its component parts. In other words, the demographic makeup of a community obviously is an overwhelming factor. Digg is a notoriously young and tech-savvy community. As such, it has its own built-in biases. Any study should take this into consideration. Most of the stories that make it to the front page are going to be technology-focused. And even within technology, the focus is primarily on Web 2.0 stories. One would find the community very hostile to Microsoft (MSFT) and other older, first generation technology companies. I think this is a secondary concern, but it should definitely be taken into consideration.

I would have liked to see Wu and Huberman explore the concept of influence. Those super-diggers who have an extraordinary ability to push their stories to the very top. In my next post, I will explore a very rudimentary measure of influence based on another very popular social media Web service.

Implications

What are the implications of this story? Perhaps a corporation contemplating a viral campaign on Digg to try and push awareness of their story could measure the costs of such an effort. Would the ability to identify the super-diggers who might be willing to trade influence for monetary compensation be a worthwhile endeavor? Note that the community would frown upon a paid campaign to push awareness. Are the risks of negative attention worth the benefits of getting a chosen story to the top? Can 69 measly minutes of premium attention be worth the costs?

Again, I issue a warning to corporate buyers. Be very skeptical of self-branded “social media gurus” and “social app gurus” – they likely are not able to quantify their expertise and will be unfortunate resource wasters. Believe me, the talent in this cottage industry is very weak but great at self-promotion. The emergence of the new Social Science will alleviate this problem by helping advertisers, marketers, and strategists identify and measure ROI and performance. New metrics are arising everyday.

I co-founded a tiny little agency a few months ago called SocialOptimize that was focused on producing Facebook apps. At the time of founding, my partner and I received almost overwhelming demand from companies who were desperate to gain a presence on social networking site Facebook. Facebook was already quickly turning into a cultural phenomenon as everyone and their grandmother started registering for the site and “poking” each other.

Essentially, it was this mass of humanity in digital form that attracted advertisers and marketers to jump on the bandwagon and either buy ad space on Facebook or better yet, create “Facebook apps” that users could install on their personal pages. Early on, application developers found great success as the novelty of “Facebook apps” compelled millions of new Facebook users to add and share these apps with their friends. This network effect fed upon itself and created this great bubble of excitement around the “limitless” potential of Facebook.

Soon enough, the money men of the technology world, the venture capitalists, wanted to ride the coattails of Zuckerberg & Company. Venture firms like Bay Partners created Facebook-only funds to invest in startups that focused on building Facebook apps. Alas, the application ideas in the Facebook ecosystem and, for that matter, most of the social networking universe were not quality ideas and few investments have been made. Most of the Facebook apps out there are inane, simple apps, easily duplicated and without any clear path to revenue. Why would any sane venture capitalist invest in what I call a “secondary” strategy? Social networks have been great investments because they are the “platforms” with which all that valuable activity takes place. Social networks are what I call “primary” strategy investments. Social networking apps built for Facebook, Myspace, OpenSocial, Bebo, Orkut, or otherwise are “secondary” instruments and can rarely achieve any real value.

As a technology entrepreneur, I could have continued to make a good living off of naive companies that just “needed” to be on social networks because everyone else was establishing a presence. However, I knew that eventually, the novelty would wear off and “Facebook Fatigue” would set in. This fatigue will spread and we’ll soon have an epidemic of “Social Networking Fatigue.” Only a select few application development companies and social networks will survive the coming shakeup. Already, savvy corporations are looking at different approaches to social networking. So unlike the lemming-like companies that just “had to be” on Facebook who comprised the bulk of my client base, I will be leaving the party a little early. I did the best I can for those companies while the attention was still high, but you cannot fight the falling tide of interest, or rather the rising tide of disinterest and outright mutiny. The most rabid fanboys in this corner of the technology world will still hyperventilate about the “limitless” potential of social networking apps but they have never comprised the bulk of the marketplace.

This is by no means an unbalanced rant on Facebook and social networking in general. After all, I did make my livelihood here for a few hectic months. There is definitely great opportunity in social networking and media. I’m just voicing some skepticism based on a business perspective to balance out all the frothy excitement.

Here are a few posts from others who have slightly different takes and perspectives, who generally agree with me but are more eloquent:

Anita Hamilton – Suffering From Facebook Fatigue?

Phil Burns – Nine Things that Absolutely Suck about the Facebook Home Page

Jennifer Mattern – Top Ten Reasons Facebook Sucks

Om Malik – Why do we have Facebook Fatigue?

Dave Winer – Why Facebook Sucks

Chris Williams – ‘Facebook fatigue’ kicks in as people tire of social networks

Gopinath M – Advertising on Facebook Sucks!! – This is the one reason that will kill Facebook faster than any other reason. For that matter, advertisers and marketers are finding that their ROI on social network advertising in general has been less than acceptable. Only the smartest or luckiest entrepreneurs will be able to solve the ROI puzzle.

What would I do if I wore the big shiny shoes of a venture capitalist? I would ignore all the “secondary” application developers and “social app gurus” out there who dream about untold riches. There will almost never be an acquisition of a social networking app that would be sizable enough to move my needle. I would focus on funding social networks in emerging markets. “Primary platforms” will still earn rich valuations. Indeed the model works, but I don’t think that Myspace Mexico or Facebook Finland will find much traction. I would bet on the entrepreneurs in those countries building primary platforms from scratch who have an intimate feel for the cultures of their native countries.