Archive for the ‘Real Time’ Category

What else Twitter could do to become more valuable?

Saturday, May 26th, 2012

I love Twitter but I always felt it could do better …..lot more useful if it continued to innovate – and here are my thoughts -

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

  • Tweet an Email & Email a Tweet: More clearly, I would like to be able to send tweets to an email address and vice versa. Why not? If anything, that seals Twitter’s long term viability. Twitter has built a tremendous platform where its users within the platform are able to communicate one to one, one to many & many to many. Now its time for Twitter to expand their reach into the juggernaut of communication – email!
  • Quite a few Real time communication platforms – PubNub, Pusher and like have emerged and are going to create new business opportunities for Brands and Platforms that want to control and maintain their own real time communication platforms. This, while might not impact Twitter’s primary user base or market, Twitter could make some strategic movies in either integrating with these platforms or encourage these platforms to collaborate – so that users from their branded ecosystems could communicate to and fro with Twitter users.
  • Image representing Salesforce Chatter as depic...

    Image via CrunchBase

    On the entreprise front, Yammer, Chatter and like are making big strides and creating new markets. Twitter should not ignore these networks. Deeply embedding with these platforms is in the best interest of Twitter.

  • Lastly,Twitter is really a real time LinedIn, in my view. When it comes to relationships,I feel Twitter is creating more value than LinkedIn; Its time for Twitter to start thinking beyond being a broadcast/communication platform. Brand pages concept should be expanded for Twitter users to create a details social profiles – potentially opening opportunities within recruiting space as well.

This blog post is motivated by Chris O’Brien’s comment about Twitter not being a Business ……Thank you, Chris.

Twitteronomics – What is it and what motivates a Tweeter to Tweet?

Monday, May 9th, 2011
Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

Every Twitter user has a specific role, goal, objective and purpose in the Twitter”o”sphere.

Not all Twitter users have same motivations and goals. Some user’s objectives fit “hand in glove” with other users while some other’s conflict with others. Regardless everyone contributes to the Twitter”o”sphere – even those who have not sent a single tweet out into the ether!

At the end of the day, every Twitter user – hopes and seeks to gain something from the Twitter”o”sphere. Some try to gain influence, while others try to show that they are in the know. Some try to beat the establishment in breaking the news, while others try to read that same breaking news. Some try to engage in one word conversations with thought leaders while others be bystanders and enjoy the repartee’ …..

Twitteronomics!

Similarly each of these users have their own motivations and not all the motivations are aligned or equal. They are very subjective to their own roles in the society and goals/objectives. While a student beat’s the news media in tweeting a breaking news, rest of the beat reporters tweet only after they can drive traffic to their publishing properties. While a stock picking guru with a large following will only tweet about it after he took a (stock trade) position, another day trader will tweet to artificially pump their picks. Political party A tweets to smear party B and party B tweets to clean up the mess.

What’s important about all this is to learn about underlying objectives and motivators of Twitter users – before you act on the message. Make sure their underlying objectives and motivators are in alignment with yours before you respond to the message. For example, you should know if a stock picking guru is tweeting about a trade because its a good buy or because he took a position and trying to get the whole world to pump the stock up; if a watchdog group is spreading smut about a political candidate based on facts or because they have been funded by the opposing political party.

Motivators also change based on content and context. For example – messages that are newsworthy – are typically shared right away where as messages with specific individual actionable benefits are tweeted only after the user benefited/acted on them. For example a tweet about a hot airline deal to Hawaii is only shared after the user consumed it or cannot get any more marginal benefit from that news;

There will be times when you might not be able to tell the Twitter user’s underlying motivations and objectives. Its best not to act on such messages until you get similar directions/guidance from other users.

I would define Twitteronomics as the study of Twitter users, their motivators, objectives & goals based on their individual subjective forces, content being shared and the context.

Opinions expressed are mine own ….

@Vsistla

Enhanced by Zemanta

Social TV – What works and what doesn’t work!

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Every time we stumble upon a new concept, we extrapolate its use cases across everything we can imagine only to realize that it doesn’t work in every instance! While some other times, we bring those use cases to market much sooner than the market is ready for them. Whether it is the most advanced hard disk drive – Kitty Hawk- from HP in early 1990s, or video streaming in the mid 1990s or online adv supported dot.com ventures in late 1990s, we have left a trail of such untimely ventures in the past.


 

Welcome to Social TV!Social TV is in its infancy and its good to understand the rules of Social TV based on current market conditions, limitations and end user’s expectations. These rules might not be relevant once the market matures with a different ecosystem than the early days of Social TV.

I define Social TV is an interactive television viewing experience with one or more individuals who are not co-located.

These groups of viewers can not only interact with each other via Television but also with any other devices. In case of certain genre shows such as reality TV or live competition, active social TV viewers can easily influence others in their voting/sentiment.

TV watching has been a fairly lonely experience until now. With connected TVs hitting over 40 million sales by the end of 2011, it doesn’t have to be a only experience. That was also one of the reasons why more youth are spending majority of their time Online rather than watching TV – despite good quality and compelling content.

Cover of
When you are in the theater

Social TV is akin to going to movies with a bunch of your friends without Shhing …..and turning off your cell phones while watching.

At least a “pinch hit” substitute for going to movies.

That said, these are the basic rules of Social TV.

  • Social TV is not for everyone – Social TV is a very interactive and passive experience unlike traditional TV viewing. Most of us are accustomed to this passive experience and might not take to Social TV experience as some of the younger generations might. So, there will be some significant parity between how each generation approaches Social TV. Industry should be mindful of such generational parities in building their Social TV platforms.

 

 

  

  • Social TV is not for every type of content/show/movie – Just the way not all types of content evokes similar/same reaction and engagement, Social TV is not for every time of content. Social TV is ideal for content that is inherently debatable, passionate with high emotions and opinionated.

  

  • Social TV is most compelling when it gives a strong enough reason for the audience to change their viewing patterns and behavior! – Social TV is not just about chatting and interacting with other viewers. Social TV should be able to change the user behavior – at its fundamental level. For example- People who are fans of a show who watch the show in “time shift mode” should find compelling reasons to watch the show “live” along with thousands and millions of other fans. That would dictate the success of Social TV.

   

  • Social TV with well-thought through privacy options is very critical. Privacy will be one of the cornerstones of Social TV. Your entertainment viewing options would have profound impact on who wants to be your friend and how close they want to maintain their friends with you. Social TV adds another source of information – about you – to your friends. Your reputation, persona, personality, priorities, values and principles get re-evaluated in the eyes of the world.  So, privacy becomes that much more important.

 

  • Social TV should be non intrusive – should not spoil the experience of watching the show or movie. Done right, Social TV should not negatively impact the viewing experience. If anything, it should enhance it.  

 

  • Social TV gets interesting when there are two or more sides/teams/parties – aka – Sports is the most apt genre for Social TV. Yes – Social TV thrives when there are sides, teams, emotions and passions. Sports content is most suitable for Social TV interactions.

   

  • Social TV is not just socializing while watching TV ….its also bringing TV to social networks and online communities. Social TV brings conversations from online/web to your living room. Your Online communities enter your living room.

 

  • Conversation is the engine between social TV – content is just a topic at hand! That’s correct – Social TV enables the conversations, heated and passionate debates in real time instead of waiting until the Water Cooler moment the next day morning.
poor water cooler design
Image by dennis -Nothing to talk at Water Coolers – via Flickr

 

 

  

  • Social TV thrives on the principle that we often look to others when we make media consumption decisions. We are less hardwired about these decisions than life changing/serious decisions

 

 

  

  • We are heavily influenced by the people in our physical space than remote. So, your social interactions vary based on who and how many are around you while watching TV. You might interact lot more with your remote buddies when you are watching TV alone versus with someone in the room. As George Custanza from Seinfeld would say, the “World’s Could Collide” that might lead to interesting scenarios - based on type of conversations and your company in the living room.  

 

  

  • People care deeply about how they look to others! Social TV is no different – if users don’t have appropriate tools to control how they are perceived by others, Social TV will die. Humans self-censor and we cannot live without it ….

   

  • Social TV is most suited for Sporting Events, Live Events and Reality Television – Based on above rules and scenarios, I feel Social TV is most suited for Sporting, Live and Reality TV Content - in that order.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disruptions Telegraph brought are no different from Internet – Publishers just need to find their relevance

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Thanks to my friend Colin Crawford’s (@ccoc) RT of @ramblingman, I caught up on this article about disruptions Telegraph has brought to Newspaper industry in 1845 and how the newspaper industry built their relevance in the changing communication landscape of Telegraph in mid 19th century.

If I were to build analogous comparisons between both innovations – Telegraph and Internet – and their impact on Newspaper industry, this is how it would look.

Unlike the Economist editor, I think the News paper industry will also survive along with news business – just in a brand new form with new rules. I talked about the threat of substitutes in my previous blog. I think that threat can be turned into opportunity for news publishers.

Internet vs Telegraph Analysis

I think the biggest threat to the news paper industry can be turned into their partners and promoters – in the world of Twitter, Search and Internet in general.

PS: Opinions expressed are my own.