Inflating the Facebook bubble with Instagram

Yes, I will buy everything...

At the end of last week, Facebook bought Instagram for $1Bn (cash and stock). A fair wedge you’ll agree, but to induce further gobsmacking by way of illustration, that $1Bn could also buy the New York Times (NYT has 44m estimated online readers, many of whom pay for the pleasure – Instagram is free).

The Instagram app itself was launched in October 2010 and allows users to apply 17 filters to their pictures to give them a different feel before they are uploaded. The main result to date has been a plethora of photos shared online consisting of people doing any old crap with a vintage twist – it’s all the rage and the app is a huge mobile player. Clearly Facebook are keen for a slice of the social media a la mode action and, with photo-sharing pivotal to their original success, their latest acquisition is no surprise.

Further to this, the purchase price itself doesn’t really come as a shock. Last week’s deal effectively informed all of Wall Street that Facebook has the metaphorical cojones to pull off staggering seven figure deals. The fact that it comes just in time for next month’s IPO is no coincidence. However, the key question for digital marketing folk and the like (just as it was last year with the acquisition of Gowalla) is more to do with the functional changes that could take place with the take-over; what does this move mean for Instagram users?

Well, despite Facebook Chief Mark Zuckerberg saying on his profile page that Instagram would continue to work with rival social networks and grow independently of Facebook, there has still been a backlash from a rather vocal online community. The main bugbear being that Facebook will more than likely harvest the rich data from Instagram’s many users and sell them to the likes of you and me in the form of advertising - *rubs hands greedily.* 

Certainly this is likely to be the case, and whilst the online vigilantes continue to revolt against the deal with the #instablack hashtag and calls to delete profiles, I doubt this movement is truly reflective of the app’s 25m users – a figure that will no doubt grow significantly after being rolled out for Android last week. One commentator (@alexcwilliams) suggested that “If you delete your Instagram account, because Facebook bought them, you probably have a basement full of canned foods and flashlights.” Rather sweeping, but I feel inclined to agree.

The real de facto point for marketing and digital media pros to take note of is that Facebook has acquired an excellent application; images are essential to social media and this recent deal will only enrich the results that creative campaigns such as Tiffany’s True Love in Pictures and Levi’s casting ad campaign have already enjoyed.

Friends Reunited, reignited?

So Friends Reunited is making a comeback, promising ‘something different’ in the hope of reclaiming its position as the no.1 UK fronted social networking site. The new angle is all based around nostalgia, allowing members to create ‘memory boxes’ of things they remember from years gone by.

After reading the BBC Online view I was immediately unconvinced by the re-emergence of a site that was crippled by Facebook (like many others) in the late noughties. ITV had shelled out a cool £175m for it in 2005 but were forced to offload it for one seventh of that figure just four years later!

The memory box, or to use Friends Reunited’s full description ‘virtual memory shoebox’ concept also initially failed to excite me as it sounded remarkably similar to the latest social fad, Pinterest. But after having a little play around for myself, I was pleasantly surprised by the new features. Clearly a lot of work has gone into creating an extensive digital library of memories that will strike a chord with Brits. A link up with the Press Association and the British Library means site owner Brightsolid has an enormous array of images, newspaper cuttings and resources to offers its members.

The layout of the memory search offers a simple navigation and has categorised content into sections which evoke emotional attachments, such as ‘What We Wore’ which holds a host of galleries from 80s clothing catalogues, to fashion icons of years gone by. My personal favourite is the ‘Our Sporting Life’ category, which allows members to search classic kits from their club’s past and view FA Cup Final match programmes going all the way back to 1923.

But alas, as much as I enjoyed having a dabble, I couldn’t really see anything that would keep people coming back for more on a regular basis. I was also surprised to see that rather than the memory box concept becoming part of the social network’s offering, giving members a reason to chat with their ‘reunited friends’, it appears as though it has become the whole site, meaning all the forum, instant messaging and friend finding elements seem to have gone, which means a. surely it’s not ‘Friends Reunited’ anymore, and b. it’s not all that social. Sure, you can share your memory box on other networks like, wait for it, Facebook, but it feels more like a nice application people play with a couple of times and then move on to the new edition of Angry Birds. Perhaps Brightsolid are hoping Mr. Zuckerberg’s UK team love it so much that they recommend Facebook buy the software from them (ideally for at least one seventh of £175m).

Another day another Facebook privacy issue, but this time have they gone too far?

Until now, Facebook’s Timeline has been voluntary, but Mark Zuckerberg has announced that in the next seven days the feature will become compulsory and users will have seven days to delete any unwanted content before it’s laid bare for all to see. 

 The social media giant’s Timeline was first rolled out last year , and users have been given the chance to have a play with the new features before committing, but recent movements have sparked concern about privacy on the network, with many users unhappy that their every move is being put in a virtual museum.

Zuckerberg announced the changes during last September’s f8 Conference and insisted that people wanted to ‘share their entire lives’ and have ‘total control’ over how users’ content appeared.  His argument was that people are now documenting their entire lives on Facebook, but once the information falls off the current profile page, memories are getting lost; hence the invention of Timeline.

It can’t be denied that people are investing an awful lot in Facebook in terms of conversations, photos, videos, etc, (which is one of the reasons I think Facebook will be around for a long time to come) but is part of that appeal the fact everyone is exposed to your movements? Or is it simply because you and a chosen few can access it, on the occasions you need to? Some comments being bandied around are very black and white – if you want privacy, don’t have a Facebook account. But now that people do have this sentimental investment in the platform, it’s not that easy to just deactivate your account. I’m sure most of the 800 million users enjoy their Facebook account, but they don’t necessarily want to share every single element of their lives with the world.

I jumped on the Timeline bandwagon fairly early (and I admit it took me a while to get used to) but none of my Facebook friends seemed to follow suit, and still now there are only a handful that have embraced the new look, which suggest most remain cautious.

Privacy issues aside, my fear is that some users will try and ignore the imminent change and in seven days time will have a profile full of information they’d rather have kept hidden. Another concern is that the Timeline feature is radically different to the existing layout - previous changes have riled many users, but they haven’t actually forced huge changes. I’m not sure every Facebook user is going to fancy getting to grips with something so different.

For me the jury is still out, and only time will tell if this latest move will be a success, or whether this time Facebook has gone a step too far.

PM Just checked in to 10 Downing St…

The Right Honourable gentleman to my right has just checked in to parliament, tweeted his #pmq and liked ‘Ed Miliband looks like Babs from Chicken run’ on Facebook (yes that page does exist; most likely administered by Dave Miliband).

All jokes aside though, politicians’ obsession with social media seems to be unprecedented in 2011 and why shouldn’t it be? 

Modern politics is a matter of branding. Political parties function as both consumer and b2b brands - the same rules of engagement apply. This is why David Cameron recently set up a ‘Linked In’ profile (Although I’m sure he’s not looking for a new challenge).

In fact all three main political parties have socialised their websites and many MPs are encouraging Facebook campaigns and real-time twitter debates. In the age of the disparate voter it all seems like a smart move to me.

No doubt politicians have seen the rewards that brands have reaped from providing consumer touch points on the social web. Social media brings you closer to your target market; the more you engage with them, the more viral you become, meaning more interest and advocacy – the latter of which being the most important factor for any political campaign.

It’s across the pond where perhaps the use of social media in politics has paved the way for others to follow. I’m sure many in Whitehall have looked at Barack Obama’s digital successes and salivated over the results – although the jury is still out on that one for 2012. 

Whilst the Lib Dems are developing a similar social database (a Voter Activation Network) to that which the Democrats used in 2008, if you're expecting Cameron to be heading up something similar for the tories I wouldn't hold your breath, this venture is no doubt all mouth and no trousers.

Quite simply though, no party can expect to win elections without knowing who their voters are and engaging with them – social media only maximises this opportunity. With social data coming in to play I’d expect a whole new type of political campaigning come the next election.

Yet, whilst David is busy checking into the United Nations HQ in New York on Foursquare, I can’t help but wonder if there is an olive branch being sent out to the ‘disengaged youth’ that make up so much of ‘Broken Britain?’ Yeah, whatever. 

Monkey See Monkey do: Facebook gets more like Twitter and Google+

Well it was only a matter of time before the ‘me-too’ skirmish began amongst the top guns of the social networking world. It’s Facebook that is now off the mark with the introduction of some new features that are strikingly similar to that of its closest adversaries. 

So it’s not called a ‘Follow’ button, but users can now ‘subscribe’ to Facebook users that they aren’t already friends with –such features already being commonplace on Twitter and new boy Google+.  Furthermore, users can not only follow key journalists, celebrities and people of interest, they can now organise their news feed in to lists (hardly an inconspicuous Facebook version of the Google plus Circles).

No doubt the competition between the three networks is heating up and there will be all the more monkey see monkey do activity in the year ahead. However, as a PR person I have to say the most interesting question to pose now is how will developments like the above change the way brands use the three networks.

With Facebook already a hub of b2c activity I wouldn’t be surprised to see certain branded pages acting as an umbrella for many official profiles whose posts will unsurprisingly be public. With more and more findings demonstrating the influence of Facebook on the SERPs, more public profiles could add to the social layer of a brand’s SEO.

For Twitter, many social media boffins may now argue that the pressure is on for it to develop. However, I can’t see any big changes in how brands will use the social network, only in how Twitter opts to generate revenue from it.

For Google+ it’s still a case of the chicken and egg. No doubt many social media savvy brands are salivating over the opportunity laden space that is the fastest growing social network to date but what comes first, the brands or the users? We call it user generated content, but more often than not it is facilitated by a brand. Either way it would appear that Google+ has indeed caused a stir in the social networking market which will no doubt influence brand activity across all three networks in the years to come.