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.

A triumph for social media (in Glasgow!)

For those who didn't get around to reading the Guardian's excellent article on Saturday about the phenomenal job done by the blog 'rangerstaxcase.com', I would urge you to make time to give it a read.

Even if you are not a football supporter, there is much to ponder on from the perspective of the performance of traditional media sources and in terms of the impact of social media.

It is a story with multiple themes; alienation of the traditional football fan; a perceived failure on the part of traditional media and the use of social media as a catalyst for the sharing of vital information amongst stakeholders.

For those who don't have the time let me summarise the story for you here. An anonymous football supporter, ironically not a Rangers supporter, got wind of the tax trouble that Glasgow Rangers was in, but could find no mention of it amongst traditional media outlets.

Instead, traditional media fed its readers, namely the club’s supporters, the usual stories including the building of a super casino and transfer gossip, including, apparently, a 'link' to the signing of Cristiano Ronaldo. The result was that many Rangers supporters had little clue that their club owed £70 million to HMRC until last week when it went bust.

In frustration, our anonymous hero set up a blog, 'rangerstaxcase.com', and started digging deeper. The blog has ‘broken’ a whole host of stories in relation to the case and now has a daily traffic of over 100,000 views with reader comments coming in at a rate of about 1,500 per day. Bear in mind that these people are not discussing football, they are discussing accounting conventions and insolvency law!

How did this happen? Our hero blames an unholy triangle of trade in which traditional media sources have got too close to the club and felt unable to cover the story for risk of losing their ‘access’.

For the record, I am fully aware of the role that PR has probably played in all of this. PR people at Rangers, let’s assume they were in the know, have been feeding these stories to traditional media outlets, in the guise of ‘doing their job’.

So what can we learn from all of this? Media owners from Rupert Murdoch down have blamed the internet for their woes, but this case begs the question whether certain sections of traditional media are giving readers the information they need and perhaps explains why so many are turning to alternative sources of information.

It must also be remembered that not all traditional media is scared of questioning itself. After all, I read this story in The Guardian. Kudos to them for running it!

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.

Jordan and Snickers UK Twitter stunt – a PR success or #Fail?

As celebrities fearlessly spout forth from the digital roundtable of life, it is expected that amongst the publicity-vetted blandness of the regular tweet, there will be on occasion, a 140 character gem.

If you are one of @MissKatiePrice’s, aka Jordan’s, 1.5m followers, this will no doubt have been the case on Sunday. I don’t believe I was alone in dropping my cup of tea as @MissKatiePrice informed me that “Large scale quantitative easing in 2012 could distort liquidity of Govt. bond market. #justsaying.” The economic aphorisms and astute comments continued throughout the day, making for an altogether rather refreshing break from the usual inane musings on horse-riding, celebrity big brother, sugar, spice and all things nice (…or pink!).

By the time Jordan had commented on the Chinese GDP I think most people had presumed some sort of twitter-jacking or account hacking had occurred – but who knew it was actually a PR stunt by Mars owned chocolate bar, Snickers.

@MissKatiePrice then tweeted the following:

“You’re not you when you’re hungry @SnickersUK #hungry #spon http://lockerz.com/s/176796815”

So far, big brands only seem to be pouring investments into promoted tweets to generate ‘buzz,’ so I for one found the whole thing quite refreshing and imaginative. Clearly, based on the consequent reverberations across the social web, the success of the stunt on the whole (which apparently also includes @AmirKingKhan, @BeefyBotham, @RioFerdy5 and @Cherlloyd) is still up for debate, if not already deemed a #fail.

According to most interpretations, the stunt suggests that not only does a Snickers bar restore you to normality; it also relieves you of serious, worthwhile opinions, inducing somewhat more vacuous cultural observations – i.e. underwear and celebs. It's also worth noting that fellow celebrity tweeter @Cherlloyd had her fans 'Snickers in a twist' by tweeting her discovery of Russian Literature but was post Snicker consumption, restored to her regular 'swagger jagger' like antics ...

Yes, @SnickersUK have now become the bête noir for many a disapproving tweeter – the brand insulted Katie Price’s intelligence (hmmmm) and further insinuated that eating a Snickers bar makes you unintelligent and inane (a bit harsh, @MissKatiePrice does have 1.5m followers who quite enjoy her regular micro-blogging activity and as far as I see it, she is quite commercially savvy in her own right).

I say kudos to Miss Price for her good humour in all of this and well done to Snickers UK for getting everyone talking – including a piece in The Sun. The message may be up for debate but I have a sneaky feeling Snickers UK don’t mind that at all. But, what do you think?

No hacking required - Rupert Murdoch is on Twitter

Yes, the Billionaire CEO of News Corporation has joined the twitterati, amassing more than 80,000 followers in the process! Considering the humble pie that was served to Murdoch this year during the course of hackgate and with the mogul being a much-maligned public figure in the UK as a consequence, this could be quite an interesting venture! 

So, what does a press veteran say in 140 characters? Well, the majority of tweets so far come littered with slightly awkward punctuation akin only to when your grandmother battles with predictive text, covering culture, politics and day to day antics; already Murdoch is displaying his distaste for the Brits – a feeling no doubt reinforced throughout 2011. 

 

Many will suspect an agenda behind the old timers move in to social media that is more than just a pensioner’s curiosity, however, whose idea it was I’m not sure. Perhaps the most telling comment so far comes from Murdoch himself with one of his first tweets reading - “I’m getting killed for fooling around on here and friends frightened what I may really say!” 

I’m sure they are. Wife Wendi certainly wasn’t approving! I also can’t help but think of the awkward looks James was giving his old man during the Select Committee interviews back in July – no doubt he now feels like most teenagers do when their parents add them on Facebook.

Image can be a delicate thing, especially in the realm of social media. I’d therefore hazard a guess that News Corp’s PR are also wincing at the thought of the boss tweeting – particularly if we are to see more of the above!

Furthermore, whilst my sympathy for the man could fit in a Japanese thimble, I am also cringing at the thought of the avalanche of abusive tweets that will now be directed straight at the octogenarian - just yesterday the hashtag #Murdochsdeletedtweets was trending (after deleting the above tweet at the request of Wendi). Then again, perhaps right now all concerned are more pre-occupied on the possible attempts to hack his password? Oh, the irony.  

Whilst Twitter could make a mockery of Mr Murdoch, one thing is clear - as Jack Dorsey said, “With his own voice, in his own way, Rupert Murdoch is now on Twitter.” Certainly, as Piers Morgan also commented, “This will be fascinating…”

I wonder if he’ll follow @tom_watson?