As a statistician and mathematical modeling practitioner, I’m not a stranger to the concept of quantifying the value of intangibles. In the ethical framework in which I studied and worked, such quantification might be applied to a concept such as negative dollar value of ill-will (per person) generated by denied boarding due to passenger aircraft over booking. Yet I found myself rather unnerved today by TweetUp’s article today, How much is a follower worth?. According to TweetUp analytics, the answer is $136.80, as of June 2010.
I spent yesterday afternoon reading about the latest controversy swirling around rapidly-failing digg.com, a mainstay of the social web. Digg founder and CEO, Kevin Rose, recently chose to follow in the footsteps of Goethe’s Faustus when he sold his company’s soul to advertising partners.
Leo Laporte is a luminary of sorts, at least of the current Web 2.0 milieu. He is one of the few highly visible bloggers and pundits that actually earns a good living through his syndicated radio show, articles and podcasts. He certainly is in the top 2% of the sharing, blogging, streaming and advising social media elite.
Will Microsoft clear the field as it enters the location-based service market? Microsoft provides this definition of Tag, whose scope is larger than I realized:
“A Tag is a high-capacity color bar code… Organizations and individuals can create specific Tags by using the Microsoft Tag Manager Web service. When the Microsoft Tag Reader application is installed on a mobile device, [it] can be used to scan a Tag using the built-in device camera. When a Tag is scanned by the Tag Reader, the information encoded into the Tag becomes available on the mobile device.”
As data usage expands into new dimensions, from 2-D print to the internet and now geolocation, spam will tag along.
Foursquare is offering an essentially useless promotion, a Starbucks frappuccino special that is taking on a distinctly spam like aspect: It’s a low-value offer available only to a tiny number of people.
Tod Maffin noted that the ubiquity of Starbucks, with the chain’s next-to-worthless Foursquare offer, poses a serious challenge to the app’s usefulness. It is location spam, LBS spam or “Something You Aren’t Interested in Nearby!”
There are more Starbucks in this city than stop lights. One intersection even has two Starbucks! That means that pretty much any time you use Foursquare in Vancouver, you’re going to get an offer from Starbucks.
Problem is, the Starbucks offer is lousy. It’s only for the person who has checked in the most — and even then, it’s a cheap offer: $1 off a limited number of their cold beverages.
Apparently the law of diminishing returns from too much advertising can move on to a second phase of dis-utility, which actually drives customers away. This is an even worse outcome than not advertising at all!
Forrester gives the concept some in-depth coverage: Foursquare Advertising Getting Less Interesting.
The Social Collider has arrived. I haven’t heard news of any updates, although it was introduced about a year ago.
The Social Collider is a Google Chrome experiment. Its functional design objective is to reveal cross-connections between conversations on the Twitter platform. The actual intent of the application is quite a bit more interesting. As data is collected and accrues, the application’s designers hope to uncover multiple layers of person-place-location-event relationships which can be fully comprehended best when viewed with the additional perspective of time history.
I’ve been pondering the theme of “Social Web 2.0 Pathology: Are We Connected Yet?”, and will introduce it with this mild example. Today’s post will then assess recent developments in our vanishing degrees of separation.
The date of this graphic was April 16, 2010 thus it does not contain the very consequence-laden “Like” button. Facebook announced the release of the Like button to the World Wide Web domains-at-large at the F8 conference on April 22.
The title of the article Data Driven Experiences: Emotional Data, by Mark Ghuneim is fascinating, however, I’m concerned about address-level sharing of geo-spatial information as part of social networks.