WTF is Online

I’m not going to bore you with a protracted pontificatation about how or why Google+ rocks, is changing the world, isn’t Facebook, is Facebook…blah, blah, blah.

Here’s the short and sweet about why I love G+:

1. Being an early adopter is like seeing a movie weeks before it hits theaters, oh and you can actually be ranked in the top 5,000 without trying at all. I haven’t tried to be personally social media relevant for years (I am paid to do it for companies) but I’m still in the top 3,500 Googe+ profiles.  Not bad, out of 18M.  No, I’m not going to make any attempt to maintain that spot, I don’t care.
   

   My Google+ Ranking 'cuz I'm kind of a big deal...today

2. It’s Google and I like them more than I like Facebook. It’s all Big Brother, deal with it, I just like the G-money big brother instead of the F-privacy big bro.
3. It’s not perfect and I know Google listens when I submit my comments.
4. Dante was a genius! Google gets it. – yea, the Dante dude who was booted from the Catholic church because he actually tried to define and condemn people to levels of the post-mortal life. Now we all get the chance to put people in our own circles of heaven, hell, purgatory or the cool red circle they call “block” but I like to call the seventh level of hell.
5. New stuff is just cool
6. I was bored of Facebook anyway.  Just like in 1996, I was bored of Classmates after a few weeks.  If you think the internet is about sustained longevity, commitment to a brand or technology…think again (especially you folks who hold on to your tech stocks)
7. Chicks dig it! – OK that’s totally untrue but the sausage-fest that is Google+, if it matures, could start to look a lot like FB at some point…which means a lot more females will be joining in the future.

I’m done, G+ me folks!

I’ve been reading F-Commerce articles (one | another) the last couple of days (f-commerce is Facebook commerce), some with interesting perspectives that may change the way we shop and others with lots of opinion but little perspective of what has worked or miserably failed online.

Most people probably aren’t old enough or haven’t been on the internet long enough to even remember iMall or some of the other “major” online internet malls that were around in the mid-1990s. They all had the bright idea of centralizing the shopping experience in one location, just like our physical malls and assumed people would flock to them spending millions and billions.  Where are they now?  Non-existent.

Who has succeeded?  Those who centralized everything, like a big-box store, reduced prices and (this is a huge one) provided FREE shipping to compete with retail.

Other retailers have done well because they found their existing retail audience and have converted them to online.  Many have generated a new audience online, that they may have never seen otherwise, most of these are successful because they have a unique product, service or customer service model that attracts a crowd or they have a product that is not available in other geographic locations.

I know I’m generalizing here but look at the most successful online retailers and what ultimately makes them successful…DEALS!  Remember that everyone online is looking for a deal, no matter how wealthy, poor or frugal you are, you don’t get online because you want to spend the most on a product.  You get online because you saw those True Religion, Seven or whatever jeans that you want and there has to be someone online who sells them for $0.17. That’s what the internet is, like it or not.  The music and software industry losses hundreds of millions, if not billions every year due to piracy, not because people online don’t have money (don’t we average like $75+K/yr.?), because we’re all cheap bastards.

Fast forward to the Facebook generation…we’re all cheap as WTF, not because we need to be but because the internet has made us this way.  We all spend a large percentage of our day either connected to, waiting on or actually logged in, F(B)ing around. 600 million people and growing are on the site, stalking, chatting, connecting and advising each other about anything from family, to clothes, to sex, drugs & rock and roll. It is a digital high school or college experience all over again but this time without inhibition, boundaries or rules…other than “your mom (children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren or future children) might see what you put on Facebook.”

So what does all this have to do with F-commerce?  Not much, other than every retailer seeing that the malls are less full than they use to be. Where have those people gone, to Facebook? Obviously, since one and one is two, we can deduce that because large amounts of people have aggregated to Facebook they must also all want to shop on Facebook!  SO, let’s build a mall, it will succeed.

Again, I oversimplify but my oversimplification is only to bring up one simply thing, people are online for a deal. If Facebook is going to play mall cop (or landlord) then they better have some killer deals for retailers because the only way that mall succeeds is if I can’t do a Google search and find a better deal. I don’t care if all of my friends are sold, talk about it, “Like” it, love it, endorse it, comment on it or marry it, I’m not buying it if newegg.com, frys.com, ebay or amazon.com have it for $0.25 less and free shipping, it’s that simple. The ‘experience’ can be spectacular, the cart can be immaculate, the customer service can surpass even Nordstrom‘s expectations but I’m still doing a Google search before I confirm my order to see if there is a better deal.  Not because I’m a jerk, unfaithful customer, uncommitted brand advocate or because I’m cheap…because I AM AN INTERNET USER!

Example:  This week I got an email “early notice” from Groupon about the Old Navy deal $20 for $10.  Considering $20 at Old Navy buys you like everything in the store, that’s a killer deal. Within 4 hours of getting the email I saw no less than 10 people posting about it on FB.  Tens, or hundreds of people were getting access to this deal even though they had nothing to do with Groupon.  Therein is the power of Facebook; exclusive products, prices and offers can go viral in a matter of minutes, potentially faster than any other method. Success and whether the store needs to be within Facebook or not is only for the future and new ideas/innovation to tell.

I have personally programmed or managed the development of over 45 e-commerce websites for small to Fortune 500 companies (several) and the one thing I have learned is that the biggest game is in the numbers (deals). Many online companies survive and can have moderate growth through marketing and advertising, don’t get me wrong, you CAN succeed without deals.  BUT, companies see unbelievable numbers when they run that deal that you can’t get anywhere else and those companies that diligently work their suppliers to maintain a steady flow of deals, have a consistent, strong and investment-worthy growth rate. Sustainable is another question and concern…for another post.

Before I start let me say that I agree with both the FDA and FTC (the big Fs), that companies need to improve their disclosure and honesty in packaging/labeling. I also completely agree with their initiative for bloggers and websites to disclose when they are getting free or paid samples from companies (as an endorsement or not) so readers know that there was a gift or transaction involved in the post.

Let me also disclaim that I am currently employed by one of the companies effected by these broad-reaching initiatives, although our upper management and lawyers have kept me out of it, thankfully.  This is not a company-sponsored, encouraged or sanctioned post.  This is my opinion and my opinion only.

Here is where the existence of social media is in serious jepeordy:

FTC.gov Online Endorsement Guidelines

“The Commission intends to treat endorsements and testimonials identically in the context of its enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act and for purposes of this part. The term endorsements is therefore generally used hereinafter to cover both terms and situations.”

FTC Warning Letter to 17 Companies

One of the 17 companies was specifically targeted for pure customer testimonials on their site (I wonder who’s lobbying was able to do that, only one of the 17?  Hmmmmm).

Let me restate.  I completely agree with fixing all of the mislabeling and dishonest labeling and hope that all companies will be honest about what they are putting in products we buy.

Here is where social media will die…the first time

If a consumer can be held liable, as the FTC says, for anything they say if they are given a product either for free or paid.  Then any comment you make after going to any big-box store, your local grocer or an event where you try a sip, taste or freebie will make you completely liable for anything you say about it.  What happens if you go to dinner at a friends house who forges steal for a company that makes pots/pans that made the perfect meal you just ate, do you need to disclose everything you ate, the brand of ingredients and everything associated with it or you might get sued?  The short answer is no.  But the issue is a very slippery slope and both the FTC and FDA are starting to hop on the slide.  Yes, I’m being ridiculous but my point is, there is a very fine line between keeping companies and the online community honest and making it impossible for everyone to do anything online for fear of the big F’s coming after them with unlimited consumer funding (because we all know they don’t care about how much it costs…us).

The second death of social media

The minute the big Fs (or big pharmaceutical lobbyists) are able to stop consumers from being able to voice their OPINIONS or FEELINGS is the minute we can all stop believing or hoping.  You see a testimonial is not scientific, it is not studied, researched, scrutinized or proof that anything will work, cure, save or solve any problem.  Testimonials are OPINIONS and FEELINGS by someone who had an experience with or about something.  Often times, testimonials are simply the only hope we have because research and corporations (pharma, usually) have failed or priced things out of reach and we have no other hope. For the big Fs to say that all humans treat testimonials with the same weight as medical research is presumptuous and an insult to everyone’s intelligence. I’d like to see how the study was done, who funded it, who lobbied to have the study done (who funded that) and exactly what the study questions and options to answer were. It’s quite easy for companies and/or the government to create survey’s, studies or research that produces the results they (or lobbyist) want.  It’s MUCH harder to produce a product that someone purchases themselves or tries at a friends house or in a big-box store, grocery store or at an event and believes in it enough to tell others…without compensation!

Compensated or implied-compensation testimonials are something totally different. I agree those should be disclosed. I’m talking about a pure testimonial, comment, post or article. If free sampling in stores or anywhere else can produce testimonials that hold both the consumer and company liable…how long will they last?  Who wants to get sued by the big Fs every time they do sampling because someone may find they liked the product or had a great experience with it?

I find the general premise of the FTC & FDA actions spot-on. The scope, reach and potential power of these actions is what I find disturbing.  So far I’m going to have faith that they’ll do the right thing and that they won’t over-reach either of their bounds and destroy social media for everyone.

I wouldn’t wait for my testimonial though. I’m going to hold out and see what the data and their track record show because  this is the health of the internet we’re talking about and nobody is lobbying me.

DISCLAIMER: The internet, myself, or any of you will not, would not, might not and/or can not become healthy by reading this. None of the claims made here are made by me, supported by me or  encouraged by me. This is for research and educational purposes ONLY, eating this article will not prevent anything, will make you gain weight and may force you to seek medical attention.

DISTURBING CONTRADICTIONS

Major Contradiction by the Big Fs Shows A Concern For Lobbyists NOT Consumers

Why aren’t the Big Fs submitting the same complaints to their own sister agencies making similar claims encouraging consumers to buy/consume these products (and these aren’t testimonials, some aren’t even  study-based) ?  Here are just a few examples:

1)  Department of Health & Human Services (referencing a CDC study): “Eating lots of fruits and vegetables is important for healthy weight and prevention of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. And kids get better growth with enough fruits and vegetables.”  http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/12/20091202a.html

2)  Center for Disease Control (there are pages of supporting studies and statements on this site): “Epidemiologic evidence supports an association between diet and several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and several types of cancer (1-6).”  http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2006/apr/05_0146.htm

3) U.S. Department of Agriculture: “Fiber, fruit and vegetable consumption may help prevent cancer…The consumption of vegetables and fruit has always been seen as health-promoting. Historically, particular fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent or cure ailments ranging from headaches to heart disease. Studies spanning several decades have shown that people who eat a wide variety of vegetables and fruits have a lower incidence of many types of cancer than people who do not.”  http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=10899

4)  The U.S. Surgeon General: “In contrast, consumption of fruits and vegetables in place of high calorie foods may reduce the risk for obesity and help sustain weight loss because the body’s sense of fullness at meals is partly regulated by volume. Fruits and vegetables contain few calories and are bulky foods, so they have a low caloric density and are more filling than fast foods.”  http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/obesityvision/obesityvision2010.pdf

5) U.S. Public Health Service (part of Department of Health & Human Services): “It is estimated that as much as 50 percent or more of cancer can be prevented through smoking cessation and improved dietary habits, such as reducing fat consumption and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption.[7], [8] Physical activity and weight control also can contribute to cancer prevention.[9], [10]”  http://www.usphs.gov/corpslinks/pharmacy/phpharm/hpcancer.html

The iPhone and Android are a couple of the phones using GPS to pinpoint location and software is leveraging  that technology to deliver up content that is localized to the phones coordinates. It’s kind of creepy until you’re hungry and need to know where the closest In-N-Out or White Castle is. Social butterflies are in heaven because they can share their location with anyone whenever they need to. No need to ask directions, your phone already figures it out when you just tell it who you want to meet. And if you have a current Android, you get turn-by-turn verbal directions to go with it (for free).

The wireless applications are just getting started but the business and marketing potential is huge. In addition to our phones, Google and Bing are integrating far more localized results in our search. I’m still trying to determine how relevant localized results are when doing a general search. They haven’t been intrusive on Google, a little bit on Bing but I don’t think I’ve actually clicked on any of them because I was looking for specific information, not local information.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the future. Will localization become intrusive in general search or will they figure out when local matters and not? I know ordering Pizza last night was a 7 click process (and that’s with selecting 3 items on the pizza) because I just typed in the brand of pizza I wanted and Google already had the closest place with phone number and offer in the results.

Localization makes complete sense to me on mobile devices, in fact, it’s about time. The jury is still out on how it is integrated into our online search.

Not only can it impact the quality of our not-locally-relevant search terms but it effects our ability to do search engine optimization and search engine marketing (keyword buys). I’ve seen for myself keywords that I had at number 1 with general search get bumped down as far as two places by localized search results, even though there was no local relevance. This impacts my investment in SEO but also may impact my quality score and therefore the price I pay for keywords.  These may become real cost concerns and need to be part of forecasting considerations.

What has your experience been with localized search online or on-phone?