Social Media Marketing - Book Review

Social Media Marketing

“How data analytics help to monetise the user base in telecoms, social networks media and advertising in a converged ecosystem”

Ajit Jaokar, Brian Jacobs, Alan Moore and Jouko Ahvenainen

http://socialmediamarketing.futuretext.com/

Before you read my review of this book, you need to know that I am not entirely without bias. I am the co-author with Ajit for “mobile web 2.0” and Open Gardens”. I know Alan Moore and we have spend time working up ideas. I know Jouko Ahvenainen from xtract and I am a major supporter of his company. I don’t know Brian. I am about to publish “My Digital Footprint” http://www.mydigitalfootprint.com which has a high degree of correlation to many of the topics cover in this book, so I am very sympathetic to the focus and emphasis.

This is an airplane book, easy to read and you can get through it in a round trip to Barcelona. It is not a detailed read as it is about setting up a framework and moves the discussion forward.

The books takes time to set out in the first few chapters that markets are conversations and how if you can understand who is talking to who about what, you have the basic armoury to go into battle. To understand this you need to appreciate that all those tracks, trails, clicks, messages, blogs, comments that you leave behind in a digital world are there to be collected and harvested. The more data, the more analysis the more value you should be able to create. The book looks at social networks and there is a brief look at how media agencies work and how they are reacting (or not) to change.

Page 65 starts to look at the telco market and makes the valid point that operators think they own the customer, whereas they should be thinking the could get to know the customer ( difference between monopoly and loyalty!)

In getting to know the customer there are three rules to follow:- give the customer an incentive, an open platform or ecosystem and touch points. These are then explored.

From Page 75 there is a good summary of Alan Moores Book “Communities Dominate Brands” and brings out the key point of alpha users, those who are most influential in attracting and keeping friends as part of the customer base.

On page 94 there is a move from the economics and marketing into psychology and emotional behaviour as the book moves to talk about trust and reputation.

On page 112 the book points out that due to the social network, social data and life stream mean that we now have a living profile. Once the bedrock of marketing, demographic segmentation and lifestyle categorisation; which was fixed for a period of your life and describes strata’s of the population, will now possibly become redundant. Our new profile built on digital footprints will be living real time representations. The eternal issue facing us all, however, is how do we extract the value from the data!

The later parts of the book drift into privacy and identity and the impact on people willingness to provide or give up data.

Overall well worth a flight read as it is likely to stimulate new ideas and ways of looking at your customers and the data you have (or should have) and the analysis you do do ( or should do)

Virtual Shadows – your privacy in the information society. BCS book

http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.10340

Karen Lawrence Oqvist

http://virtualshadows.wordpress.com/

“Web 2.0 and social networking sites are challenging traditional notions of privacy and security in cyberspace, at a time when surveillance and tracking in the real world have reached endemic proportions.

As the gap between virtual and reality becomes increasingly blurred by current and emerging technologies, the way we communicate and interact with one another is changing as well. But what are the implications for our privacy, and what impact will this have on our safety and security?

"Virtual Shadows" provides a fascinating glimpse into this brave new Information Society. It covers a diverse range of topics which span the 4 key areas of privacy (information, bodily, communications and territorial), where the rules of play have not yet been clearly defined, much less understood”

In truth this book is for someone who knows nothing about privacy, identity, the information society and worried about what will happen to all that data ‘society’ collects on you. As presented in the preface, this is an MSc project and unfortunately reads like one.

The few notable points include:

It assumes that the digital is a shadow of “you” and that the links and tags are a good representation, however, Karen does not bring the social graph and any representations or views of others on you.

The matrix of information (unstructured to structured) and identity (unlinked to linked) noting that the quadrant of structured and linked which includes, store cards, air miles, ID cards and RFID is the most valuable to you and others.

The book does not distinguish between digital and physical data offered or captured by you for your own benefit, data types captured by other for your benefit and data types captured by others for their benefit.

If you come from scratch this is a good read, if you have any basic level of understanding on identity or privacy this is not for you, however, do have a look at Karen’s blog http://virtualshadows.wordpress.com/

New Blogs from this point

Sorry - below this is some past blogs, copied over from an old blog board that has now been switched off.

Thanks

Mobile 2

London, November 2007

This Blog explains the power of 2.0 (two dot zero) ideals, why 'Mobile Web 2.0' centres on the unique value created by "mobile metadata" and why AMF Ventures believes that Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, understands that the ownership of mobile metadata will create more shareholder value than search!

Every CxO seeking to deliver any aspect of a convergent solution should read and debate this viewpoint as it impacts: mobile operators, handset manufactures, equipment supplies, platform supplier, application developers, middleware, venture capital, advertisers, consumer brands, media companies and agencies; the digital players.

Introduction

Web 2.0 talks of “harnessing collective intelligence”. This viewpoint presents the idea of extending this concept to the realm of mobile Digital Footprints and explores where shareholder value will be created.

At the forefront of “harnessing collective intelligence” is the mobile device, as the device is able to capture content at the “point of inspiration”. Notwithstanding any content captured directly from a device through an action of the user, there is the larger issue of Digital Footprints; this being the data captured (location and attention) just by keeping a mobile device with you. This unique mobile data and its exploitation is the essence of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’

Back in 1996, Nicholas Negroponte described the concept of Digital Footprints as a “slug trail”. We have always left Digital Footprints. Web 1.0 was about the ‘consumption web’ and clicks; in 1.0 the user left some aspects of a Digital Footprint but did not ‘write’ to the web. 2.0 gave us the ‘read/write web’ and users have emerged as both creators and consumers, we are now the audience and the author. Since we are now writing and creating content we are leaving much larger footprints, however the mobile device can provide data on where we are, how long we have spent there and who you were with; without user input! This has significant implications. However, leaving aside the privacy and security arguments, there are other implications to the leaving and more importantly harnessing of these Digital Footprints.

Web 2.0 has shown us that customers are not afraid to ‘share’ data and personal information (for instance sharing personal photos using Flickr). With Mobile Web 2.0, we add the uniqueness of mobile and leap forward because the Mobile is a personal device. Extrapolation of the trends seen on the Web (sharing personal data) to the mobile devices suggests that we are likely to witness a much richer “Digital Footprint” – and more importantly – a footprint tied to personal identity through our personal mobile device. In that sense, the idea of harnessing collective intelligence becomes dramatically significant when coupled with the ideas of mobile Digital Footprints.

Therein lays the significance of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ and Eric Schmidt’s assertion of ‘Mobile Mobile Mobile’ as the next opportunity.

What is 2.0?

2.0 is an umbrella for practical thinking that centres on the network effect, collective intelligence, the long tail, wisdom of crowds, clans, clubs and all other manner of data exploitation ideals. In contrast to this, early web models centred on cost reduction and zero cost of customer acquisition.

Companies such as Paypal, E-bay, Amazon, Last Minute and Google have changed our traditional methods of finding information, booking holidays and selling services. Consumers see the impact of these web services - but there is a wider and

deeper impact which is not immediately evident. The impact is all pervasive i.e. it directly impacts on our children, our parents, our suppliers, our customers and our customer's referrals. It is all about the 'network effect' and the ownership of the underlying data i.e. the metadata. This is the basis of Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 brings the power of data ownership and the analysis which were previously the domain of large companies within the cost range of the SME. 2.0 technologies provide the data that the 'shop keeper' always had; which enabled him to welcome Mr. Smith and recommend something different to Mr Smith today. In that sense, moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is about the move from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. The social engagement fostered by Web 2.0 and underpinned by data is more important than specific software, tools, methodology.

Tim O'Reilly [O'Reilly Media] described the 7 principles of Web 2.0 in an article published in October 2005. The article focused on the Web as a platform. The progressive thinking that underpins 2.0 has now extended across most sectors and business practices including:- Advertising 2.0, CRM 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, TV 2.0, Mobile and many more. Irrespective of use, 2.0 epitomises a business model that will be built on data, identity, trust and connection. Two services as shown in table 1, have typified Web 2.0 these are User Generated Content (UGC) and social networking.

	User Generated Content	Social Networking
data	the images, video and text uploaded by the creator	images, video and text shared by the users
	generation of usage metadata for analysis
identity	an identification of who the creator is, reputation.	validation of friends and connections,
trust	from the users to protect their identity and to the Brand for experience
connection	the basic requirement to enable the creator and consumer to meet

Table 1. Data, identity, trust and connection - the lynchpins of 2.0

Consumer or Creator?

Every call we make is about someone creating and someone consuming and then swapping roles. Every SMS we send is about creating, every SMS we receive is about consumption. Consumption is about one click; switch on the TV, buy on Amazon, read your message, receive a call. Creation is many clicks; dial a number, create an SMS and post a blog.

YouTube, Flickr and blogs are recognition that humans are as much creators as we are consumers. User Generated Content technologies have enabled the masses to put their creations into the public domain. We can create and this enables users to entertain themselves outside of the linear broadcast TV model; creation, in some instances, of content has become the mechanism of entertainment itself.

Whilst the Web consume model, balanced by new UGC and social networking models has seen massive growth, the mobile sector will soon over-take the Web as a platform for creation and social networking. The mobile phone has the advantage that it is always available and content can be created at the point of inspiration; this is the balance to consumption which is the ‘point of entertainment.’ As shown in figure 1

Figure 1 The balance between creation and consumption.

The mobile industry has focussed on the consumption model, which to a greater or lesser extent justified 3G business models via payment for services, applications and content. The creation side (photos and video) and taking content from the mobile to the web has emerged as a service that users exploit. Further, creators will put up with a poor user interface to engage, as it is their creation they will spend the time to master the processes.

Take up of consumption and creation within the mobile context is predicated on issues discussed at length within the mobile industry; battery life, handset constraints, UI, data pricing and access speeds. However, neither creation nor consumption are unique to mobile!

Mobile Web 2.0 – the uniqueness of mobile

The previous few paragraphs have briefly highlighted how value can be created from a mobile device as:

o the device is always available at the point of inspiration (creation) and point of entertainment (consumption);

o it provides a new media platform to complement Print, TV and Web, and;

o it is available for payment, either as a replacement or complement to plastic and cash. Which form and what limits are furiously debated by commentators who are either protecting or seeking to exploit.

Value added mobile business models were built on the idea that the user would consume and pay for content and applications. Progression of technology has allowed the Web to become mobile, bringing to the mobile service provider the possibility of advertising revenue. New and additional value could therefore be accessed utilising the same ideas that have driven Web 2.0, insomuch as the mobile can mimic the Webs' focus on clicks within the application or browser to deliver the data and information for personalisation, context and advertising revenue.

These clicks are known as our "Digital Footprint" and are a driver of value creation. Digital Footprints come from Mobile, Web and TV - the digital metadata of who we are, the true value and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost.

The reason AMF Ventures believes Eric Schmidt will wake up thinking "mobile, mobile, mobile" before he looks at his email, worries about the value of Double Click or improving a search algorithm is because users spend least time on TV, some on the Web but the mobile is attached personally 24/7 as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: time and value of data

However, even if mobile based form factors will be the predominant method of Web access globally, this thinking has limited the real value and uniqueness of mobile, as it has constrained the possibility of data collection to clicks from within the mobile browser or application.

If unique "mobile metadata", data that the mobile platform can deliver which cannot be collected or obtained from another source, can be sourced; it will create value over and above other platforms such as the Web or TV. AMF Ventures has identified four unique categories of "mobile metadata" that add value to a users’ 'Digital Footprint’ and are waiting to be exploited. These are:

o Availability - as the device is with the user from dawn to dusk;

o Location - where the user is, has been, is going;

o Attention - what the user is spending the time doing, outside of an application or browser, and;

o Who - who the user is doing activities with.

The value creation opportunity comes from the ownership of these metadata categories, as the owner will be able to undertake the analysis and exploit the trends and connections. It is unlikely the user will ever know this (or care!), as long as the final service which they see will be tailored exactly to their needs.

The implications of Mobile Web 2.0

How will this vision of mobile Digital Footprints be delivered and what technology/technologies will be used? Clearly it is a whole 2.0 ecosystem question which aligns with recent announcements from Google who also believe that an alliance spanning handset manufacturers, network operators, developers and software vendors is required. Such alliances recognise that benefit individually, benefits collectively. Give this recognition that we must look at all components of the value chain at once and no individual component (or entity) in itself can deliver a service that the customer values it is a likely to be a mashup.

Hence, the device, the network and the software stack must all act in harmony to create an ecosystem which delivers a truly tailored service to the customer (in return for the Digital Footprint that the customer is willing to share with the trusted entity.

Accepting the principle that users don’t care about the underlying technology and will willingly share their Digital Footprints, the same users focus on: trust and value. User will work with the provider that they trust most as long as they perceive value from the delivery of these advanced services. The provider that understands this principle stands to leapfrog the competition through network effects and can deliver more advanced services to the user, at a lower cost with improved performance; it is likely that such a provider will reduce churn, improve margin and increase market share.

Concluding remark

Although slow in coming, Mr Negroponte’s slug trail is finally upon us with Dr Schmidt’s vision. The combination of Mobile Web 2.0, Digital Footprints and Trust is very disruptive. 2.0 thinking has a significant impact on network access choice, middleware platform functionality and device capability. The impact of this combination is just being felt and the effects will accelerate with Google’s recent announcements about ‘Android’ Google clearly recognises that the whole ecosystem must grow with all existing players benefiting (and that’s the difference between a Gphone (going it alone) and Android (an alliance).

AMF Ventures suggests BRANDS look at these developments as opportunities – rather than threats. However there are many questions which AMF Ventures can help you consider and explore:

o How can we align our company to best leverage this new world?

o What about advertising?

o How do we work with the new (aligned) device stack?

o What about open source?

o What are the implications of leveraging open source on devices?

o How can we create a true Web 2.0 system by harnessing metadata and gain competitive advantage?

o How do we engender trust?

Considering trust, this may be Google’s biggest competitive advantage. Think of this every time a ‘@gmail.com’ email arrives. The product still shows ‘Beta’ and yet millions of users are prepared to let email reside on Gmail and more importantly accept advertising in return.

Taking 2.0 seriously

I have just had the pleasure of spending a few days with the Ogilvy team at the MobileWorldCongress in Barcelona.

Overall you get the impression that 2.0 thinking [the move from isolation, separation and solitude to engagement, relationship and conversation] is being taken seriously by all the players in the extended value chain – motivations being fear and greed. There is a definite awaking that customer ownership and indeed Brand Value is not about billing or handsets.

Innovation, being a good yard stick, would defiantly indicate that there is plenty of opportunity to capture both new value and leak it away from existing players, with an expectation that a ‘new entrant’ will emerge to capture a significant proportion of the value whilst the major global web and mobile players are diverted; fighting each other.

However my sense was that technology, which has been the heart of MWC in previous incarnations was not the driver this year. Indeed I would go as far as suggesting that ‘mashup’ was the focus as each of the key platforms [mobile, web, TV, print and radio], seek to own more the customers purse and mind share.

The question or debate remains however, Is it Open Source or something else?

Impact of Web 2.0 on supply chain

This Blog provides with a cursory overview of 2.0 ideals and focuses these to provide relevance for companies who are involved in and delivering technology to a supply chain.

What is Web 2.0 [two dot zero]

2.0 as a movement is about the network effect, collective intelligence, wisdom of crowds, tribes, clans, clubs and all other manner of long tail matters. Web 2.0 is the passing phase from1.0, which centered on cost reduction, to the intelligent web. Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as moving from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. 2.0 companies are being built on a number of principals, which are different and have a significant impact on back office systems, supply chain and channel.

The Web 2.0 movement collected the name in 2005 and has at its heart an ideology of ‘harnessing collective intelligence’. The intelligence arises from consumers; as users interact they provide the data of what is liked, wanted, demanded or worth sharing. The same user also provides the collective, the collective being many users, businesses and government who contribute to this data. 'Harnessing collective intelligence' has an underlying principle which is the ‘wisdom of crowds’. The wisdom of crowds is where a collective of users are seen to display a better choice or result than a single individual, even a specialist.

Web 2.0 was originally described by Tim O’Reilly in October 2005 http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

There are four elements required to form a 'wise' crowd these are: a) Diversity of opinion, b) Independence: Peoples’ opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them, c) Decentralisation: People are able to specialise and draw on local knowledge, and; d) Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.
Conversely, the wisdom of crowds fails when: a) Decision making is too centralised:. b) Decision making is too divided: c) Decision making is imitative - choices are visible and there are a few strong decision makers who in effect, influence the crowd.	However, to harness collective intelligence requires information:- a) to flow freely’ b) to be harnessed/processed in some way - else it remains a collection of opinions and not knowledge to be monetized along the 'long tail'

Web 2.0 – is more than just ‘Harnessing collective intelligence'.

2.0 has a number of important characteristics that are described below, and it is only when these are put into context does it become evident that there will be significant implications for the supply chain.

The Web as a Platform	Data is the Next Intel Inside
The Web is the only true link that unites us all together whoever or wherever we are in the world. Hence, to harness collective intelligence and to create the intelligent web, we need to include as many people as we can. The only way we can do this is to treat the Web as a platform and use open standards. You can't harness collective intelligence using the IBM ESA/390, no matter how powerful it is!	By definition, to harness collective intelligence, we must have the capacity to process massive amounts of data. Hence, data is the 'intelligence' (Intel)
End of the Software Release Cycle	Lightweight Programming Models
This pertains to 'Software as a Service'. [SaaS] Software as a 'product' can never keep up to date with all the changing information. A Web 2.0 service includes code as well as data. Thus, SaaS keeps the data relevant (and the harnessed decision accurate) by accessing as many sources as possible	The heavy weight programming models catered for the few. In contrast, using lightweight programming models, we can reach many more people. Hence, we are working with many more sources of information, leading to an intelligent web.
Software above the Level of a Single Device	Rich User Experiences
More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence.	A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the Web: leading to a more 'Intelligent' Web.

Impact on supply chain

At first sight it would appear that the Web 2.0 movement is focused on the user or consumer. Its ideals are most easily understood as consumer services and applications, many of these centralize on user generated content and business models justified by advertising revenues such as YouTude and MySpace.

However to limit Web 2.0 to this consumer oriented view is an injustice to the Web. Along with Web 2.0 there has been an emergence of topics such as CRM 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, TV 2.0 and the Mashup Corporation.

It is possible to consider the impact of web 2.0 on the supply chain by focusing on two aspects of a normal supply chain, these being:

o the consumer demand that fills the supply chain with components and eventually products, and;

o the efficiency of the chain.

Web 2.0	consumer demand	efficiency
	The focus in this column is on the user who creates the demand that fills the supply chain and how feedback and integration into this aspect provides mechanism for change.	The focus in this column is on how efficiency could be gained.
The Web as a Platform	The user is capable of creating a unique proposition or product for themselves.	The key aspect here is about integration of systems. Single platform and avoidance of proprietary solutions and interface/ translation problems so that when demand is created, the solution can be fulfilled either entirely without human intervention (software) or controlled to ensure quality.
Data is the Next Intel Inside	The focus is on the ability to gather all information from the user. The information can come for the users web attention, clicks or created content from the browser on a PC, TV or mobile platform. The mobile platform could add location and time, which may be critical for delivery.	There are many aspects of efficiency to be gained, however user metadata provides the ability to draw data out and to forecast and plan will provide substantial gains as does knowing where the user is and when the need the services. This allows priorities to be set, therefore not all orders are equal.
End of the Software Release Cycle	Continuous improvement of user application that provides the ‘shop’ functions which will both match demand and supply by pricing but also to promote unpopular items at attractive prices, or increase pricing as demand grows.	Continuous improvement within the back office functions, even in the core of mission critical systems. Probably the most controversial area, but it is about systems that are designed for incremental change along the chain. Be that the communication, bar code, RFID, database, POS, EPOS or other, ensuring stability but no legacy.
Lightweight Programming Models	Users have the ability to adopt your solution so that they understand it in their way, but does not effect your processes.	Small and flexible models that use standards created by your ecosystem of developers rather than a committee. The provision of agile development methods that means that your ecosystem is able to adapt as new services or products are needed
Software above the Level of a Single Device	Allowing the user to have the same experience of your service on any platform TV, Web and Mobile.	Integration in supply chain through the use of any available communication devices, irrespective of OS. Mobility become central and not an after thought.
Rich User Experiences	The user (wisdom of crowds) is able to input recommendations and changes to the solution processes and delivery models. Helps with retention of customers	The user being the person in the supply chain whom is now able to provide input on the process in which they work. The user is now able to drive the process not the process drive the user. Helps with retention of customers

Applying Web 2.0 ideals will become a central enabler of radical organizational transformation. The interested parties for this change includes customers, partners, suppliers, innovators and developers, many who are on the outside separated by a myriad of corporate firewalls and outdated business models. Even the technology jargon is evolving with SaaS, SOA, XML, blogs, wikis, and mashups, etc. This generation of terms is about relationship, engagement and conversation.

Web 2.0 ideals in the supply chain and front office can remove technological barriers and bring about business process transformation. These changes bring up age-old business questions. How does one best resolve the tension between process—the slow, expensive, and occasionally quite painful march toward optimization and achieving results, even if the path is potentially messy and ad hoc?

It is impossible be precise in a short article and bring about a specific conclusion or recommendation, as the impact of implementing Web 2.0 ultimately has less to do with the underlying technologies or a new fancy set of business processes than it does with real and lasting cultural change, the direction of demand, regulation and the competitive pressure.

Bothered 2.0!

bover'ed 2.0

May 2007

Why does “Eric Schmitt” the CEO of Google say that “mobile, mobile, mobile” is the next opportunity. My viewpoint is that the ownership of mobile originated data is the opportunity.

Within my understanding; 2.0 as a movement is about the network effect, collective intelligence, wisdom of crowds, tribes, clans, clubs and all other manner of long tail matters. Web 2.0 is the passing phase from1.0; which centred on cost reduction and brand values. Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as moving from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. Consumerism 2.0 will be built on mobility and trust.

Eric Schmitt, the CEO of Google, said “mobile, mobile, mobile” as the next opportunity at the O’Reilly Web2Expo in San Francisco last month, where I was speaking on Mobile Web 2.0. I fully agrees that the mobile platform provides an opportunity that can advance faster and further than any other platform; such as the Web, TV, radio or newspaper. The mobile based form factor will be both the preferred method of IP access globally and, being always with you, will be the prime source of collecting your data or ‘Digital Footprint’, which Google would like to own and exploit!

Our mobile device is not only with us, it is increasingly part of us; it has become for many users the most personal thing. Published research suggests that we notice the loss of the mobile device faster than our wallet. The mobile device, if capable, can capture your ‘Digital Footprint’ [My first impression of this was described as ‘the slug trail’ in Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte 1996. Digital Footprint is also known as a ‘Lifestream.’ ‘Lifestreams’ will soon be structured using APML as a common data interchange format for attention or iPALS - identity, Presence, Attention, Location and Services.] which is our daily actions and activities; when we start moving in the morning, what information was searched, requested or delivered, where we have been, where we stayed and for how long. Relationship analysis using our contact base would detail who we were with and who was nearby. Other Screens of Life [‘Screens of Life’ is a phrase explored in Mobile Web 2.0 as a mechanism to describe how we interact with media; both as a consumer of content and as a creator. The screens of life being Cinema, TV, PC, HeadRest (Airplane or Car), Mobile Device, Informational (iPod)] will be unable to repeat this data collection feat, at best a fixed access Web model may get 10% of the available data of your daily pattern, TV maybe 1%, but the mobile device opens the possibility of 90%

Assuming privacy laws and big brother objections can be overcome, this Digital Footprint of captured data or its aggregated trends has a use and a value. The use is personalisation, the exploitation of personalisation is sales and marketing, the value is based on ownership of Digital Footprints. This Digital Footprint being made up of clicks, attention, location and is the focus of our converged industries. 2.0 as a movement has a fascination with this data, in O’Reilly language ‘the next Intel inside.’ Digital Footprints are about where we have been, for low long, how often and the inter-relationships. Digital Footprints are not about individual identity, passport numbers, bank account details or social security numbers. Digital Footprint metadata comes from the Screens of Life – the digital metadata of who we are, the true value to marketing income based companies who need this data for personalisation and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost, the reason why I speculate that Eric Schmidt wakes up thinking about how to own an individuals mobile metadata before he looks at his email or worries about the value of Double Click or improving the search algorithm.

Bothered 2.0!

I would contend that this Digital Footprint or metadata belongs to me - its creator. However, who will I trust with my Digital Footprint if I don’t want Google, Amazon, Ebay, Vodafone, News Corp or Disney to have ownership of it. I need a trusted, open Digital Footprint store, collecting, collating and serving my metadata, through an open API across all platforms and services. I recognise the value of sharing a Digital Footprint, as it leads to service companies improving my mobile, Web or TV experience through personalisation and offsetting cost. But who should I trust and what should I trust them for; as most 2.0 corporations want my Digital Footprint metadata to justify the business model; as owners of Digital Footprints will control advertising revenue. As Google only controls the Web footprint, control of the mobile is critical, especially as mobile devices adds two whole new classes of unclaimed data platforms, availability and location.

Should I be bothered or not?

This Blog is based on my new book ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ (www.mobileweb20.futuretext.com) again co-authored with Ajit Jaoker. In the same tone as OpenGardens, our first book, we have written Mobile Web 2.0 to challenge traditional thinking, stir debate and present a comprehensive, well reasoned and coherent argument that service providers (mobile, broadband or convergent); the existing players, their brands and perceived dominance are not in a stance (or frame of mind) to justify and enjoy an on-going position but we define who can win customers, build revenue, create value and how! A copy of the forward is provided below and you can buy the book at www.mobileweb20.futuretext.com

We define in the book the seven principles of MobileWeb 2.0 as

1) Content created on the mobile device will change the balance of power in the media industry.
2) I am a tag, I am not a number. Tags could provide a way to map the various 'numbers' in our life freeing us from the restrictions of network operators (both fixed and mobile).
3) Multilingual mobile access will be critical to mobile web 2.0.
4) Digital convergence is a driver, mash-ups are an implementation issue
5) The disruptive power of Ajax. Something that actually improves the user experience
6) Location based information is critical.
7) Uniqueness of mobile search. Devices provide their own context

The second principal of MobileWeb 2.0 is the most controversial since we blogged about this back in January. I am a tag, I am not a number holds that the mean and mechanism by which I was uniquely identified by (in the telecommunications world) and could be associated with, which was a number; no longer holds true as a consumer experience.

The key aspect of this is that in the old world I was found, contacted utilising and was identified by numbers, this may have been a phone number or a passport number. In the new world I will be found and identified by tags, centred on who I am as identified by my name. Further; it will not just be me, companies are identified by brands but we have to-date contacted or connected to them by numbers, now companies, using their brands and product names will be uniquely identified by these names. Is there a real difference, in the consumers eyes; yes!, In deep technical aspects, probably not, since there will still be a mechanism for resolving names and numbers, but the value of resolving numbers (directories) and its controlling influence has passed.

What does all this mean for me as an individual ?

I am a tag not a number. In the very old days I had one number, in fact it was not mine either, if was the shared Fish Family home phone number. People could, if the so wished, call up directory enquiries or look up in the phone book this number. Eventually having only one number passed an in the modern age I have several numbers (mobile, Skypein, office, DDI, home, home office, to name a few) If someone wants these numbers, they would need my business card, may be linked to Linkedin or Plaxo or could go to each of the service providers directory services and eventually get my numbers.

However, why did you want the numbers, why have I got some many numbers. Because I can be reached in a variety of means, depending on where I am and the cost of telephony I wish to suffer. In essence however, all you wanted to do was to “speak” with me. Actually, all you wanted was to connect with Tony Fish or Ajit Jaoker who wrote about MobileWeb 2.0 in London in 2006.

However, there is another way. Instead of worrying about using the telecom operators directory search, not knowing which operator I am with, how about using a web search engine to connect. Imagine, you type in my name, the search engine now responds with not a pile of numbers, but offers you a choice of what you would like to do. Do you want to call, message, lowest call route (LCR), VoIP call. You click yes. The search engine has now become the service provider, not by offering infrastructure but by offering the directory resolving feature, and I am now a name not a number. So why tags?

Let’s assume that as you read this, download the slides, look for the update of the book, you store this new data on your computer and you tag the information with something useful. Suppose you tag it with Ajit or Tony. Suppose, as I have tagged the same information on my computer with Ajit and Tony and MobileWeb 2.0 etc. Suppose also that I have tagged my contact details with my name. Now a tag based search engine could resolve the search, and hence draw out the connection opportunities, and can even then set up the connection. If would be possible that I have set preference for my location, and therefore you could be offered to meet me in the Starbucks on Berkeley Street, London, W1 opposite my office as I am in here at the moment!

What becomes evident is that none of this depends on knowing a number or how connection happens and it is certainly not fixed mobile convergence! There is someone who may perform the task, but nobody needs know.

Surely this all breaks down when you have many people with the same name! The simplicity of the tags is that everyone will uniquely tag is different ways, each of these will build unique identifies for people with the same name.

Now how does this extend to the corporate. Corporate discovered many years ago that Vanity numbers worked. This being 0800 Flowers etc. There was no need to remember the phone number, you could type in the name on an alpha numeric key pad. This developed into short codes on the mobile and is likely to introduce a whole new mobile vanity number opportunity.
It is possible that you will dial COKE, BMW or TAXI, FLOWERS and be connected. A corporate will be able to remove the cost of reprinting different number for customer services or for competitions by geography. Instead all one number. But better, this number will be available from fixed, mobile and PC based origination devices. Calls will automatically be least cost routed saving customer and supplier cash.

Mobile will be the first to drive these changes, and will be the driver. It will be the there at the point of inspiration to capture ideas, but also there when you need to connect and find, without the requirements to have it all stored locally.

I look forward to you joining the debate.

Mobile Survey 2008

In January 2008, we conducted a survey of more than 400 members of the international Mobile and Wireless industry in order to delve deeper into the technical environment of mobile devices, the policies and behaviours around them, and the impact that this has on the further development of the industry as a whole.

It is clear that a greater degree of control and clarity is required for both mobile device owners (the users) and developers of products and services for mobile. Many respondents indicated that they wished to have a greater amount of information available to them with regards to the performance factors of the mobile phone – such as memory, battery, network connectivity, screen size, CPU and software support. This includes a much wider and deeper range of detection capabilities, as well as a much greater degree of transparency and control with regards to the applications on the mobile phone.

Fragmented device APIs are seen to be a significant difficulty which hinders application development and deployment. Proprietary APIs are also seen to be a threat to the wider acceptance of the browser as the main application execution environment.

With regards to the browser, there is still a large divide in the industry as to whether it is currently the main application execution environment on the mobile phone, but most do see it heading that way in the next two or three years. However, those involved in Open Source development disagree that the browser will dominate now or in the near future.

In order for the browser environment to be a success, the respondents to the survey strongly agreed that a standards-based interface will be required, that hyperlink access must be supported (along with a range of mark-up languages and scripting standards), and that the browser must be able to receive asynchronous ‘push’ data.

A complete set of slides on the questions and results can be found here.

http://www.slideshare.net/tonyfish/amf-ventures-survey-results