Archive | Social Media RSS feed for this section

INVENTION, DISCLOSURE, AND STICKYBITS

12 Mar

To a certain extent, invention and disclosure are two sides of the startup enterprise:  the former is about coming up with an idea, developing it as a product, and engineering it properly; the latter has to do with communicating internally and externally in order to turn the inventor’s intellectual idea into something useful for 3rd party customers.

There are of course very specific, legal definitions of “invention” and “disclosure” as it relates to the requirements of recognizing and protecting intellectual property.  I searched through some of the various Invention, Proprietary Rights and Non Disclosure Agreements that have landed in my inbox over the years and came across the following two clauses:

  • INVENTIONS “Inventions” means all data, discoveries, designs, developments, formulae, ideas, improvements, inventions, know-how, processes, programs, databases, trade secrets and techniques, whether or not patentable or registerable under copyright, trademark or similar statutes, and all designs, trademarks and copyrightable works made or conceived or reduced to practice or learned, either alone or jointly with others, during employment which: (i) are related to or useful in the business of the Company or to the Company’s actual or demonstrably anticipated research, design, development, financing, manufacturing, licensing, distribution or marketing activity; or (ii) result from tasks assigned by the Company; or (iii) result from the use of premises or equipment owned, leased or contracted for by the Company.
  • DISCLOSURE:  Confidential Information.  In the course of providing the Services, I may learn of, or have disclosed to me, various “Confidential Information”.  Confidential Information is any information designated or labeled as ‘confidential’ or ‘proprietary’ or which is of the type one would reasonably expect a business to maintain in confidence. Confidential Information includes, for example, technical information such as know-how, formulae, computer software, logic design, schematics, and manufacturing processes; business information such as information about costs, prices, profits, markets, sales, customers, and vendors; personnel information; and information relating to innovative activities, such as inventions, research projects, and plans for future development.  Confidential Information includes confidential or proprietary information of a third party to which Company owes a duty of confidentiality or non-use and may also include Inventions (as defined below).  Although certain information or technology may be generally known in the relevant industry, the fact that Company uses it, and how Company uses it, may not be known, and is therefore Confidential Information.

In the cases above, “invention” and “disclosure” are being used in protectionist terms; but the same vocabulary can be turned into something more expressive, as befits the creative process of a startup: disclosure becomes something to celebrate, not guard against.

Startups invent, and then they disclose. They produce product, and then they market it. In years past, one could argue, companies refrained from disclosing their core, proprietary, secret inventions, for fear of enabling competition: Coke never shared its recipes; Jim Simons of Renaissance Capital never published his quantitative trading models; and Google never exposed its search algorithms.

All that changes now in the attention economy, where the pursuit of social influence drives people to expose ever more information about themselves; and companies are forced to respond by disclosing their heretofore “private” inventions publicly via APIs and other forms of developer outreach.

The rule used to be companies whose secret aspirations were hidden behind their “stealth mode” welcome signs, and the exception were companies that were chatty about their plans. Now it has become reversed. The rule are now companies that telegraph their ambitions so as to make developers feel comfortable enough to develop software on top of the companies’ platforms; the exception are now companies that won’t say what they are working on. When it comes to startups, stealth is the new transparency. Transparency is the new stealth.”

Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Google (Android) are all rushing to expose their intentions as quickly as they  become conscious of them.  One could argue that we are coming to the point where disclosure precedes invention.  What then?

Inventing Stickybits

In the case of stickybits, Billy Chasen and I met for a Pastrami sandwich at New York’s 2nd Ave Deli in New York last November.  Afterwards we strolled through the East Village and talked about what was on the technology horizon.  We were both fascinated by FourSquare and the possibilities inherent of Augmented Reality.  We talked about being able to look through the lens of a Smart Phone and see what things looked like in the past: the “ghost filter”  that enabled one to hover over a building and see pictures of what it looked like in the past.

Billy spoke of his attempts at trying to figure out how to add virtual graffiti to a physical wall.  He was annoyed by the inaccuracy of GPS latitude/longitude resolution.  He came up with an idea that might solve these limitations, and suggested that it might also address some of the location based opportunities we were imagining.  He was quiet about it, and made me promise to keep it secret before he shared it with me.

I said ok.

As he whispered in my ear, I couldn’t help but feel like Benjamin in the Graduate:

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Except Billy didn’t say “plastics.”

He said…  stickers.

“Stickers?” I asked.

“Yup, stickers with bar codes that could be put on things and then scanned by an iPhone.”

My first reaction was the disgust of a capitalist when confronted by the poor idealism of an artist

“But stickers are so… grounded in the analog world… and the best businesses are those that scale with effortlessness of digital data.”

I stepped back, thought laterally, and grokked the meme of connecting bits to atoms.

Small lightbulbs started to go off.  At first it was contained to a niche art project of leaving a sticker on a lamp post, scanning it, and recording a video memory.  So that somebody else could walk by that lamp post days later, scan the sticker, and watch the trace memory of what somebody else left behind.  We then brainstormed about how stickers could be placed on tables inside of venues and “claimed,” as a more granular check in within a FourSquare venue.

Soon thereafter, this fleeting initial idea developed the solid inevitability of a startup that was meant to be:  first came the vague concept of attaching stickers with unique bar codes to things that could be scanned; then came the requirement to support iPhone, Android, Facebook, Twitter and FourSquare; then the name, stickybits; we quickly realized that users should also be able to print codes at home, and that existing bar codes on any consumer package good or mass market commodity could be augmented as well; and finally we came up with the compelling user experience of notifying users when their codes have been scanned by others- threaded conversations around physical objects

Billy and I divvied up our respective areas of responsibility:  he would orchestrate the engineering instruments while I would manage the business ones.  We would collaborate around product development and creative design.  Together, the tasks proliferated: devs in SF, LA and NY worked on mobile apps, while our SF-based designer created the look and feel of the stickers and of the matchbook design that would house them; our IP attorney in Palo Also filed a provisional patent, while our trademark lawyer in NY made sure that “stickybits” and “tag my world” were registered;  we closed our seed financing from Polaris and Mitch Kapor weeks after we filed the docs to incorporate the company in the first place.

It reminded me of one of those flash mobs that arrive at an empty plot of land, divide up all the different tasks of constructing a house, and 24 hours later the house is finished.

This is the sublime joy of starting a new company, from its invention to its disclosure.  From the moment the first note is sounded, to the pause following its last note that directly precedes (one hopes) applause.  Today, with so many layers of social, mobile and location-based technologies available on demand, the time frame between coming up with a new social media business concept and distributing its product to consumers can be measured in months if not weeks.  In the case of stickybits, this journey cost us approximately $100,000 and took about 100 days: from a brainstorm session over Pastrami at the 2nd Avenue Deli to a great set of reviews and tweets at launch.

The ink is still too damp on the stickybits story to predict whether it will be a breakout success, a long grind towards goodness, or a failure.  Still, this fast journey from invention to disclosure has been a deeply satisfying startup experience so far.

Thanks for taking part in this journey.

Ads 2.0 Presentation from IAB Annual Meeting

1 Mar

Feeds, Friends and Follows: On Leadership in Social Media

25 Feb

A new paradigm is emerging for how people become valuable online.  I’ll call it “leadership.” It started about five years ago with the introduction of blogs, and has continued more recently through the advent of social media, typified by MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.  Central to this evolution has been the emergence of a new type of authority- authentic, opinionated, transparent, available, real.  The culture of authority as being untouchable has given way to a new culture of authority that can be accessed, and interacted with, in real-time.  The most influential people in social media, the leaders, leverage this new type of authority.

In recent years we have seen a proliferation of screens and modes of access.  Many around the world who otherwise would be unconnected are now able to direct their attention from analog subjects to digital interfaces.  This great surge of global Internet access now envelops us at the high end (Blackberry & iPhone) and at the low end, where any browser will do.  Facebook will soon cross 200 million users world-wide, on its way to a billion in the next few years.    Twitter is just getting started.  Just think of the local communities around the world who will take to social media with a vengeance in the next few years, finding the same joy of expression and participation that we each felt when connecting with old school friends on Facebook for the first time.

But, as Michael Goldhaber has pointed out, “Attention, at least the kind we care about, is an intrinsically scarce resource.”  This means that at some point, all of the attention that can go online, will be online.  At such point, attention will enter a constant process of redistribution.  One could argue that we are seeing this phase transition already in the United States, as most of the audience that will be online is online.  Said another way, no new attention is being created.  People are simply shifting their attention from portals like MSN, AOL, Yahoo! to social media like Facebook, WordPress and Twitter.

In social media, we are all now equally available to eachother.  The cost of receiving attention has gone to zero.  You have my blog address, my Facebook profile, and my Twitter account.  There I am.  Go ahead and consume me.  Just because you can easily access my information, however, does not mean that you will.  This is where the attention economy gives way to the influence economy.  Determining who to pay attention to (and who to ignore) represents a new kind of social media literacy.  For now, this literacy is something that we each are developing ourselves, as we muddle through  friending and un-friending, following and unfollowing.  This is analogous to the ad hoc discovery of web sites circa 1995, before the introduction of Netscape’s “Cool Site of the Day” and the Yahoo! directory.  The advent of people discovery tools, however, is here; just note Twitter’s recently introduced “suggested users”.  The amateur land grab for friends and followers of recent months will soon give way to a less populist  mechanism for discovering people.  Call it the emergence of “mainstream” social media.

Regardless of whether social media leadership gets established from the bottom up, or from the top down, it is useful to analyze in terms of its constituent parts of information, attention and influence:

  • Information:  Being able to produce unique information, on a consistent basis, is the prime mover.  Most leading social media brands need to produce info on an ongoing basis, although others can leverage historical achievements to bootstrap their brand.  For every Fred Wilson, Mike Arrington and John Battelle that need to spend years of daily blogging, there is Lance, Shaq and Snoop that simply need to put up a shingle to start driving traffic.
  • Attention:  As the financial economy teeters on insolvency, the attention economy is as healthy as ever.  Every social media user shares information with the hope of getting more attention.  Some are happy for attention from strangers, while others want attention only from those that they know and care about.  Regardless, most bloggers, posters, sharers, tweeters all do so with the goal of receiving more attention.
  • Influence:  Influence can be defined as the ratio of attention one gets relative to the amount of information one produces.  In this formulation, the person that gets the most attention despite being relatively quiet would have the most influence (ie reclusive novelists like Pynchon).  Somebody that gets a lot of attention but spends an inordinate time producing and distributing information would be less influential.

As we move into a truly social web where the relationships between people are more important than the relationship between pages, understanding the complex interplay of information, attention and influence is necessary for identifying leaders.  Why is leadership relevant to social media?  Leaders attract followers, and followers consume the information that the leaders produce.  This is a standard media model.  In the absence of paid subscriptions, advertising will be required to subsidize the social web.  Any advertiser looking to generate value will, therefore, benefit from having its brand shared by leaders.  Getting these leaders to promote brands- authentically- is the hard problem that us in the business of social advertising are trying to solve.

Preening in Social Media

6 Jan

Dandys    

 

A few weeks back in rainy NY, I had a great conversation with my friend Tom Levin. Tom is a Professor at Princeton University, where he teaches media theory in the German department. Tom suggested that the roots of today’s bloggers and twitters can be traced back to the Flaneurs and Dandys who strolled the streets of Baudelaire’s 19th Century Paris. I wondered if there was a underlying behavior that connected these dots. Tom suggested the term self fashioning, which I thought was perfect.  (credit to Stephen Greenblatt for the term).  

 

Think about the most successful social media mavens in our community as it relates to the act of self fashioning: Calacanis saunters like a Dandy in LA with his bulldogs Taurus and Fondue; Fred unconsciously invokes the image of the Flaneur with his latest tweet from Paris. We are all establishing our identities by fashioning ourselves out of the communication tools, profile updates, and other services we have available to us. 

 

In an attempt to leverage this self fashioning behavior on behalf of marketers, we have been working on a new product at SocialMedia.com. It’s called a WOMI, short for Word Of Mouth Impression.Instead of being an ad about a thing, it’s an ad about a person- a person you know, a friend. It tells a short story. It might be that “Jonas gets his Swagger from his scent” or “Marilyn uses Olay every week to moisturize.” These messages are created on the fly by our social ad server, which harvests interactions across our network, filters them through a social graph, and amplifies them in “traditional” banners. 

 

Though simplistic, this format is an early step in the evolution of social advertising. 

 

First: find a hand-raiser / evangelist / advocate willing to voice his opinion to his friends: 

opt-in impression 

 

Then, share his opinion with his friends: 

WOMI  

 

It is a form of store-and-forward communications that is as old as the original Darpa Internet. It seems novel only because banner ads have not changed much since they were invented 15 years ago.  

 

When I showed him some recent examples of these social ads, Tom was skeptical: why would somebody choose to share their opinion about a brand with their friends? What motivates somebody to want to interact with an advertiser when all they really seem to want to do is communicate with their friends? This of course is the fundamental dilemma for advertisers wishing to leverage social media:

“How can I make somebody care so much about my {soap, candy, beverage} product that they advocate on my behalf to their friends?”          

 

 

The problem with formulating the dilemma this way is that it focuses too much on the (in)capability of the brand to persuade, and not enough on the expressiveness of the advocate.  All social media environments depend on active communities; however not all community members are equally active. Usually, a small group of “producers” is disproportionately expressive relative to a much larger population of “consumers”. 

 

This begs a number of questions:

  • is there a set ratio between producers and consumers of social media?
  • is the difference between these two types purely situational (certain people are opinionated about certain subjects)
  • or is there a deeper, biological difference between producers and consumers?

 

Most birds have a preen gland, which secretes an oil that they rub onto their feathers. It is a basic form of self fashioning.

 

I wonder if people have similar glands, which compels them to share information.

Bird Preening 

The Quest for Something Better

23 Jun

This post is  from my co-founder Dave Gentzel and is in regard to our recently released “Social Banners”.  I will be sharing some additional thoughts in coming days on how to innovate in social advertising while keeping users in control.

 

Dave GentzelChange. We hear the word frequently. It’s utilized by politicians, elite business people, and millions of others around the world. Because with change comes the promise of something better. Something revolutionary. Something that will change the world! Or, at least something that sucks substantially less than it did before.

Since the beginning of time (currently known as May 24th, 2007), it has been SocialMedia’s passion to understand the dynamics of social applications, and specifically, how to help developers make money from them. In doing so, we’ve explored many different angles of monetization, ranging from virtual currency incentives back in June of last year, to AdSense-like ads currently, and everything in between. So, now that it’s been over a year, what have we learned?

Simply put, traditional advertising and social media environments don’t really mix.

Now, we mean no disrespect to the dancing ladies of many mortgage ads, whose killer moves have lured millions into saving money. Nor do we wish to offend Mr. Monkey of punch the monkey, as he’s undoubtedly accumulated enough angst to unleash a world of clicking furry on the internet. And Google, the king of kings. If developers were creating tech blogs or web hosting review sites, AdSense would be in heaven. But, unfortunately, “fun wall” and “hug me” keywords aren’t in huge demand.

And thus, we at SocialMedia realized something had to change.

For the past many months, we’ve been tidying up our ad serving, washing and drying our metaphorical dishes, and working away to bring you revolutionary things! So, on this day, can we proudly proclaim we’ve solved social media monetization and changed the advertising world? Not to the extent that Google has solved search monetization. But, we have made great progress. And with little doubt, we can stand up, raise our arm in jovial assertion, and confidently proclaim, “In social media, everything must be social — even the ads — and we’re going to help make it happen!”

Uh oh. Now we’ve done it. We just used “ads” and “social” in the same sentence. Sound the alarms! Unleash the privacy brigade! All ur data are belong 2 us!

Or not.

Below is a concrete example of a social banner. It’s an ad, presumably sponsorable by a company seeking to spread the word about its new-found greenness. So, without further ado, here’s a our user violating, privacy busting, all your data in a social banner, banner!

Blog Reader: “Umm…wait. Is this a trick? My data has to be in here somewhere. I know! It’s hiding under the alien! Oh, no. That’s silly. Wait! You pulled my facebook interests to stereotype me as a certain type of user, thereby populating the buttons with choices that would appeal to me, thus increasing ad CTR!”

As Winnie the Pooh would say, “Oh bother.”

Your data isn’t in there. Not at all. But, let’s say you do opt to share why you’re green with your friends by clicking on a button. This is what your friends would see, except replace this dude’s picture with yours.

Blog Reader: “OMG I’M IN THE AD! You mean when I choose to share why I’m green with my friends, my friends will actually see it?”

It’s rather difficult to share something with your friends when we can’t tell your friends the thing you wanted to share. So, yes, that’s precisely what we did.

Blog Reader: “Wait, did you just spam all my friends too?”

No, we didn’t.

We did not post a news feed item to your friends on your behalf.

We did not invite your friends to an application.

We did not email your friends.

We did not send your friends a notification.

We did not IM your friends.

We did not post a message to your friends walls.

We did not send your friends a facebook message.

We did not post anything to your profile.

Nor will we be sending your daily email reminders about your green status, and that you should update it.

In short, we did not do anything other than wait for your friend to show up in an application that uses SocialMedia’s advertising services, and then display the message you explicitly chose to share to your friends. And, we did not access your data from Facebook, other than making a call to get your 50×50 pixel picture, which you can control via facebook’s privacy controls. We also have our own opt-out mechanism.

Blog Reader: “You know, this thing seems very familiar to a lot of applications on facebook I have installed before.”

You mean the ones that did spam you and your friends in every which way and had access to every little bit of your data, and every little bit of all your friends data? Yes, I’m familiar with those.

Blog Reader: “I seem to have forgotten why I was so angry. Oh yes. BUT I’M IN AN AD!”

The fundamental reason people dislike advertising is because they think it takes advantage of them. This is especially true when individuals are inside ads. But, our goal is not to put people inside of ads as a gimmick, as gimmicks die and provide little value to anyone. Instead, we want to facilitate real conversation and interaction around certain products and brands.

We don’t get paid to put you in ads. We’re getting paid to present you with the opportunity to interact with a product socially. And, if you choose to do so and we can display this interaction to your friends, then we’ve done half our job. The other half is ensuring that the social experience was well received by you and your friends. It’s a different type of adverting that pulls from the core of the social graph in a distributed manner that is neither invasive nor annoying. Essentially, we’re building mini-apps inside your apps, available when you want them, empowering you to share and communicate with your friends wherever you go (inside of facebook, of course!).

That’s SocialMedia’s mission, and that’s how we plan to bring change to the advertising industry.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,441 other followers