The Social Web and Business

crookpatedhatΚινητά – Ασύρματες Τεχνολογίες

10 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 11 μήνες)

101 εμφανίσεις

The Social Web and Business

Pop Quiz (Part 1)


If you
don’t

own an
iPad
, what factors would
influence you to buy one?


If you
do

own an
iPad
, what factors are involved

such that you don’t switch?

iPad

HP Slate

Kindle

Fire

Samsung

Why
iPad
?


If everything else you own is Apple (compatibility / integration)


Apps (and lots of apps)


iTunes / iTunes account /
iCloud


(Same for Android and Google)


Cost of
iPad

were good enough


Familiarity with the user interface


Style and Aesthetics / things match (color wise or look and feel)


Compatibility


Plugs match


Software matches

Intrinsic
/ Extrinsic Factors


Intrinsic


Property of the item itself


Usable


Apple logo on it (means you are cool)


Product hype / marketing / Steve Jobs reality distortion field


Support
for lots of formats



Extrinsic


Property of the item relative to others


Accessories


App market, lots of choice


Everyone has one, popular, “good brand” / knows how to use


iTunes Music Store / Beatles / selection


Music
collection / incompatibility


Developers


Customer service

Externalities


Alice's adoption or production decisions have direct

or indirect effects on Bob's adoption or production
decisions


Alice's decisions create costs and benefits external to her


e.g., Size of telephone, email, and fax networks


e.g., Complementary products

hardware & software


e.g
., Second hand smoke & other
pollution

Externalities


Positive externalities

benefits to all users increase
with the number of users


Ex.
Potential
communication partners increases with the
number of network users


Ex. Likelihood of getting repair services, complementary
software, or advice increase with number of
users



Negative externalities

benefits to all users decrease
with the number of users


Ex. Network congestion, traffic congestion


Ex.
Privacy intrusion, spam & information overload



Probability of a song appearing on Napster increased
with the number of users, at a declining rate

Positive Externalities in Napster


Measures of congestion in Napster increased with the
number of users, at an increasing rate


Negative Externalities in Napster

Implications of Positive Network
Externalities


Winner
-
take
-
all competition between networks


Due to positive externalities, one network keeps growing

and dominates over the others


Example: phone network


Other examples?




So there is a clear need for critical mass


Need minimum number of users that makes others want to
join (or not quit)

Positive Externalities can Lead to Tipping

http://news.netcraft.com/

Externality Strategy


Given this,
obvious strategy is to try to get lots of

early members. But how?


Rational to wait and see if site / standard / service will succeed

utility(join
now)

=


participation_benefit
stage1


-

startup_cost



+
success_probability

*

(
participation_benefit
stage2

+

early_adopter_benefit
)

utility(wait
)
=


success_probability


*

(
participation_benefit
stage2



startup_cost
)

utility(join
now)
-

utility(wait
)
=


participation_benefit
stage1





startup_cost


*
(1


success_probability
)


+
early_adopter_benefit

*

success_probability


So, possible things to optimize early on:


Value early adopters get from the community


Cost or effort that they will incur to join or participate in
the community


Future value of they will get from the community



Break up into small groups and come up with specific
actionable things a site can do

utility(join
now)
-

utility(wait
) =


participation_benefit
stage1





startup_cost

*
(1


success_probability
)


+ (
early_adopter_benefit

*

success_probability
)


Implications: Where to Look for Solutions

Small In
-
Class Exercise


Benefits


Ex.
Hulu
+ two weeks free if you get a friend to join


Ex. Red balloon challenge


Early promotion if you get it NOW
NOW

NOW


Influencers and Celebrities joining / convey a sense of being cool /
exclusivity


First choice of names / three letter names


Special benefits


Startup costs


Tutorials / gentler slopes for user interface


Better integration with other stuff out there (Twitter, Facebook)


Garden path leads you to stay in / high opt
-
out


Getting rest of friends to join / Gmail
contacts


Free trials


Future value


Ensures price won’t be beat


Easier to get highest scores / most points



Offer services that offer value to single users regardless of
existence of the community


Ex.
Flickr offers picture storage and management


Ex. Delicious offers social bookmarking


Strategy 1

Increase initial value of community



Offer services that offer value to single users regardless of
existence of the community


Ex.
Flickr offers picture storage and management


Ex. Delicious offers social bookmarking


Offer services that add value to a group of users


Ex.
users of Google Groups find can find value only within a

group regardless of the activity of other groups


Target early adopters with special needs


Ex.
Minitel

targeted men seeking porn


Use data from a third
-
party source


Ex. Many
Wordpress

blogs use plugin to generate comments

from tweets (tweets linking to a post as treated as comments)


Get paid staff or bots to participate


Google is doing that by getting its employees to answer

questions related to its APIs in various Google groups



Strategy 1

Increase initial value of community

Strategy 2

Reduce cost of participation


Offer subsidized, discounted or free services may tempt
users to sign up and participate.


DARPA & NSF subsidized early Internet use


Let users log in using cross
-
site authentication


Ex.
OAuth

using Facebook, Twitter, Google


Strategy 2

Reduce cost of participation


Offer subsidized, discounted or free services may tempt
users to sign up and participate.


DARPA & NSF subsidized early Internet use


Let users log in using cross
-
site authentication


Ex.
OAuth

using Facebook, Twitter, Google


Use interface design elements that have been used in
other popular sites allow users to learn site faster


Jakob's

Law of the Web User Experience states that "users spend
most of their time on other websites
.“


Inform the users about the scope of the community in a
clear and precise way.


Ex.
New Tweeters attract more people when initial posts are more
similar to each other & on similar topics


Strategy
3

Provide early
adopter benefits


Give discounts to the early adopters


Ex.
lower rates for life


Create limited resources that tempt users to join early


Ex.
users sign up first to claim their username


Ex.
status & recognition with being an early adopter


See most
http://kickstarter.com

projects


Give early adopters privileges


Ex.
administrator status


Strategy
4

Increase perception of future success


Start with a narrow scope and broader later on


Ex. Facebook
starts at a few Ivy campuses


Show images of users on the homepage to create

a
visual perception of the
activity


Avoid empty spaces due to community
inactivity


Split community spaces by topic after there is enough
content. Otherwise, empty spaces will be
created


Create a professionally
-
looking
website


Promote user
-
generated content on the homepage to
show that the community is active.


Twitter shows
“trending topics right now”
before
logging
in


Promote active spaces by ordering information by date.
Keep the latest additions on top of lists.



Different stats for different stages


Small and slow growing


Display new members and
content


Small and fast growing


Display percentage growth


Big


Display absolute numbers


Display
Usage Statistics

Bootstrapping: Leverage early joiners


Attract users who are likely to create content


When the community depends on the participation of two
complimentary types of users, attracting one type will probably bring
the other type eventually on board as well.


Ex. thesixtyone.com brought
musicans

first and then fans followed

Bootstrapping: Leverage early joiners


Attract users who are likely to create content


When the community depends on the participation of two
complimentary types of users, attracting one type will probably bring
the other type eventually on board as well.


Ex. sixtyone.com brought
musicans

first and then fans followed


Attract users who have bigger effect on others.


Ex.
Use network centrality measures to recruit


Allow actions in the community to be published in other sites.


Ex.
campusfood.com allows the users to publish a story on their

Facebook status after ordering food from the site


Allow users to easily syndicate content.


Ex.
Blogs that allow the readers to easily share a post via numerous

services like Twitter, Facebook,
Stumbleupon
,
Digg
, etc.


Provide services that allow users to invite their own friends easily


Ex.
“invite friends from Gmail, Hotmail, etc” that is used in many social networks.


Diffusion of Innovations


S
-
shaped diffusion curve, shape differs by speed &
asymptote


Phone: 60 years to reach 50% household penetration & asymptotes at 93%


Radio: 10 years to reach 50% household penetration & asymptotes at 99%


TV: 9 years to reach 50% household penetration & asymptotes at 98%


VCR: 6 years to reach 50% household penetration & asymptotes at 84%

Diffusion is a communication process


Diffusion of new ideas / applications / products

follows a predictable
path


Early on, diffusion happens at an increasing rate, as more people you
contact have already adopted


Spread often happens thru social networks


Later on, diffusion slows, because fewer people left to be influenced

Diffusion Model

Characteristics
of Successful
Innovation


Relative Advantage


How is it better than what is already out there?


Compatibility


Consistent with past values, experiences, habits, beliefs,
installed base


Complexity


Difficult to understand or use


Trialability


How easy to try on small basis?


Observability


Can see others gaining benefit

Adoption Curve

Adoption Curve


Innovators



venturesome, more educated, multiple
information sources, more risk
-
oriented


Early adopters


younger, more educated, popular,
social leaders


Early majority



deliberate, many informal social
contacts, more conservative but open to new ideas,
active in community and influence to neighbors


Late majority



skeptical, traditional, older, less
educated, fairly conservative, less socially active


Laggards



very conservative, oldest, least educated,
neighbors and friends are main sources of info

Some Implications for Diffusion


If the market does not exist, target innovators first


More money


Well educated


Higher socioeconomic

status


More rational


Innovative



Note that some products don’t

make it past innovator
stage


Segway, lots of social web sites


Switching Costs


If you
own
an
iPad
, what factors are

involved such
that you don’t switch
?


We talked about this last class



What about Facebook? What would

it take to get you to switch?



What about Google? Why not switch

to Bing or Ask or A9 or another?

What did Google do to increase switching costs?


Google


What’s
determining a decision to switch
from
Facebook to Google+?


If you were Google, what kinds of strategies might you try?




Lens #1


Intrinsic / Extrinsic Properties


Lens #2


Switching costs


Lens #3


Innovators / Early Adopters / Early Majority
/ Late Majority / Laggards


Lens #4


Relative Advantage / Compatibility /
Complexity /
Trialability

/
Observability



Directly Competing Can be Hard


The Early History of Nupedia

and Wikipedia

Starting Nupedia


Nupedia was a precursor to Wikipedia


Peer
-
reviewed open encyclopedia


Stocked with experts in fields


Seven stage process for vetting articles


"After 18 months and more than $250,000," Wales
said, "we had 12 articles.“


(Sanger claims 20 articles…)

Discussion


To a large extent, Nupedia and Wikipedia were
trailblazing new ground


We have benefit of hindsight



Will discuss some elements of the readings


What they did and why?


Kinds of knobs and levers we have today?


Are the experiences generalizable?


Ex. Quora, Pinterest, DeviantArt, OKCupid

Governance in Early Days


How to make decisions and policies, enforce rules


Desire to be inclusive and open to all


But few buttons and levers, fewer “sticks”


Volunteers driven by an idea

“actual project policy… succeeded in being established only
by being followed and supported by a majority of
participants… For our purposes, a "consensus" appeared to
consist of (1) widespread common practice, (2) many vocal
defenders, and (3) virtually no detractors.”

But that way of settling upon policy proposals… did not
scale... [T]here were so many contributors, and
especially

brand new

contributors… there would after
that

always

be

somebody

who insisted on expressing
disagreement.


Difficult People


Some of our earliest contributors were academics and other
highly
-
qualified people, and it seems to me that they were
slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with
difficult people on the project.


So there was a growing problem:

persistent
and difficult
contributors tend to drive away many better, more valuable
contributors… there were many more who quietly came and
quietly left. Short of removing the problem contributors
altogether
--
which we did only in the very worst cases
--
there
was no easy solution, under the system as we had set it up.



Alternatives? What do other sites do?

Managing Controversies


The front page of Wikipedia
--
then open to anyone to edit, like any
other page on the project
--
was occasionally vandalized with infantile
graffiti.


Someone then tried to make an archive of the vandalism that had
been done to the front page of Wikipedia. I maintained that to make
such an archive would be to encourage such vandalism, so I deleted
the archive. This occasioned much debate. Then a user made the
archive a "subpage" of his own user page
--
and user pages were
generally held to be the bailiwick of the user. Consequently I deleted
that subpage, which occasioned a further hue and cry that, perhaps, I
was abusing my authority.



Alternatives? What do other sites do?


Culture Wars


Wiki culture
vs

wikipedia

culture


since the project was a wiki,

some
participants thought that
there should be no rules at all. (Enforceable rules were
regarded as "anti
-
wiki“…)


Moderation
vs

unmoderated

forums


The existence of trolls was a problem we felt we should
tolerate
--
and deal with only

verbally,

not with harsh
penalties
--
for the sake of encouraging the broadest amount
of participation. In the first years, only the worst trolls were
ever expelled from the project.


Software


nasty, heated exchanges live on forever on a wiki… unless
deliberately toned down afterwards; if the same exchange
takes place on a mailing list, it slips mercifully and quietly
into the archives.

Sanger’s Closing Thoughts


Establish early on that
there will be some

non
-
negotiable
policy


Consider making a project

charter

to make it clear from the
beginning what the basic principles governing the project
will be


Establish any necessary authority early and clearly.
Managers should not be afraid to enforce the project
charter by removing people


[public] dsagreements among project managers … is apt
to undermine moral authority… make sure management is
on the same page


Make special roles for experts from the very beginning


Taking a Step Back


Technology


Easy editing


Different kinds of discussion software for different kinds
of discussions


Social processes


Collaborate radically, don’t sign articles


Offer unedited, unapproved content for further
development


Philosophy and Inspiration / Value


Openness, anyone can contribute


Neutrality

Other Issues


No ads


Early champions who believed in vision


Software (wikis, mailing lists)


Wikis also not proven yet


Externalities


Google search / traffic


More people coming in also means more word of mouth, more
costs


Diffusion of innovations



Expertise vs Openness


Academics and Rigor


It turned out, however, that a clear majority of the
Nupedia

Advisory Board wanted to have nothing to do with a wiki.
Again, their commitment was to rigor and reliability… They
(some of them) evidently thought that a wiki

could

not
resemble an encyclopedia at all, that it would be too informal
and unstructured, as the original
WikiWikiWeb

was



0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Feb 15
Contest 1
Contest 2
Contests 3, 4
Thread 1
May 15
Thread 2
Contest 5
Fishtanks
Contest 6
Aug 15
Current member count

Messages posted

Staff posts
Member posts
Active members
Key Dates
Using staff to create content


Resnick
, Paul,
Janney
, Adrienne,
Buis
,
Lorriane

R, and Caroline R Richardson, “
Adding
an online community to an Internet
-
mediated walking program. Part 2: Strategies for
encouraging community participation
”.

Journal of Medical Internet Research
. 2010.
12(4):e72.

Twitter


How can you increase your followers & their
interconnections?