My Take On Social Media Tools For Influence

August 4th, 2010

Today I would like to offer my views on several social media tools. They are:

  • Peer Index
  • Klout
  • Quora
  • Yahoo! Answers
  • Facebook Questions

When I woke up this morning and got online, I went to Google Buzz! and found this Youtube video from the vernerable Robert Scoble, in which he interviewed the founder of a new Twitter social influence tool, Peer Index. Basically, Peer Index goes one level beyond what Klout does; instead of just ranking people as influencers, curators, pundits, etc., it goes one level beyond, and divides people into vertical groups, and the identifying the groups in which they are influential. Just to give you an idea of how it works, here is my profile on Peer Index.

Partway through the video, I got a little surprised and my ego puffed up a bit when the China economy and biz section was brought up and I was mentioned. Always thankful for nice little mentions!

This looks like quite an improvement over Klout because of the finer granularity than Klout. I have been disappointed in Klout lately because they don’t seem to have kept their index updated. Give you an example: Here is my profile on Klout; notice how my tagline hasn’t been updated compared to my Twitter page.

For this reason, I much prefer Peer Index to Klout.

Another area I have been interested in are online questions forums; these really started with Naver in Korea, which has the predominant search engine in Korea. At one time, Naver marketed itself as the leading human-powered search engine; it relied on human vertical sector experts to answer questions. Eventually, some of these people first became experts in their field and became well-known first on the Internet, then on TV and through society. A few even achieved fame and riches through Naver.

One of the interesting side effects of this was that when people become well-known for the right reasons, they want to use their real names. Naver enabled this to happen.

Yahoo! noticed the success of this, and created Yahoo! Answers , which was largely a copy of the Naver model. Since it did not have the rigorous enforcement, policing and feedback which Naver did though, the quality of the questions and answers quickly went down in quality, with the result that the audience which used it also went down.

A recent variation on this has been Quora. This is a well designed question and answer model, which has good design and a good clean interface, and is heavily policed by editors. I tried it out for most of July and generally like it, but I found the editors too intrusive in the way they tried to edit questions. The community which is there is heavily slanted to ex-Facebook people, and the venture capital community. For a while I found this amusing, but after two weeks I found it boring, since I found both communities to be navel-gazers. As a side-point, I found many of the editors to be either Taiwanese who were deep-green pro-independence folk, or Indian. (Not that I care, but it is interesting how sub-communities shown through.)

For me, the straw broke when I asked a question in Chinese: 能用中文发问吗？(Translation: Can I ask questions in Chinese?) My motivation in asking this question was to engage some lively discussions in Chinese, since there is a significant number of Chinese on Quora. This question was quickly deleted by one of the Quora editors, and I was told to send an email to feedback at quora dot com. This was too much, and told me that their rules were too inflexible to make it a truly global Q&A forum, and I had had enough of the ex-FB and VC community, so I left and haven’t been back.

Facebook Questions is now undergoing closed testing; I expect this to be much better than Quora because it will associate people using their real names with their FB identities. For advertisers, this will be a very powerful tool because it will identify who really knows their stuff, and it should quickly replace Quora because of Facebook’s huge user base. In my opinion, Quora is too little too late, and their community is too narrow, and their editors’ overzealousness will prevent it from growing significantly.

After seeing Peer Index and the Q&A portals, I have decided that the Peer Index approach is much better. When people go to portals, they want to strut their stuff and show off, or of that doesn’t work, they just leave. In my own case, I like it much better when people can build their crowds based on their tweets, and you can build and lose followers according to Twitter. This is why I like Twitter and Peer Index much better than any of the Q&A portals.

I hope that Peer Index represents the trend of the future so that we get better quality as well as quantitative research when looking for influencers and knowledge experts on Twitter and the Internet.

2010 Tudou Film Festival Award Delivers Tough Message

April 18th, 2010

The winner of the Tudou Film Festival Award was announced today, it went to the Machinima Film 网隐战争 or War of Internet Addiction. It is a remarkable production, made entirely in the world of World of Warcraft, and took three months and 100 Chinese volunteer gamers to make. It features excellent production values and is smart and clever.

Bill Bishop, publisher of the Digicha blog was the first English blogger to mention it in the non-Chinese blogger world, and afterwards it was picked up by leading English-language publications, including the Wall Street Journal.

For reasons I am not able to fathom, no one has really explained the context and significance of this production. Many who follow the issue of China, the Chinese economy, and modern Chinese social studies should endeavor to understand what the “War of Internet Addiction” really reveals about modern Chinese society. The whole story is much like the Japanese film classic Rashomon by Akira Kurosawa, which highlighted the Rashomon effect, or the view that viewers to an event only see what they want to see, and will deny the validity of alternative interpretations. This denying of alternative interpretations is not only valid in China, but as we will see, also in the west.

In order to underscore the difference of these interpretations, I will present their views in separate sections.

Chinese Government Official View
From the Chinese government’s point of view, many Chinese youth spend too much time at Internet cafes playing games. Among these games, World of Warcraft is the most addictive. This has given rise to a new illness “Internet addiction”, which the government officially believes to be an illness. A whole industry of treatment clinics has sprung up to treat this illness, using methods sometimes as severe as shock therapy.
Young people who spend their time playing WoW all the time should instead spend more of their time studying, or pursuing other more productive activities.
On the business side, World of Warcraft has become a major moneymaker for its China licensees, first The9, then NetEase. So important was regulation of the War of Warcraft franchise in China that a rare public turf war was fought between the Ministry of Culture and the General Administration of Press and Publication over regulation of NetEase, the China distributor. During this bureaucratic fight, the WoW servers’ service was partially suspended in China, causing much discomfort for WoW players in China.

China World of Warcraft Players
World of Warcraft has 73 different levels, and involves a wide variety of players with different roles and skills, working together to overcome obstacles. By working together and fighting together, these players bond and build strong trust, even though the players are playing in a virtual world. Unlike in the real world, where people are always competing against each other in a highly competitive education and social environment, and where there is little if any trust, the players build trust over time as they fight to higher levels. In this respect, World of Warcraft is a true meritocracy; one which does not exist in the real world of modern China. For this reason, most players look forward to meeting and playing with their fellow players on World of Warcraft on a regular basis.
“Why does the Chinese government want to interfere with what we are doing online by playing WoW? We are not advocating political change or violence. We just want to play WoW when we want to.”

The View of Many Western Observers
The fact that so many Chinese youth play WoW shows just how limited freedoms are for Chinese youth, and how intrusive government interference is in the lives of Chinese. This is yet another sign of how closed Chinese society is, even though on a material level, the Chinese government has provided well for the Chinese people.

My View
The Tudou award was actually a three-fingered salute from WoW players and the online community to the official Chinese government view which cannot understand the culture of World of Warcraft from the view of its players. China is run by one highly centralized organization which is not given to understanding alternative interpretations of society which do not conform to its view of reality.
The view of the majority of mainstream western observers, who only see China in terms of freedom and democracy issues are just as blinkered as the official Chinese view, as they are unable and unwilling to understand anything which does not conform to their worldview that while China has delivered a huge number of its population from poverty, continues to deny political freedoms to its own population.
In fact, western society, with the US in particular, has the same problems as modern China, except on an even larger scale. If the whole issue is all only about freedom and democracy, then why does the US have the largest number of illicit drug consumers in the world? Are they so happy that they need to escape into the world of drugs?
Western and Chinese consumer society have satisfied many material needs, but most intelligent people understand that this does not equate to happiness. In China and the west, adults with poor parenting skills seek to assuage their own guilt by showering their kids with all kinds of goodies, then wonder why their own kids don’t like them as people? Parents, the Chinese government and western consumer society are uncomfortable with the idea that many of their children and citizens prefer to spend their time online, in the communities of Facebook, Twitter, Stocktwits and WoW than in their own real world.
For many of us, the virtual world of online is preferable to the real world we live in, and this is why so many spend so much time online. And that is a message many parents, governments and politicians are increasingly going to have to deal with.

China: Which Century Are You Building For?

February 21st, 2009

@GregoryLent on Twitter just pointed me to this article, A User’s Guide to 21st Century Economics, by Umair Haque which I recommend highly.

After reading this article, some questions which came to mind:

  • Chinese companies traditionally have not been good at adding value. How well can they adjust to the new 21st century economic situation?
  • Chinese companies have been spending much on acquiring steady supplies of raw commodities. How much are they thinking of what is needed for the 21st century? Will they continue to build a twentieth century economy modeled on the American model, which is going defunct rapidly, or will they build a new development model for the 21st century?
  • The 21st century development model is reliant on individual human talent and creativity, and making it possible for them to succeed. How is China going to attract the best minds in the world to China in the 21st century?

American Astroturfing vs. Chinese Astroturfing

July 13th, 2008

The definition of astroturfing, according to Wikipedia is:

a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing one’s own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations.

As a business and marketing consultant who spends considerable time in China, I get upset when I see marketing and PR terms not used the right way. One thing which is done very frequently in China, but whose terminology is not used correctly, is astroturfing. As a matter of fact, I have not even heard of a Chinese term for astroturfing, even though I have seen it in many forms all the time. In fact, a good deal of what the Internet is used for in China in the BBSes in China, is astroturfing in different forms.

I was upset when I saw the term astroturfing mixed up with censorship in this video interview with reference to censorship in China. My definition of censorship is when I have to use a VPN tunnel to get to content I cannot view in China, or because I cannot get my Feedburner RSS feeds because they are blocked by the GFW, or as Jeremy Goldkorn, publisher of Danwei chooses to call it, the Net Nanny.

The biggest difference between astroturfing and censorship: astroturfing is a PR term and censorship is a political term. Astroturfing is a PR tactic which can be used for either political or commercial ends; censorship is always used for political ends. Using censorship with reference to China is a politically charged term because many critics of Chinese government policy like to use it to satisfy their own political agendas. Other people are entitled to their own political views re Chinese government policy, just as I’m entitled to mine. Everybody has a right to their own opinions. What I do criticize is abuse of terminology in order to score political points when in fact what is being used is a PR tactic.

Paying bloggers and users of Twitter to shape public opinion about China is an astroturfing tactic. Let’s call it astroturfing and not call it censorship. Admittedly, the Chinese government has used astroturfing in a very clumsy fashion by paying bloggers directly for their blog posts and tweets. Rule No. 1 of astroturfing is “Don’t get caught doing it”. This means you should set up front organizations to do the work so that the important guys/government have plausible deniability. These front organizations have to be run by eloquent, expensive and intelligent opinion leaders who know what they are doing and what the whole objective is. The people they work with, and contract with, do not have to know.

Sure, it adds to your costs, but some things are more important than costs. That’s why this whole payoff of bloggers and tweets is so silly and let’s say it, downright stupid.

The real masters at the right way to do astroturfing are the Americans and American PR and lobbying firms. They set up enough “independent” organizations so that the astroturfing movements cannot be traced back to the government, the original sponsor. After all, that is the whole point of it. Government ministries, organizations and parties should never be directly involved in it.

These “independent” organizations, usually think tanks, then contract with the PR firms and coordinate very complex and expensive PR campaigns which are, well, astroturfing. The whole objective is to make it look independent for most people. These people are the audience, the people whose opinion you want to shape.

Astroturfing was used extensively in the aftermath of the revelations of torture re Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in the US. Many Americans were sincerely shocked that the US military would use such interrogation techniques. In order to shape US public opinion, the Pentagon provided leading US media companies hired retired generals as “consultants” to talk on TV about the situation, and mitigate the political damage to the Bush administration. These consultants were paid for by the Pentagon. How it was done was revealed in an article on the New York Times.

If the Chinese government wants to be truly effective at winning the PR war with the western media, it has to allow different voices to speak up about China, and get past the very worn-out charges of “interfering in China’s internal affairs” or “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people”, which may have some appeal to not very bright people, but really turn off intelligent people. Part of the price of being considered a developed nation is to allow different discourse and opinions on an intelligent level. Moreover, this gives the Chinese leadership a better selection of policies to choose from. After all, that’s whole point of the exercise.

So let’s stop paying off bloggers and tweeters 50 Chinese yuancents or fen to shape public opinion. That’s the cheap and dumb way.

The Chinese government needs to stop thinking small and start thinking big in how it shapes not just Chinese public opinion, but western public opinion. Spend money and do it the right way with the right people.

Anything else is just an embarrassment.

What’s Wrong with C2C?

May 2nd, 2008

Yesterday, Twitterdom in China was on fire with the news, first published on TechCrunch, that Facebook clone Xiaonei had raised US$430M from Softbank, which is huge, even by current Web 2.0 bubble standards. Immediately on Twitter, there was almost an uproar, especially from users in Taiwan, who said that it was ridiculous that a Facebook clone would have such a high valuation. Does Oak Pacific Interactive and Softbank know something which we don’t? (My answer to that is a simple “Obviously yes”.)

But before delving into that, let’s talk about the pluses and minuses of C2C, or “copy to China”, a term which I believe was first used by Tangos Chan, publisher of China Web 2.0 review. I believe that when an entrepreneur does not have a clear idea about what he is going to do, starting with a copy of a currently popular application is a good way to go. After all, if it got funded by VCs in the US, it is highly likely that given the team’s experience, they will also be able to get funded in China.

What is important is what happens after it gets initial funding. Where many startups lose direction is that they look too closely at their competitors, and don’t look at the challenges for many users whom they want to reach. Most ask the wrong questions: They are too focused on their platform and applications, and don’t study the problems their users have in their daily lives.

There are a few simple questions startup founders need to find answers to:

  • What are the most important tasks for a person in any given day? (These are always changing according to age, situation, etc.)
  • Where do they encounter the most frustration?
  • Can you offer a solution to this?

I have a simple way of looking at this: If the need is urgent, then you can charge a fee or subscription for it. If you can help people make more money, you can charge a fee or subscription for it. If it is a hardware solution which simplifies and clarifies life and makes the user more efficient, you can sell it (as is the case with the iPhone).

If it does not do any of the above things, but still offers some informative or entertainment value, then your most likely source of revenue is advertising.

Back to C2C. When OICQ was launched in early 1999, it was nothing except a Chinese-language clone of ICQ. It had an advantage in that there was tremendous need among Chinese for easy convenient communications across the computer and the then-new mobile phone platforms. The management saw this need, offered the services, collected fees all along the way, evolving into QQ along the way, and the company is now worth more than US$11B.

Tencent, the parent company for QQ, saw a social wave in China, copied something which worked overseas, fulfilled the need, and evolved it into something tremendously popular and successful in China. Instead of looking iinwards and worrying about their technology and UI, they looked out, and saw the opportunity in users’ needs and frustrations.

Now the company has more than 500M registered user accounts. It has achieved brand lock-in among most younger Chinese users.

That is why I say that when anyone only compares UI features, they are not thinking deep enough.

Now, the question is whether Xiaonei or any of the Chinese Facebook clones can evolve into something successful. The China of 2008 is vastly different from the China of 1999, and there are all kinds of communications solutions competing for users. The dynamics has changed to favor the user, who now has almost too may choices.

Add to that my feeling that SNS (social networking solutions) are a solution to a problem which is not that urgent for most people (hence the reliance on advertising as a revenue source instead of fee or subscription).

Of course, if depending on income was the only way to make money in this business, then I’m sure that Xiaonei would not have received such a high investment. An article in Plus8star talks about possible strategy scenarios in the move (h/t to Kaiser Kuo).

Is Twitter the American QQ?

April 7th, 2008

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past six months, you have probably heard of Twitter. Developed with Ruby on Rails, it has now hit the big time, with many companies offering client versions of Twitter, so that you don’t have to keep the Twitter web page open to record your deepest thoughts, which you can share with your community/ies.

Technically speaking, there is not a whole lot of difference between Twitter and many other IM clients, including Tencent’s QQ, the immensely popular Chinese IM client. If there is any difference, it is that Twitter makes it possible for dispersed communities to keep track of each others’ activities. In contrast, the IM clients are mainly Web 1.0 tools which enable people to find and contact each other to meet offline. QQ, for instance, is a great enabler for that popular activity which we shall call “dating” in China.

The difference between Twitter and the Web 1.0 IM clients is not so much in the technology, as in the way people handle relationships. Put simply, the lines between offline and online relationships are blurring, and in many cases, more people spend more time online than they do offline. For this reason, their online communities are gaining value, and in a few cases, are assuming primary value, while their offline relationships become secondary.

This was not the case for most of the Web 1.0 IM clients.

From the business perspective, this means that businesses will have to pay even more attention to what is going on online, as I have mentioned in my previous post.

In China, many people do not have email addresses, instead they rely on QQ ID numbers to identify each other. Walk into any Chinese working area (including Starbucks and any other area which provides free Wifi) and chances are you will see that almost every screen has a QQ or Windows IM client window open.

And they are using it for business, not just personal gossip.

So, the ultimate test of whether Twitter becomes the American QQ is whether American’s use it for business, not just social chatting.

If that happens, the American Internet will suddenly look a lot more like the Chinese Internet.

A Quick Look at 2008 and China

January 1st, 2008

Is there any way at all that 2008 will not be the year of the Chinese Olympics, and by extension, China? Will we be stuck between the rise of China narrative and the sourness to the point of completely puckering up of the US media and to a lesser extent European media re China?

I say yes.

The coverage of China by the major media has been completely unsatisfactory; it has not been informative and has instead driven their own editorial agenda. That old editorial agenda no longer works because it does not reflect the ground reality of China. It does make sense though to take a closer look at China’s development outside of just the tier one cities. Let’s hope that this begins to happen.

In the big picture though, the Chinese Olympics are not the biggest story. There are so many interesting things and opportunities happening on the Internet. I’m surprised that so many people miss them, such as the fall of Facebook even though their numbers continue to increase, and the failure of social networks to monetize their traffic because they have chosen to side with advertisers against their own user base.

Facebook is like a rocket which continues to coast upwards even though its engine has cut off; momentum is carrying it upward. But eventually gravity will win…

We are in the early stages of growth for the Internet, I believe that increasingly new Internet startups will be founded by business people, not technology people. On the PC platform, the technology is mature; it is the business models which aren’t working. Now, the smart technology people are switching their focus to the mobile Internet.

For smart business people who want to disrupt the current business models, 2008 will be a banner year. For more predictions, take a close look at the predictions of Mark Anderson and Fred Wilson. Part of the reason new and viable business models have grown relatively slowly on the Internet is because the business side has been driven by technology people who don’t understand business and how to make deals, and the business people have been thinking too much in terms of the large corporate businesses which are now being disrupted by the Internet.

It is time for a new breed of entrepreneurs who understand technology, and are not behoven to traditional businesses. In China, this has already happened in gaming with Timothy Chen Tianqiao of Shanda and Shi Yuzhu of Giant Interactive. Ironically, it has not happened as quickly in the west.

It’s time to expand the base.

On the web application side, it is getting easier and easier to develop robust applications. Twitter, a very successful social application was developed with Ruby on Rails, a full stack web application framework which was released by 37 Signals, a Chicago-based design firm.

The significance of this is that web applications can now be designed by designers who are more focused on user experience than software engineers who are focused on features (many of which are of dubious value). One thing I have noticed among many Ruby on Rails deployments: narrower focus. Instead of trying to do everything, these applications focus on doing a few tasks very well. Good examples are the online project management tools put out by 37 Signals and which I use to manage my business.

Wouldn’t it be great if these web applications were made available to a Chinese audience?

As for myself, I’m sharing my feeds on Google Reader. You can find them through Google Talk and Gmail by contacting me. You can reach me at paul dot denlinger [at] gmail dot com.

I’d like to see yours too; let’s start sharing in 2008!