As I browse Facebook and see the hoards of friends that people accumulate - I always wondered when people would start being measured on their 'social worth' so that companies could start using the most valuable 'people stocks' as conduits to promote their brands e.g. those with 1000+ friends. Empire Avenue clearly read my mind (well partially). (http://www.empireavenue.com/)
According to Wiki 'Empire Avenue is a stock market simulation social network game that allows users to buy and sell shares of people and websites'. Web spies say its user base is growing rapidly and the game helps players monitor their social influence and possibly make business connections that boost their profits. Leading brands such as Intel, AT&T, Microsoft, Ford, Audi and Toyota are already in on the Empire Avenue trend and are quickly rising up on the leader board – a list that compares the muscle power of the account holders on social media as a whole.
So how is your 'worth' measured? Your score depends on activity, audience and interaction. Essentially, it is a function of what you do on social media, how much you do of it, who is listening and how people are engaging with you.
My thoughts on this topic: I get it for brands. And it was only a matter of time for people's social worth to be measured. But it does leave me feeling a little queasy. Now all those people who you barely say hello to will have more of an incentive to add you as a 'friend' and let you know that 'they are going to the bathroom' on twitter. I don't have 6 gazillion friends on Facebook nor do I have a twitter account which incessantly tells people what I am doing every 30 seconds. If my social stock is rubbish as a result - I am OK with that.
2 comments:
I've given this concept a lot of thought. There are tons of advertising dollars directed towards earning followers for brands on particular social networks, mostly so that these brands can continuously message their audience through that channel. This is a significant investment for these firms, who believe that it will reap long term dividends over the years. However, there is not much thought put into the potential loss of interest in the social network itself.
In '07, I was working with a band on developing their presence online. We dedicated a tremendous amount of time into earning Myspace followers by participating in community conversations, messaging members, and interacting with fans. This seemed to be paying off, as we saw more fans showing up to shows and buying the album off our website. However, as Myspace became more and more irrelevant, the value of our followers diminished. As these followers stopped signing into their myspace account, our broadcasted messages went unheard.
Most social media marketers focus on building their client's presence of Facebook, as that has become the "gold standard" of digital social capital in the past few years. Tons of money is spent building audiences on these networks with the hope of long-term dividends. However, what happens if Facebook loses its relevance? How will firm's salvage the presence they've built? Can a firm's value depend on Facebook's relevance?
If you're interested in the subject of digital social capital, read The Whuffie Factor by Tara Hunt.
Mike thanks for your insights. I will check out the author you mentioned. I think what worries me about this though is not brands using it but people. I suppose it makes sense if you are in the industry to be constantly wired and updating people on various digital channels but otherwise I am not sure its all that healthy for society. But thats another debate...
Post a Comment