In the last post I knocked down the Twitter = the new Second Life comparison that has been doing the rounds.  

In summary, I pointed out that the churn rate was nowhere near SL’s, that the numbers game was only part of the picture, and that Twitter’s entry barriers were lower making it much easier just to come and go.

Now here’s how Twitter IS like Second Life:  

Just like Second Life was, it’s in danger of being at the start of a negative hype cycle, that plays into the hands of people who have been waiting for it to fail.

Case in point, Nielsen’s 60% churn rate that was reported far and wide was accepted as gospel.   And there is almost certainly some truth in it.  From the people I know, the drop off rate might not be 60%, but I would say half stick with it and half don’t.

One industry journalist however questioned the methodology, saying that if Nielsen looked at Twitter website hits then the figures would be flawed as a lot of people use third party applications like ‘Tweet Deck.’

Too late. Twitter = a load of hype had already gone far and wide 

Here we have an article on Australian marketing website Mumbrella on how a lot of Australian newspapers had covered the story.  Here we have the Business Week blog in the States talking about the Twitter bubble.  

And here we have the Daily Mail, talking about how the “website sensation” is losing more than half its users every month.

What’s the bet that 99% of people will remember the ‘Twitter isn’t all that’ coverage in the mainstream press, and not the ifs and buts made in the trade press and on blogs such as this one.

Twitter needs to watch out that this isn’t the start of the bandwagon moving the other way.

A look back to 2007

In the first six months of 2007, according to a survey we did for a client, Second Life had 600+ media mentions in the UK alone.   Come the summer though and things suddenly turned.

A lot of marketers realised that their brand efforts in the virtual world were abject failures.   The less salubrious side of the world started to get a wider airing.  And just like Twitter, the numbers started to be picked apart.

As with a lot of these things, the criticisms were a mixture of truth and exaggeration.    

For example, the ‘Second Life is a virtual knocking shop’ claim was blown out of proportion.   On the numbers, Second Life did grossly under-perform, but in a lot of cases the worst possible interpretation was pulled out to fit a conclusion that had been decided on in advance.

And on the Second Life is a marketing failure argument, I personally found a lot of that fairly disingenuous, as surely it’s our fault as agencies if the consumer doesn’t like what we’ve come up with?

No matter, the general consensus seemed to be that Second Life had had its day, and it was time to put it back into its virtual box.   

The dissenting voices were ignored especially since a lot of the counter arguments were based on detail that tends to get lost beneath the “OK GUYS, IT’S OFFICIALLY OVER” headline.

Twitter won’t go the way of Second Life

Twitter is not going to go the way of Second Life, for starters because the user base is different.   

If Twitter stays stable at 20 million worldwide users (which it has at the moment), it is still something that brands should at the very least keep track of.   

That’s because Twitter’s user base is skewed towards people who often also write blogs, are active on other social networks, and in some cases are actually journalists.   Twitter often only gives you a snap-shot of what they talk about elsewhere.

As a result, even a handful of committed users have the ability to make your life difficult….or to become your advocates.

Too much emphasis on celebrities?

There is however another Second Life echo – the reliance on celebrity users to drive traffic.  

It makes sense, right?  In the case of Second Life, it was, check out Suzanne Vega giving a concert.  Hey, here’s Bono!

The problem is celebrities are often here today, gone tomorrow.   And according to research by Columbia University, it’s questionable how far a strategy that relies in individual influencers actually gets you. 

At the time, I wondered whether Second Life owners Linden Lab might have got much further had they been honest about what I imagine is the core appeal for a lot of people – that it’s an escape from the drudgery of the real world that gives you the chance to be whoever you want to be – what I’ve seen as being described as “the awesome you.”

In the same way, Oprah has been good for coverage, but there’s already back-chat about whether she’s lost interest (she hasn’t).   

As a result, once Twitter does get around to doing proactive marketing, it might be an idea to avoid the Second Life reliance on celebs and instead look at the core benefits Twitter delivers.   

Something Sydney digital strategist Mark Pollard summed up in a recent presentation – it’s down to conversation + information.  Two benefits that it’s difficult to argue against.

Second Life image – Torley

For the last year I have been working on a fascinating project. Truly creating a brand from scratch and watching it go to market.

On Monday the first make up kits by You Tube sensation Lauren Luke went on sale on the site bylaurenluke.com. The brand was created by Anomaly and the site by Dare. 

I know a lot of agencies are trying to go down the same avenue as
Anomaly in creating their own products. On the one hand it is
definitely worth it. The feeling of creating something and watching it
grow is very special. But the idea, the marketing, that’s the easy bit.
The production / distribution / finance – all these things are where it
gets hardcore. If you think you can handle that go for it – but it’s not
for the feint hearted.

Lauren is a single mum from South Shields who first uploaded a make up tutorial to You Tube in the summer of 2007. Just a smidge under two years later she has hew own brand, a range of products, a book deal, a column in the Guardian and a Nintendo DS game deal inked.

All that has been done without a single penny, and I truly mean not a single penny, being spent on media. I remember not too long ago many industry luminaries saying you could never build a brand online. Try telling Lauren that.

It’s very easy for us to chalk the launch down as another day in the office but for Lauren this is a genuinely life changing – and brilliant – experience. You never know it might be one for the industry too.

Amongst all the stats showing Twitter’s amazing growth, comes another one showing something different – the fact that 60% of “newbies” are gone after the first month.

This Media Week article cites Nielsen figures as the source of the 60% churn rate.  Media Week says that it demonstrates an ““I don’t get it factor” among new users that is reminiscent of the similarly-over hyped Second Life from a few years ago.”

Just like Second Life?

Actually not quite, and here are three reasons why this parallel, which I’ve been hearing more and more lately, doesn’t apply.

1 – First of all, Second Life’s drop-off rate was much worse- not far off a whopping 90%, meaning that 20 million sign ups currently translates into 750k human beings in the virtual world (via their avatars), once you account for dormant and duplicate accounts.

2 – Secondly, the entry barriers for Twitter are far lower. Unlike Second Life you don’t need a super fast computer. You can enjoy it with most mobile phones on sale these days. That also means it’s much easier just to come and go.

3 – With Twitter the numbers aren’t the whole story.

Active Twitter users are heavily skewed towards media and tech types – people who can make things happen out of proportion to their numbers. Amazon is only one of many companies that found this out first hand.

And the service has arguably outflanked mainstream news services when it’s come to reporting real time events.

Still, as Nielsen VP David Martin says, even though it’s early days:

“Twitter has enjoyed a nice ride over the last few months, but it will not be able to sustain its meteoric rise without establishing a higher level of user loyalty. Frankly, if Oprah can’t accomplish that, I’m not sure who can.”

Image -XOTOKO / Thanks to Katie Moffat for alerting me to the stat

Some interesting innovations going on at Mixx, the social networking/news ranking website that’s like Digg, but probably a little better.

Mixx is offering advertisers the chance to get direct feedback for their creatives from its heavyweight users with a new service called Mixx Sifter.

Advertisers can upload their creatives to the website, which will then be voted on and ranked by Mixx users, with the most popular ads awarded prominent location (and preternatural hype) on the Mixx homepage.

There’s incentive for the users too, called Karma Points, which can be exchanged for prizes and such.

So advertisers need not fear unwarranted backlash from those in power, well, in theory, as the Mixx users voting on the ads are those trusted resources who have spent many hours logged on and contributing to the site.

Techcrunch reports that the service will typically costs advertisers $8,000 to upload their creatives to the site — which can be in any format, banner ads, video, etc. — and will compete against four other ads, which are then ranked 1-5.

It’s a good idea, appealing to both advertisers and users, and even the uninitiated — as a frequent Digg user, I’m suffering from Mixx-remorse, as the number of hours spent on Digg could have meant exciting prizes and notoriety on Mixx.

Let’s see if Digg responds, well not ‘if’, but when, as it has been long speculated that Digg was working on something similar to Mixx Sifter.

Ad creatives have been pilfering creative ideas for years, however in the age of the internet creative pick-pocketing is both more tempting and easier to uncover.

Last year I wrote a blog piece about Fiat stealing a corking cult internet clip and turning it into a long running TV ad.   Well, having spotted “the Palindromic sketch” on B3TA last week, I’m taking bets on when we’ll be seeing a similar palindrome-based ad creative hitting our TV screens.  I’m guessing in the next 6 months – any sooner anyone????

Back in 2000, a couple of researchers tested the theory that if we’re provided with too many choices then we end up making none at all. They set up a booth at a posh supermarket in America and posing as employees of the shop, displayed an alternating number of products to the shoppers. Half the time they displayed 6 jars of jam, the other half they displayed 24 jars.

As you might expect, with 24 jars laid out, far more people stopped to take an interest, with 60% of shoppers stopping to take a look against only 40% for the 6 jars.

What is interesting is that of the shoppers that stopped to look at the 24 jars, only 3% made a purchase compared to 30% who made a purchase when there were 6 jars on the table. In cold hard cash the difference amounted to 12 total purchases for the 6 jars half, versus only 2 total purchases for the 24 jar half. This means that the total sales for the 6 jar half were 600% greater.

Whilst there are no benchmarks that I am aware of for the optimum number of products or calls to action that should be shown on a web page it is a cornerstone of maximising the conversion funnel not to over complicate the sales process, part of this is necessarily to not have too many products on the page. On the other hand, having too few can also act as a deterrent as it doesn’t allow the customer to make a conscious choice in their selection. Only by monitoring user behaviour, page layout and the conversion funnel carefully and manipulating the process can you maximise sales.

Have been busy at work recently thinking about words. We are all guilty of playing buzz word bingo via Powerpoint, even though the game is so deadly dull.

One word that is omnipresent in marketing decks is Consumer, while those of us that come from the interactive space have adopted User from the software dudes. I like the latter because it is active (and doesn’t make me think of people as giant mouths). Not a new debate; others have written good stuff on this topic. Plus, real people don’t really like being labeled Consumers. Do you?

For your consideration, I offer another term: Chooser.

Wikipedia tells me that: “Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action.”

I think that’s spot on, if a bit run on. The work we do should simply help a person choose our client’s brand. The Purchase Funnel has been replaced by the Consideration Colander. Don’t know if Chooser will catch on, but it helps me speak in their vernacular when trying to influence an audience.

I’d be flattered if you’d choose to follow me on Twitter

Jo, Iwein and I, plus 897 other people crammed in to the Wills Memorial Building at the University of Bristol last night for a Bristol Festival of Ideas lecture on The Shifting Global Economy by Will Hutton—or, as he put it, “How did we get in this mess and how are we going to get out?”

The audience sat in hushed silence as Will talked about the size of the hole we’re in. The numbers are so large that they’re almost beyond comprehension. For example, the British taxpayer has advanced or guaranteed £1.3 trillion to the UK banking system. The entire GDP of the UK is £1.6 trillion.

Apparently we’ll get it all back, but Will (and the IMF) are not convinced. As much as £200 billion may have to be written off when all is done and dusted. That’s more than double what we spend each year on the NHS!

What went wrong?

According to Will, the fundamental problem is that, ever since the UK’s manufacturing base was destroyed and “the country’s future sub-contracted to free market forces” in the 1980s, we forgot what real wealth creation is all about. Now that the smoke and mirrors of The City has been lifted, Will sees this moment as an opportunity for the UK to return to what “wealth generation” really means: innovation.

With all this debt to pay off as a country, we need to start earning some real money, and fast. I strongly agree with Will, but I was sitting there thinking, ‘as a marketing person, am I as useless to UK plc as all the bankers..?’ But then I thought about it, and actually I don’t think we are. In fact, us marketers – especially those involved in new technology – should be a crucial part of the team that gets us out of this mess.

Of course, we need super-smart people in our universities and best companies to invent things, but if these new products are to succeed then they need branding and marketing support. There have been countless examples of great British inventions that have been exploited by foreign companies who’ve been more marketing savvy.

So if a slug of government cash could be used to bring together the best creative talent with the boffins then this could be money very well spent. And, given the state we’re in, leaving it all to market forces may not be an option!

For any business partnered with a network whose task list never seems to change (1. Recruit new affiliates; 2. Grow existing affiliates)from week-to-week and year-to-year it may seem a pertinent question. After all, Amazon kick started the whole industry and they have always managed it completely in house without any need to use an Affiliate Network. Why shouldn’t this be the model for the industry as a whole?

It’s all about economies of scale and barriers to entry. Amazon may have a popular network yet I would still question almost any business, client or otherwise, that wants to move their affiliate management in house. Just because it ‘works’ for Amazon and eBay doesn’t mean it will for anyone. In reality most brands simply don’t have the technological platform, the expertise or the resource to manage a campaign effectively.

If you were looking at working with just the high volume drivers it might make sense to maintain long-term business partnerships directly in order to keep costs down.
Yet ultimately affiliate marketing is all about the long tail and this just is not fertile ground for clients to target directly.

It make sense for a network such as TradeDoubler or Commission Junction to work with an affiliate that generates five sales a month for a client, because they are probably doing this across 30 other clients. It makes sense for them to build a large, self-service tracking platform because it doesn’t have to generate a return from one programme – the development and maintenance costs are spread over every programme they represent. It doesn’t make sense to build a robust tracking system for just one programme and unless you are Ferrari it probably doesn’t make sense to engage on an ongoing basis personally with every partner that can drive a couple of sales every once in a while.

Strong affiliate programmes are all about collaborations – from a client setting the commercial requirements through an agency translating these into a programme strategy and a network providing the technology. All three play an important role.

Amazon and eBay’s in house programmes work because they are self-service and they are large enough merchants that the economies of scale still exist and that affiliates are likely to deal with them regardless of them having a tailored platform. This simply isn’t the case for smaller merchants – an off the shelf tracking solution is required and most affiliates only have time to deal with a small number of partners. Whilst your specific high volume affiliates may want to talk to you on an individual basis many won’t, they just want a simple one stop shop.

If you want volume then you need to be in the supermarket. If you aren’t then it’s highly likely someone else will be.

This is a perfect follow up to my blog piece yesterday about Simon Cowell and his mastery of the social media meme (in the forms of Susan Boyle, Paul Potts and the like).  

A brilliantly observed piece of meme analysis from the guys at Rocketboom (one of my favorite vlogs) – who are also the brains behind blog project Knowyourmeme.com – the home of the modern internet meme.