FreshNetworks Blog

Snapchat seems to be attracting more interest recently with more users of and more questions about the mobile sharing app which allows you to send images and text (‘Snaps’) to contacts with an ‘auto-destruct’ after a few seconds. In April, CEO Evan Spiegel announced that 150m photos were shared each day, and the app has come under investigation as to whether the images actually do auto-destruct. There is also a perception that the app is a fad among teens, and the auto-destruct nature of the communication makes it suitable for mere frippery or even for sexting.

But the rise of Snapchat is much more interesting than that; it presents a real innovation in communication tools.

Social media tools typically allow communication (in text or visually) that is then stored forever. You can get lost in a sea of your own memories and in the messages and updates for others. This can be confusing in itself – the nature of memories tends to eschew this kind of cataloguing of detail. But also it reflects more the nature of written communications - things that are logged and recorded; filed and searchable. And this is at odds with the nature of much of the things that we communicate on social media.

Much of what we want to say to contacts in social media is ‘of the moment’ – it is a greeting or a friendly hello, a piece of information or advice. It is not content that the recipient will need after they have read it, and it is certainly not content that needs to be stored, catalogued and searchable. It reflects more much of our spoken communication – passing a message on in the now. And to date social media tools have been poor at meeting this need.

What Snapchat offers is a tool for communication as ephemera – content and messaging that has a shelf-life and doesn’t need to live on after that.

So much of the way we interact as human beings is like this that I would expect to see a real rise in tools that operate in a similar way to Snapchat; tools that don’t require everything we say in social media to be forever.

Of course, there is much that is wrong with Snapchat – the concerns of bullying, sexting and whether those photos are really deleted are all real. But the essence of the app – the ephemeral nature of communication is also very real. And it has the opportunity to develop and to change the way we communicate through digital devices, and the way brands communicate with us. What would you say if you could pass on a message that genuinely lived just in the now?

Old Trafford, Manchester (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

At 09:20 this morning Sir Alex Ferguson retired after 26 years in charge of Manchester United. The club, and the manager, are respected and supported far from the city of Manchester, and reaction was quick to spread on Twitter. In many analyses of event and how Twitter reacts to them, the focus is on volume – just how many people are talking about an issue. But more interesting than this is what people are saying.

There is a hypothesis that when there is ‘breaking news’ (at least on Twitter), most of the discussions convey the same information – people either retweeting the original message or people conveying the same information to their followers that lots of others are doing at the same time. So in this case immediately after the announcement, whilst they may use different words, we would expect people to be conveying the simple message: Sir Alex Ferguson has retired.

But is this true – what did people actually discuss on Twitter in the first hour after his retirement was announced?

What we did

We captured every Tweet that clearly discussed Sir Alex Ferguson during the first hour after his retirement was announced shortly before 09:20 this morning. Using Datasift, we captured all Tweets that included the terms “Alex Ferguson” or “#fergie’ or ‘#mufc’.

In total we captured 95,312 Tweets in the first hour of discussion on Twitter – or about 26 Tweets every second.

What we found

First some basic stats about the discussions on Twitter in the first hour after the announcement:

• 68% of people discussing the retirement were male (16% were female and the remaining 16% had genders that could not be determined from Twitter)
• With 4.3% of all discussions, the news was actually discussed most in Manchester; London came second (3.8%). The global impact of the club is reflected with Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and South Africa being in the top 10 locations for discussions
• 22% of Tweets were people retweeting other people’s content; the remaining 78% were original Tweets
• The most retweeted account was the club themselves. This was followed by a number of accounts in Indonesia (UtdIndonesia and detiksport). The most mentioned UK news provider during the first hour was SkySportsNews.

With only 22% of Tweets as clear retweets, there was a lot of original Twitter content being produced. So what were people actually discussing:

• Just over one third of Tweets (34%) were simple statements that Sir Alex Ferguson had retired
• The next largest group (26% of Tweets) were reflecting on their own experiences or thoughts – memories of the club and what Sir Alex’s time there meant for them
• A further 14% of Tweets were thanking Sir Alex for what he had done for the club or indeed for their own experiences (a trend started by the club themselves in their announcement)

Some topics were less popular but noteworthy:

• 360 people (0.7% of all Tweets) were wishing Sir Alex luck in or sending their best wishes for his future
• 53 people (0.01%) were worried that Sir Alex might have died

So the first hour on Twitter was an interesting place, and the discussions were more varied than just retweeting or repeating the simple fact of Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement. In fact a significant proportion of Tweets were reflecting on what his role as manager had meant to them and the memories they had of his time with the club. This kind of reflection and content is altogether more interesting than mere retweets and statements of fact and shows Twitter at its best – connecting personal experiences and opinions to larger events.

Listen, Understand, Act (Photo credit: highersights)

According to Altimeter, 42% of businesses in the US are prioritising Social Media Listening in 2013 – putting real focus on how they sift through and learn from the conversations in social media. But a recent study of US consumers found that 51% of them do not want brands to be listening to what they say online. As a greater emphasis is placed on social media listening and big data, the tensions with consumer privacy will also rise.

The report, by Netbase, is based on a survey of 1,062 US consumers and highlights the challenges brands will face as they increasingly listen to and act on conversations in social media.

• Most consumers (68%) realise that brands are listening to what they say online
• Just over half (51%) want to be able to talk to their friends and contact in social media without being listened to in this way; 43% would go further, saying that being listened to is an invasion of their privacy
• Finally, 64% of consumers only want companies to respond when they are directly spoken to

These numbers are confusing and difficult to interpret, and when you add in the data about what consumers do think brands should do in social media they become more so:

• 48% of consumers say that brands should listen in order to improve products
• 58% say that brands should respond to negative comments online

The numbers are all over the place so what can we learn from this?

The data is confusing which may be a result of poor research, or indeed may (also?) reflect the fact that understanding of social media listening is confused for consumers. That brands can listen in to conversations they are having with friends and contacts online can feel intrusive, but when the potential benefits of this are explained, more consumers are willing to accept this.

This is probably the best way to understand this data and to begin to understand how consumers will react to social media listening: they do not like it, but they like the benefits that they may get from brands listening to them. So for listening to be really effective, brands will have to make sure they have worked out the consumer value proposition before people make it more difficult for them to access their conversations online.

Forget-me-nots (Photo credit: churchofpunk)

After just a few days in the job, the UK’s first youth crime commissioner, Paris Brown, resigned over some of her past Twitter postings. There are no doubt many posts that she wishes could be deleted, forgotten forever, and she is not alone. As we leave more and more behind us in our digital exhaust there will no doubt be Tweets, photos, comments and the like that all of us would like to be forgotten. And not just because they were misjudged in the first place, as was the case with Paris Brown.

Social media will provide a continual record of our lives – of the detail of what we did and what we said at a particular time on a particular day in the past. Some people liken this to a diary, but it is different in two fundamental ways:

1. A diary is always written after the event, reporting something we did in the (near) past; our social media records were composed in the heat of the moment, in real time
2. What we write in a diary is selective, we think about what it is from the day that we want to record; our social media records are less so – our posts and photos often go through fewer filters

So social media is leaving behind us a very different set of records – records that are written in real-time, are less filtered, and tend to discuss the detail of what we were doing or thinking at a particular point in the past. And, in many cases, they can be seen by anybody – without us there to explain where this particular record fitted into our lives at the time; without context.

These new records present a number of potential challenges to us in the future, not least to how we remember and think about our past.

• We tend to forget detail – except for the most special of memories. Rather we remember events at a macro-level – we know broadly speaking where we were and when, what we were doing at different stages in our lives, and the things that happened to us. Our social media records are only the detail – they provide no context and no structure to our memories. Just a set of detailed comments that we will not be able to escape from.
• We think of the past through the lens of today – we interpret what we did and said based on our current experiences, beliefs and moral compass. This is why even reading diaries from your childhood can be cringe-worthy. Our social media records will come with no interpretation; there will be no escaping what we said or thought in the past.

So, our social media records will provide a different view of our own pasts (for ourselves and for others) than we might currently want to portray. And this is why we might want to explore a right to be forgotten online, a right for our posts to be removed or replaced and for us to curate our own pasts. Not for that odd ill thought-through Tweet, but because social risks changing the way we make and store memories of our lives.

Influential! Engaging! Intriguing! (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

At the end of last week Klout announced ‘Klout for Business’, its first real foray away from a consumer-focussed product to one aimed at businesses. The service will “give businesses a…set of analytics, with pointed insights into how and where influencers are engaging with their brands in social media”.

The information will be served-up in a simple dashboard to show a brand how it is engaging on its networks and most importantly how it is engaging with influencers.

So what does this mean for brands?

Klout for Business should help brands to plan the content they share on their channels more effectively. It is not, however, something that will add great benefit to brands with an established social presence. All of these brands will almost certainly be using existing tools such as SocialBakers, or Facebook analytics, to review the engagement of their content. What Klout for Business will do is allow brands to review the areas that their most influential followers are authoritative on, and so tweak the content that is being shared on each of their channels to ensure that it resonates well.

Another area that Klout for Business could help brands is by identifying potential shortfalls in the number of relevant or authoritative followers that they have in specific topic areas. This could help to dictate future content plans in order to help attract an audience that is of a higher quality rather than purely quantity.

An important caveat here, and something which we’ve written about before, is that the accuracy of automated tools such as Klout is not currently wholly reliable. The topics Klout tells me that I’m authoritative on are vaguely accurate, and while there is now functionality that allows you to prioritise the topics that it suggests, in order to make it more accurate, this also adds an inconsistency to the data because while some people will make sure their profile is as precise as possible, others will not, and some may even try to game the system.

What should brands expect to see from Klout for Business in the future?

At this stage, Klout has introduced some useful functionality for brands without introducing a game changer. Its offering is all about the engagement that brands are having with their current captive audience on their social channels, but the area where it could have a great impact for brands is in identifying and recommending influential individuals that brands do not have a current relationship with. For example, take Coca-Cola on Facebook. It has over 62m fans, but what about the 950m people who are not fans. If Klout could give Coca-Cola a list of the most influential people on the topics most important to it, then that would be very powerful indeed.

At this stage Klout for Business looks like a nice useful addition for brands, which could complement other tools used to measure and review social media channel activity but is not a must have. That said it does demonstrate that Klout is serious about its offering for businesses, and is one to keep an eye out for in future.