I’ve been using a few of these already (I recommend Google Alerts of course, Spy and BlogPulse), but I had never heard of Social Mention, which can track mentions of your brand name across different categories over the web. There are so many new applications being built right now, its honestly hard to keep track. I recommend sticking with the most “talked about” for now, as other might still be in experimentation mode and provide innacurate results.

At any rate, these tools provide information of relative value, but I guess they’ll be leading the way to more precise forms of word-of-mouth evaluation. With the intense mashing of applications happening currently, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a nice combo coming out shortly.

(From TheSocial): “The blogosphere’s love affair with Facebook-MySpace traffic wars just won’t stop.

On Thursday, TechCrunch posted new statistics from ComScore that show Facebook now pulling in nearly twice as many unique visitors worldwide as its News Corp.-owned competitor.

About 222 million people visited Facebook worldwide in December (keep in mind that the social network pegs its active user count somewhere just north of 150 million these days) versus 125 million people for MySpace.”

Read the full article here.

Did you happen to read Deloitte’s latest TMT Predictions for 2009? Every year since 2006, Deloitte produces this interesting study debrief on what movements to expect in the fields of Technology, Media and Telecommunications — and their impact on canadian businesses. It’s usually very insightful and well-documented, and indeed — as they say — it “…provides a diverse selection of views and thoughts that challenge, inform and engage industry leaders and executives.”

Well, case in hand, they truly did challenge me. A friend of mine posted a Tweet that attracted my attention on point 8 in their “2009 Canadian TMT Predictions” PDF : “Mobile advertising finds its meaning: cellphones are the new billboards“. Wow. I read on with more attention, making sure I wasn’t distracted by all the dinosaur roaring behind me. I read on, thinking there had to be a deeper thought or explanation hiding somewhere in the body copy.

“Monetizing the screen you look at 50 times a day. (…) But higher smartphone penetration, higher network speeds, better mobile operating systems and, in some cases, a better understanding of the medium means that mobile ads are likely to be the only category of advertising that grows in 2009.”

Are you for real?  This prediction is no better than what we’ve been hearing for the last 5 years or so. Once again this is an analysis that’s only based on media sales numbers, much more than qualitative research. That’s not what I call a prediction, it’s a historic account of failed hopes.
In Canada, mobile marketing is still in its infancy. Worse, it hasn’t really been born yet. Advertisers are still at experimentation level with the media, and haven’t really bought into it enough for anyone to come up with such a prediction for 2009.  Indeed, mobile marketing represented less than 0,4% of all advertising investments as recently as 2008, as Deloitte reports themselves. I don’t see a sudden boom happening this year, and frankly, I especially don’t see “cellphones turning into virtual billboards”.

So what’s happening? Why such a low investment in the medium?

Reason #1: no one could come up with a viable advertising model, hence announcers with cold feet and a small budget failed to see the possibilities.

Reason #2: The consumer receptivity factor. It’s common knowledge that people just don’t respond well to unsollicited advertising, and this is particularly true on their cellphones. I have yet to hear about a mobile advertising campaign success in Canada, that’s didn’t use “reach” but “sales” as its benchmark for evaluation.

So how can we be talking about potential “better understanding of the medium” when the rules of the game have yet to be written? And how can Deloitte attribute potential success of mobile marketing to technologies evolving, without even the smallest mention of a very mandatory condition: consumer behavior?

Kindly allow me to make my own prediction: In 2009, marketers will take some time to study people’s mobile usage, and then come up with a viable mobile marketing model. Taking in account a context of economic crisis, we know without a doubt 2009 won’t be a big year in terms of traditional advertising investment generally. Which means announcers will be quick in investigating the communication possibilities offered by emergent media like cellphones, and ad agencies should quickly turnaround and try developing communication models for these emergent media to generate conversion.

Having powerful technology at hand is one thing: making good use of it is another. Deloitte does have a much better take on this notion in their 2009 Global Media Predictions document. (See “Mobile advertising finds its meaning”), to the point where it feels like both documents have been written by different people with different opinions. But unfortunately it’s still not quite there yet — I find Deloitte analysis is too one-sided, speaking only of “the industry”, “technology” or “understanding of the medium”.

In my own early personal analysis, I came up with five factors to consider in building a viable communication model for mobile advertising. They’re mostly thought-starters, but I feel nevertheless that they take in account more human realities:

1) Mobile marketing should not use traditional communication methods: This includes unsollicited text messages, videos or pictures, or anything that forces a “push” upon the consumer. Mobile marketing should not be a static “show and tell” media, but incite users to take action, whether it is playing, sharing, or talking.

2) We have to find out what the mobile culture is in Canada. In a little chat I had yesterday morning with Serge (our president), he pointed out how Japanese users crave QR codes (Quick Response codes) , and we were left both wondering if it’d ever work here in Canada. Who knows? Could this be compatible with the usage we’re making of our cellphones here? Is there something to be learned from this usage? There’s a huge cellphone culture in Japan, France and Korea. But what’s the cellphone culture in Canada? Is there any insight to pull from there, in order to help us construct relevant mobile marketing tools?

3) Mobile marketing should thrive on instantaneity: Cellphones are “hot publishing” devices. Satellite crashing in your backyard? Pic taken and posted on Twitter or Facebook within seconds. As marketers, we should take advantage of this “high turnaround rate” and indeed turn it to our advantage.

4) Mobile marketing should be generous: Being generous in marketing doesn’t necessarily mean giving out rebate coupons on your next IPurchase. Generosity in marketing means giving a communication experience of value to the consumer.

5) Mobile marketing should empower online communities: Let’s stop using mobile marketing as a message-generating medium. It should rather become a driving force to strengthen the bonds between users in a brand’s community. With web 3.0 in the works, I have a feeling location-based social networks like Brightkite or FireEagle, or geocaching games will have an important role to play in providing engaging experiences with mobile media.

At any rate, I’d like to hear anyone’s take on this. Do you agree with Deloitte’s prediction or, like me, believe that it’s misguided — only taking media sales in account? While markets are conversations, don’t you think that mobile marketing should concentrate on stimulating and encouraging these conversations?

While the red slippers are now defunct, it took about 6 months of faithful daily wear and tear before my wife actually decided to put them away. Historically, most stuff I brought back from any hotel died (leaked, shriveled or melted) within days.

Needless to say, every time I’m planning a business trip and hotel decision comes up, I can’t help but bring up this story about what I now call the “red slipper” service. If The James can provide customers with red slippers that good, just imagine the quality level of the remainder of their services.

The truth is, these slippers probably cost a song for The James to produce, and yet - their usage yields threefold the initial value investment: they contribute to an agreeable stay, they can be brought back to home for further use, and they generate positive word-of-mouth.

Every business should understand how generosity can be a simple, cost-efficient step towards creating waves of positive word-of-mouth: Giving this little plus that wasn’t requested by your consumer, or wasn’t part of your initial offering but adds value to it.

Now I’m asking you this: what are your company’s “red slippers”? What is this one added value to your products or services that has people talking in positive terms about your company? Are you sure its a genuine “red slipper”, or just a basic common-sense service that should be there anyway? Did do dig in your customer base to see what they’d like to receive? Did you perform any sort of research? If you don’t have answers to these questions, get on a quest to find out what your “red slipper” added value should be, and then definitely integrate it in your offer. Your customers will thank you in ways you’d never expect.

Citing results in Universal McCann’s latest social media trend report, “When Did We Start Trusting Strangers” — a study based on 17,000 interviews across 29 countries around the globe — his article denotes and confirms with numbers how online conversations have an undeniable influence over brands and commerce.

From Mashable: “…It (the study) conclusively proves that as we thought, social media is now directly impacting the way we buy products and services. The publishing of billions of thoughts, opinions and experiences online in the form of blog posts, videos, ratings, reviews and photos is fundamentally changing the way everybody online sources opinions on products, brands and services when they buy something.”

Read the complete article here.

Fact #1: In the business context, Twitter can allow your company to build an online existence and “become a person”. This humanizes your company, and presents it as an accessible entity to the public. Want an example? Follow “SonyPlaystation” on Twitter.

Fact#2: Twitter is a cost-effective media by definition. By gradually yet consistently building a network of followers, your brand (”read “you”) will eventually gather a considerable, qualified community of listeners, whom are genuinely interested in exchanging with “you”. This is called a “relationship”. And I need not mention that relationships based on good communication are lasting relationships. Want an example? Follow Zappos.com’s CEO Tony Hsieh, “Zappos” on Twitter.

Armando Alves at A Source of Inspiration blog recently made a list of the most influential Twitter personalities, using (among others) some statistics from Twitterank and Dapper — two online tools able to rank Twitter authority, thus measuring a Tweet’s influence in the sphere.

If you’re just starting out on Twitter, I would recommend following these Twitter personalities, and see what they have to say. You’ll hopefully learn the ropes quickly, understand what I’ve been rambling about and start taking benefit of Twitter for yourself - or your company.

Adam Guerbuez, un montréalais de l’arrondissement Lasalle, était accusé d’avoir transmis plus de quatre millions de spams par le biais du système de messagerie interne de Facebook. La technique utilisée était fort simple. Notre ami Adam envoyait un courriel d’hameçonnage  (ou de «phishing») demandant aux internautes de saisir leurs informations personnelles, dont leur mot de passe Facebook (un classique…). Par la suite, il se connectait au réseau sous le profil de la personne et bombardait son réseau d’«amis» de messages pourriels explicites.

Reste à savoir maintenant si le réseau de Marc Zuckerberg parviendra a récupérer cette colossale somme d’argent de la part des accusés… Chose certaine, elle envoie un message clair aux «spammeurs».

Le jugement de la cour, interdit également à M. Guerbuez de naviguer sur Facebook et d’entrer en contact avec ses membres, réduisant ses chances de socialiser grandement. En effet, notre spammeur Québécois, se prive de 2,2 millions d’amis potentiels, soit le nombre de Québécois sur Facebook.

Voulez-vous devenir mon ami ? Joignez-moi sur Facebook.

Les Canadiens divisés

D’emblée, soulignons avec surprise que le NPD y est en avance ! Il rallie en effet à sa cause 33 % des Canadiens membres des pages officielles d’un parti politique. Manifestement, le sympathique moustachu est populaire sur Facebook ! Cet avantage est néanmoins bien mince, puisque le Parti Conservateur le talonne avec 30 % des appuis, suivi de près par les Libéraux qui obtiennent un encourageant 29%.

De leur côté, le Parti Vert et le Bloc Québécois font bien piètre figure puisqu’ils n’obtiennent respectivement que de maigres 2 % et 6 % d’appuis. Il est cependant fort à parier que les appuis au Bloc se concentrent au Québec, pour des raisons évidentes, et que par conséquent, son score serait plus élevé s’il nous était possible d’isoler les données Québécoises.

Des résultats représentatifs ?

Puisque les cinq partis les plus importants y ont une page «officielle» à laquelle tous les membres du réseau peuvent adhérer, on pourrait croire à première vue que ces résultats sont représentatifs. Pourtant de nombreuses variables viennent fausser les données. Évidemment, ce qui saute aux yeux, c’est que l’échantillon ne peut être représentatif du bassin des électeurs canadiens puisque sa création est «libre». De plus, il est fort à parier que certains appuis aient été «contaminés» par un effet viral partisan généré par des réseaux politiques.

Facebook : un média incontournable

Le site de réseautage social offre la possibilité de segmenter, cibler et adapter les messages, permettant aisément d’adapter les messages en fonction des intérêts de chacun des divers groupes d’électeurs.

De plus, on trouve sur Facebook 8 411 520 adultes canadiens actifs, dont 6 114 460 sont âgés de 18 à 34 ans. Les partis polittiques ont donc indéniablement intérêt à être présents sur ce réseau social afin de constituer leurs propres sous-réseaux et le plus rapidement possible (un peu comme pour les REER, mais ça c’est une autre histoire…).

La puissance du célèbre site réside essentiellement dans les outils de réseautage social et de diffusion virale des messages. Or, bien entendu, plus importante est la communauté, plus fort sera l’effet viral. Les partis politiques – tout comme les annonceurs d’ailleurs – se doivent donc de d’accroître leur réseau social Facebook et d’atteindre leur plein potentiel de membre le plus tôt possible afin de bénéficier de l’aspect viral, durant la campagne, et pas après…

Et la conclusion ?

Bien que les données de Facebook ne peuvent être représentative des intentions de vote de l’ensemble des électeurs, nous pouvons néanmoins affirmer deux choses avec certitude :

• ces données reflètent l’intérêt que portent les organisations politiques aux réseaux sociaux;
• les membres du célèbre réseau social sont tout aussi éparpillés que les Québécois et les Canadiens.

Nous pourrions de même ajouter, avec certaines réserves que cet échantillon réprésente à tout le moins les appuis d’un groupe constitué aux trois quarts par des canadiens agés entre 18 et 34 ans. Intéressant…

Pour alimenter votre réflexion : voici quelques chiffres pertinents, en vrac :

Gilles Duceppe
939 personnes appuient le Bloc sur Facebook.

Stephan Harper
Sur Facebook, 12 855 personnes le supportent. Il a une présence sur Youtube, Flickr, Twitter, FriendFeed et MySpace !

Stéphane Dion
12 435 personnes l’appuie sur Facebook. Il a seulement une chaîne sur Youtube…

Jack Layton
Le plus populaire sur Facebook avec 14 300 supporters. Le NPD exploite les plates-formes 2.0 suivantes : YouTube, Flickr, FriendFeed et Twitter.

Elizabeth May (Parti Vert)
2448 supportent sa page personnelle sur Facebook.

• 243 700 personnes sont célibataires;
• 303 760 personnes sont en relation;
• 48 880 personnes sont fiancées;
• 114 820 personnes sont mariées.

FIdèles les Québécois ?

Notons que 37% des Québécois préfèrent demeurer «discrets» sur leur statut matrimonial. Il est en effet parfois utile de ne pas trop donner de détails à ce sujet. Un ami a récemment constaté la puissance de ce réseau social. Notre amoureux éconduit, accro de Facebook, modifie son profil avant d’aller au lit : il sera désormais célibataire. La nuit portant conseil, et étant propice aux conversations sur l’oreiller, il remodifie son profil au matin.

Le Hic, c’est qu’au même moment ses 267 «amis» avaient déjà reçu un avis du «changement matrimonial». Résultat : 23 appels de sympathie et 2 propositions douteuses…

Ah Cupidon !

Take a look at these telling numbers culled from Facebook today:

• 1,752,080 people are single
• 1,775,080 people are in relationships
• 331,080 people are engaged
• 1,775,160 people are married.

So, are Canadians faithful?

Well, 33% of Canadians prefer to be “discreet” about their marital status. As the saying goes, discretion is the greater part of valour. A friend who is a big Facebook fan recently experienced the true power of this social network. Feeling the sting of unrequited virtual love, he changed his profile before going to bed. From now on, he was going to be a bachelor! But common sense and pillow talk prevailed that night, so he changed his profile back again in the morning.

The problem is that his 267 “friends” had already received a “notice of change in marital status.” The end result? Twenty-three sympathy calls and two rather questionable propositions…

Oh Cupid, what have you done now?!