Jeremiah Owyang

I’ll second Geoff’s viewpoint. Building another ‘social network platform’ may not be the key solution to whatever their cause for building one is. But building a social network, through something like ning for example, is so easy and I don’t really see too much opportunity cost in building one and maintaining one.

I’m trying to think about the real reasons a fan of a brand would join a social network. If the technology is provided (i.e a social network which allows interaction with others) along with some tools to give the brand-fans the ABILITY to create mashups etc., then I could see the power of social networks being leveraged by a brand. An example could be a company like Dreyers which can allow people to create visual mashups of an icecream bowl, such as the ability to add hersheys syrup, macademia nuts, and even add in ketchup if they want. To be able to create things like that yourself, see the nutrition information change with added ingredients, and to see others’ creations would be a reason I would use a social network. But again its really about the timing. I need to have that motivation to actually reach out to others or that my laptop is open and I can easily access this. Maybe I want to check out a brand and have relevant offers from the brand evaluated by others, but that’s something more along the lines of a forum.

This makes me think about social networks then from the Dreyers’ perspective. Do I just want to see what others are doing, or really reach out to them? Is what I describe then just a more high-tech forum with widgets and such? Maybe if some person is noted for their cool creations and people vote on it or something, then I may want to really reach out to that person and discuss Dreyers and other brands as well because by now I think this person has good taste in ice cream, so she may also in other things.

Now I’m feeling like I’d want to reach other people like this person I met for even other brand categories, from cars to phones to what not. I’m hoping I can assemble a little online crew that I can talk to all my consumerism needs about. Say it all goes well and smoothe, then the next thing you know, we’re talking about our life philosophy and how these brands fit into our lives, our budgets and what not.

I’ll try to end this comment now because I notice it getting long. Red Cross on facebook pages has about 40k fans, all of which can message each other. To me that’s good enough of a social network. And also they can add in 3rd party apps, so Dreyers could do something along the lines of what I said. Brands really need to think about how they are relevant to their brand-fans’ life, and allow themselves to be modified to the extent of appealing to their fans’ lives without having them to do too much. Because when it comes down to it, social networks are about relationships, and I’m willing to have a brand as my friend, as long as it’s honest to me and doesn’t hide its inherent weaknesses thereby creating some vulnerability and a more humane touch, as opposed to infallible corporate websites smiling at you incessantly, emanating an aura of perfection.

Join…

It takes a huge amount of time and resources to build from scratch. Piggybacking off an existing user base is much more realistic in my mind.

Cheers,
Aidan
http://www.MappingTheWeb.com

I liken joining an existing socnet as getting a seat at someone else’s table, whereas building your own is likened to creating your own table and inviting people to join you.

It’s not an either/or, but a both/and at this point. Having said that, I do think a company would have to have a very compelling reason to create their own. Yet, I think the day will come when we see manifold numbers of niche-specific networks.

Of course, you’ve got to have enough active participants (the 1 percenters) to make it viable. Nothing is worse than inviting a bunch of people to a party and only a handful show up.

isn’t that kind of the same question as: should brands print their own magazines, should they build their own post delivery service, their own telephone system … kind of.

use the platforms where the people are, that they trust and stay with your core competence: your product. who would watch a tv channel that is made by a tissue brand? thats what i used to say.

recently there is one reported to be rather successful in .de which is run by dove, a cosmetics brand: http://www.proage-netzwerk.de/ well, success here seems to mean a few thousend women that have left the mainstream target groups due to age are channeled into a specific community. very few bothered with marketing bla, but provided with a vertical information and discussion plattform building up image for the brand.

so it seems to work to some extend in cases within growing and late adopting online demographics, that did not find a home in a mainstream plattform yet. which is great, but probably the exception of the rule.

I actually answered Jeremiah’s twitter about this, here’s what I had to say, please tell me where I’m right/wrong.

Should brands build or join?

Business objectives and consumer target markets really should answer this question. It’s impossible for one brand to host the entire conversation within one walled garden – for most of our clients, we work to build some mechanism for stimuli/response in their playground, where they feel comfortable, and build/setup technology to monitor outside dialogue. For our youth targeted clients, we certainly don’t recommend our clients to enter such a saturated market by building their own – however, we can leverage the critical mass of these networks to our advantage, facebook fan pages, applications, widgets, badges, etc. For SMB or C-level audiences, there’s more that we can do in terms of building and capturing market share – but we also argue for niche audience groups to encourage higher levels of participation and more valuable feedback.

I can only honestly recommend building when we have a client with an extremely unique approach or we have an incredibly innovative idea – which in the realm of mass innovation and destruction – comes few and far between. I would also say that most of our clients aren’t prepared to take on the task of builders and maintainers – they need to learn to be good listeners and good conversationalists first.

i think everyone wants to be both anonymous and at home sometimes. we like partying but also quiet night in. communities are human and human nature will govern them

in effect this whole phenomenon we are experiencing with this blog + comments is proving the point. its not either/or. its both.

jeremiah is a brand. there are people here joining the talk. there are people that chose not to because its not their style/ fit. he essentially has his own community.

he belongs though to another community on facebook.

here i feel im at jeremiahs living room or neighboorhood cafe, at facebook i feel like in a public place…impersonal like a mall.

if the answer was either or we’d all be in one place…

I'll second Geoff's viewpoint. Building another 'social network platform' may not be the key solution to whatever their cause for building one is. But building a social network, through something like ning for example, is so easy and I don't really see too much opportunity cost in building one and maintaining one.

I'm trying to think about the real reasons a fan of a brand would join a social network. If the technology is provided (i.e a social network which allows interaction with others) along with some tools to give the brand-fans the ABILITY to create mashups etc., then I could see the power of social networks being leveraged by a brand. An example could be a company like Dreyers which can allow people to create visual mashups of an icecream bowl, such as the ability to add hersheys syrup, macademia nuts, and even add in ketchup if they want. To be able to create things like that yourself, see the nutrition information change with added ingredients, and to see others' creations would be a reason I would use a social network. But again its really about the timing. I need to have that motivation to actually reach out to others or that my laptop is open and I can easily access this. Maybe I want to check out a brand and have relevant offers from the brand evaluated by others, but that's something more along the lines of a forum.

This makes me think about social networks then from the Dreyers' perspective. Do I just want to see what others are doing, or really reach out to them? Is what I describe then just a more high-tech forum with widgets and such? Maybe if some person is noted for their cool creations and people vote on it or something, then I may want to really reach out to that person and discuss Dreyers and other brands as well because by now I think this person has good taste in ice cream, so she may also in other things.

Now I'm feeling like I'd want to reach other people like this person I met for even other brand categories, from cars to phones to what not. I'm hoping I can assemble a little online crew that I can talk to all my consumerism needs about. Say it all goes well and smoothe, then the next thing you know, we're talking about our life philosophy and how these brands fit into our lives, our budgets and what not.

I'll try to end this comment now because I notice it getting long. Red Cross on facebook pages has about 40k fans, all of which can message each other. To me that's good enough of a social network. And also they can add in 3rd party apps, so Dreyers could do something along the lines of what I said. Brands really need to think about how they are relevant to their brand-fans' life, and allow themselves to be modified to the extent of appealing to their fans' lives without having them to do too much. Because when it comes down to it, social networks are about relationships, and I'm willing to have a brand as my friend, as long as it's honest to me and doesn't hide its inherent weaknesses thereby creating some vulnerability and a more humane touch, as opposed to infallible corporate websites smiling at you incessantly, emanating an aura of perfection.