Social Network - JF Bélisle

Two weeks ago, I attended a conference given by my friend Marc Poulin at the W3Quebec. The conference was quite interesting from a practioner’s perspective, and after his presentation, Marc and I had a discussion around the importance of either converting or creating incentives for users to come back to the website. At first glance, we discussed about the difference between low-involvement and high-involvement products.

After some “hardcore” thinking, my thoughts on the topic would help me come to the conclusion that depending on the type of website, both objectives are positive outcomes but depending on the type of website, the preferred outcome should vary. Personally, my objective on an e-commerce website would always be to convert the visitor for any type of product. In this way, for an e-commerce website selling dishwashers, which could be considered as a high-involvement product, I would put the emphasis on comparing the product to competitors to facilitate the sale. However, my objective would be to convert and not to make the visitor comeback again and again. Thus, for this reason I present in the table below a list of type of websites and which of the “comeback” and “convert” options should be considered as the most important outcome.

Convert the visitor or creating incentizes to make him comeback?

#	Type of website	Example	Primary objective	Other objective
1	E-Commerce website	www.amazon.com	Convert	Comeback
2	Relational website	www.nissan.com	Convert	Comeback
3	Brand promotion websites	www.coca-cola.com	Comeback	Convert
4	Newspaper websites	www.nytimes.com	Comeback	Convert
5	Social Network sites (SNs)	www.facebook.com	Comeback	Convert

1. E-Commerce websites

Like mentioned before, the primary objective of any e-commerce website should be to convert the visitor into a buyer, and generally, in a minimum number of clicks.

2. Relational websites

Relational websites can be quite similar to e-commerce websites even though we can’t buy products on these websites, they should emphasize a call-to-action (conversion) aligned to more traditional objectives (i.e. calling the company, answering a callback facility questionnaire).

3. Brand promotion websites

Brand promotion websites had for objective to be relational, but also they should be made to constantly increase the aura and the positioning of the brand. But this aura is only possible if users visit this website, the more active users are, the better it is for the organization. For this reason, brand promotion websites should focus on creating incentives to increase the willingness of the user to come back to the website.

4. Newspaper websites

Newspaper websites differs from blogs that are mainly like personal relational websites in the sense that the main objective would be to convert a visitor into an e-mail or RSS feed subscriber. Any newspaper website makes most of its money out of advertising (and VIP content) which reinforces the need for integrating features that encourages the visitor to comeback to the website.

5. Social Network sites

Social network sites (SNs) are emerging in the webosphere as websites where forcing a visitor to comeback is the main objective. In this situation, the objective would be more associated to actions like clicking on an ad or to concepts such as stickiness, but at the end of the day what is most important is that the visitor come back to the website to create a larger and more active network.

Conclusion

In conclusion, to borrow William Shakespeare phrasing, or if you prefer Tom Dickson one, to “convert” or to “comeback”, that is the question? And it all depends on the type of website. However, a good first step for any organization having a website is that, at least, one of these objectives is reached. Questions? Comments? Or Suggestions?

Jean-Francois Belisle

Facebook and Google are probably the two hottest companies that come to anyone’s mind when chit-chatting about the Internet. Thus, according to Quantcast statistics, Google is the website that is the most visited by Americans while Facebook comes fourth. However, when it comes to social networking (SNs) websites, anyone will tell you that Facebook is the best one by far with 87.7 million unique users in the United States as of July 2009, up 14% compared to the previous month.

Furthermore, some may think that the recent acquisition of Friendfeed by Facebook for $50 millions (for more details see comments on Mashable) coupled with the beta launch of Facebook Lite sooner this week would be enough to solidify Facebook’s position as the leader in SNs. Most experts would say “yes, but for how long”? For many, the launch this Wednesday of iGoogle social gadgets, and the eventual launch of Google Caffeine and Google Wave are only the beginning of a longer battle between these two companies. Talking of Google Wave, many experts think that it would be the social network of the future, the most advanced in terms of success. But having the best product in terms of features, in this case the best social network, is not a guarantee for success. Concepts such as: (1) first-mover advantage, (2) switching costs, and (3) lock-in effects, are all important to take in consideration. This is why in this post, I will expose the current situation and then discuss the impact of these three interrelated concepts on Google Wave race against Facebook in their battle for web supremacy.

1. The Situation

The Internet is build out of technological infrastructure. Thus, the most important question to answer is: What is needed to dominate the Internet? What will it take to bring all the masses together in a single social network? In other words, what will be the social network of the future? According to my actual experience, the social network of the future will include the following features:
1. The space for a complete profile
2. The space for showing complete affiliations
3. The possibility to search for timely information (microblogging)
4. The possibility to search across the web for websites and useful detailed information
5. The possibility to follow non-followers and vice-versa
6. Private instant messaging features
7. Public messaging
8. Public video sharing
9. The possibility to send an e-mail to anyone
10. The possibility to group most popular posts in specific categories
11. The possibility to follow bloggers via feeds
12. The possibility of implementing social gaming features
13. The possibility to import friends from other social sites

But how will Google Wave perform against Facebook on these features? An overview of the answers to this question is presented on the table below.

#	Features	Google Wave	Facebook
1	The space for a complete profile	X	X
2	The space for showing complete affiliations	X	X
3	The possibility to search for timely information (microblogging)	X	X
4	The possibility to search across the web for websites and useful detailed information	X	–
5	The possibility to follow non-followers and vice-versa	?	–
6	Complete private instant messaging features	X	–
7	Public messaging	X	X
8	Public video sharing	X	X
9	The possibility to send an e-mail to anyone	X	X
10	The possibility to group most popular posts in specific categories	X	–
11	The possibility to follow bloggers via feeds	X	–
12	The possibility of implementing social gaming features	X	X
13	The possibility to import friends from other social sites	?	X

According to this short analysis, it seems like Google Wave outperforms Facebook for most features, the most important ones being: (1) search across the web, (2) complete private instant messaging (It is still impossible to send a document via Facebook private chat), (3) social bookmarking features and (4) usage of feeds. However, even though Google Wave seems ahead in terms of overall features, it is way behind in terms of unique users, since it hasn’t been launched yet. So, will users join Google Wave because it has more advanced features? Not necessarily.

2. First Mover Advantage

Google was founded in 1996, while Facebook was founded in January 2004 and went public in September 2006, which gives Google a first mover advantage in terms of Internet presence. However, as Facebook is a social network since it was launched, it has a first mover advantage against Google Wave. One important fact to mention is that after going public, it took Facebook 32 months (since May 2009), to dethrone MySpace as the number one Social Network in the United States. Thus, Google Wave is facing the same situation against Facebook. Some guesses?

3. Three Types of Costs in a Social Network

Before analyzing how much time could it take Google Wave to reach a number of users similar to Facebook, one of the most important concepts to consider is the types of costs associated with a social network, which can be divided into three categories:

• Learning costs: how much time have you spent to learn how the social network works?
• Searching costs: how much time have you spent to find your friends?
• Social costs: how much time have you spent to socialize with others?

4. Switching Costs and Lock-in

The main problem that Google Wave faces is that Facebook users like to exchange information on this social network, they have invested their time in learning how it works (learning costs), they have invested their time in searching their friends (searching costs), and they have had plenty of fun socializing with others (social costs). Why should they switch to Google Wave? Why should they switch to Google Wave even if they know its better? What is the benefit of switching away from Facebook or simply investing time in Google Wave? Are they locked-in? The answer to this question is crucial and still hard to predict. Would that inspire a research paper written by Google Chief Economist Hal Varian who is also Professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, and who has published papers on switching costs and lock-in?

Conclusion & Discussion

To conclude, it is no surprise that according to my analysis, Facebook is ahead in this race for the Internet supremacy against Google Wave even though the latter has the best technology. However, one sure thing is that the race is not over and the next fall will be interesting in terms of social innovations (i.e. Google Wave) and potential acquisitions. Who do you think is going to win the race? Any other thoughts? Any bids?

Jean-Francois Belisle