- Introducing Amazon Go and the world’s most advanced shopping technology https://t.co/yhYEyjZ49g via @YouTube, 23 hours ago
- Threat read https://t.co/RqEIFBt0S8, Dec 04
- Moves at Virgin reflect broader drive to improve marketing productivity. @SimpleHQ is the productivity platform. https://t.co/Mnb3b3Df6v, Dec 03
- Hey @JetstarAirways get your app in all app stores, not just AU. Plenty of us use US accounts., Dec 03
- So right. And building massively successful tech companies depends on access to the best talent. https://t.co/gnyMtHZY9h, Dec 01
- Ace overview of what is cooking at Amazon and what it means https://t.co/cVhA39mie9, Dec 01
- “The Shift Is Here. Now We Must Lead.” @johnbattelle https://t.co/fAyO910u58, Nov 30
- Beautiful work. Love the font @JACharlesworth Tiger rebrand by Bruce Mau Design https://t.co/a8L5fEfvHT, Nov 24
- How fast things change. https://t.co/Qe2p9Ke12q, Nov 21
- Quit Social Media. Your Career May Depend on It. https://t.co/DzF0XrZhZM, Nov 21
- New Uber app will be a case study in how to break something nearly perfect. Is so bad. Fix it @Uber, Nov 20
So how many relationships can you maintain – and for how long can you maintain them without face-to-face contact. 150 and six are the numbers. The Dunbar Numbers:
For Dunbar, there’s a simple explanation for this: In the same way that human beings can’t breathe underwater or run the 100-meter dash in 2.5 seconds or see microwaves with the naked eye, most cannot maintain many more than 150 meaningful relationships. Cognitively, we’re just not built for it. As with any human trait, there are outliers in either direction—shut-ins on the one hand, Bill Clinton on the other. But in general, once a group grows larger than 150, its members begin to lose their sense of connection. We live on an increasingly urban, crowded planet, but we have Stone Age social capabilities. “The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us,” Dunbar has written. “Putting it another way, it’s the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.”
Just look at this list. Personal brands – or people as brands – beat businesses as brands in terms of Facebook. The question here is what makes them “biggest”.
I’m not sure followers or likes are the best of metrics. Sure, they are metrics but should we be really looking at engagement at a deeper level – or revenue? Does their success on Facebook afford them more margin or customer loyalty? I like Joe Tripodi’s ideas for measuring Expressions.
So, in addition to “consumer impressions,” we are increasingly tracking “consumer expressions.” To us, an expression is any level of engagement with our brand content by a consumer or constituent. It could be a comment, a “like,” uploading a photo or video or passing content onto their networks.
Twitter’s changes last week mean lots of marketers – anyone with a social dashboard should see a change.
In short, as of last Wednesday all links (longer than 20 characters) posted on Twitter.com or any Twitter client are now marked with a t.co URL. As NextWeb says, “this means all analytics tools are picking up t.co as the referrer as opposed to a particular twitter client (Twitterrific, Tweetdeck etc.) or just twitter.com”.
Now Twitter should get the attribution it deserves. Not that this is the reason Twitter is using. They say Twitter uses the t.co domain as part of a service to protect users from harmful activity, to provide value for the developer ecosystem, and as a quality signal for surfacing relevant, interesting Tweets.
Super. The real rub though is that marketers will now get to see the impact and influence of the entire Twitter ecosystem – a key metric given so many posts and links don’t occur on Twitter itself.
NextWeb has a great overview.
A great case study on how you can use Facebook to engage communities.
Warren Buffett’s letter to shareholders nails the idea of "sound-bite journalism".
Last year we saw, in one instance, how sound-bite reporting can go wrong. Among the 12,830 words in the annual letter was this sentence: “We are certain, for example, that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 – and probably well beyond – but that conclusion does not tell us whether the market will rise or fall.” Many news organizations reported – indeed, blared – the first part of the sentence while making no mention whatsoever of its ending. I regard this as terrible journalism: Misinformed readers or viewers may well have thought that Charlie and I were forecasting bad things for the stock market, though we had not only in that sentence, but also elsewhere, made it clear we weren’t predicting the market at all. Any investors who were misled by the sensationalists paid a big price: The Dow closed the day of the letter at 7,063 and finished the year at 10,428.
Blogs, tweets, and the social world can fix this. By participating in the stream, the like of Buffet don’t need to wait for an annual letter to disable misrepresentation, they can do it in real-time. Their brand affords them a platform at least equal to that of any media outlet.