Archive for April, 2009

Skype and Twitter should merge (even if they won’t).

Skype and Twitter should merge; we should have one single platform to communicate with people using text and voice publicly and privately using any device. I know it won’t happen, but it’s still a good idea.

Twitter and Skype should merge. Why?

  • 1. A combination would simplify the mess of communication use cases and create one single platform for people and companies to exchange information using voice and text, publicly and privately, using any device.

    Each new communication tool, network and platform launches by focusing on one use case (between people, public, private, over mobile network, etc.) and then quickly tries to figure out how to integrate with other communication methods, devices and platforms.

    This splintering and re-aggregation is noisy and wasteful; not only are we are forced to use and participate in a range of tools and networks (i.e. social network fatigue), but as we choose our preferred method of contact (email, phone, SMS, private Twitter, public Twitter, comment, etc.) and our preferred provider (i.e. Twitter, any IM provider, Facebook, Bebo, et. al.) we create enormous inefficiencies and missed communications (i.e. “oh, I don’t check Twitter often.”, “I can’t direct message you through Friendfeed because you don’t use Friendfeed? what gives?”).

    Both Twitter and Skype are really just platforms that transmit information over dumb pipes; the key differences are how information is delivered (voice v. text) and displayed (private v. public); but there is no need for these use cases to be split into separate companies.

  • 2. Skype is already pursuing the strategy of powering private communications using any mix of client devices over any communications pipe. Voice and SMS; fixed-line, mobile and VOIP; iPhone, computer, WIFI phone; Skype is reducing the need for use cases to align for communication to happen; people don’t need to think about how the other person is using Skype in order to make a connection (granted, differences in voice quality across devices and networks dictate best options, so that’s still kind of a pipe dream, but it’s not far off).

    Skype has a bright post-eBay future and now has the potential to take on the mobile and fixed-line telecom operators in a way previously impossible; adding a public communication service to their private communication service would allow Skype to take advantage of the broader trend of public communication via micro-messaging.

    Perhaps instead of merging with Twitter they should just create their own public micro-messaging service…

  • 3. Each could (Twitter) and do (Skype) earn revenue from facilitating the exchange of information and from providing value-added features. * Combining the two companies would create very interesting opportunities, to say the least.
  • 4. Looking at this slightly differently: what do you think Google’s end-game is with Google Voice?

I’m probably wrong, so now it’s your turn; let’s talk about the obvious and non-obvious reasons why they won’t, can’t and shouldn’t merge.

* Please don’t turn this into a discussion about Twitter’s lack of / future / non-existent / yet-to-be-turned-on revenue model. Thinking about Twitter as a stand-alone business just isn’t that much fun anymore.

Our misplaced notion of privacy (or, why social media has a major perception problem).

Why is targeted advertising perceived to be a bad thing? The real issue is over our misplaced notion of privacy on the web; the real debate is over control, not privacy. Facebook: Let me make my entire profile public; vendors: let me give you more information about me.

Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired, Your Facebook Profile Makes Marketers’ Dreams Come True”:

Social networking feels free, but we pay for it in ways that may not be readily apparent.

The rich personal data many of us enter into these networks is a treasure trove for marketers whose job it is to target us with ever-increasing precision.

Should that really be a surprise anymore?

More importantly, why is better targeting a bad thing?

In the absence of popularly adopted tools for vendor relationship management (VRM), what if I want to use social media (i.e. the web) to publicly declare things I want to buy?

Wouldn’t I be happy if a company actually followed up with me with exactly what I wanted? I mean, I told everybody (and yet, oddly, nobody) that’s what I want. Worst case, wouldn’t I prefer to get adverts for things I may actually want instead of things that are guaranteed to annoy me?

I want more targeting, not less; I have little objection to the idea of aggregating and structuring data about me to target advertising to me; but as usual, it all comes down to how it’s executed. If all that happens is I get a few more advertisements about cameras and baseball, that’s fine with me (but also pretty limited thinking by marketers); in any case that’s better than getting adverts for the dredge that makes it through spam filters and AdBlock. Better yet: take that richer knowledge about me as an input to develop and deliver on the promise of “relationship marketing”.

“There are huge privacy concerns for social network sites,” said Rotenberg [Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center]. “… The new kind of advertising, which is what happens when Facebook provides an API that allows advertisers to scrape the data stream and news feeds of individual users — that’s a whole new development, with some privacy dimensions. I don’t think users expect that their news feed is going to be used by marketers.”

Wait, after all the furors over Facebook’s terms of service, Beacon, et. al., shouldn’t we have caught on? Seriously. The login page to Facebook might be the biggest contributor on the web to this mistaken notion of online privacy.

Really, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine data about our online actions being aggregated and structured, we’re not stupid; the real issue is that we just don’t have a real reason to care (yet). The issue isn’t about privacy, it’s about control.

Vendors: give me a way to give better data to you, to have more control over our “relationship” and to scale that across multiple vendors, and I’ll give you even more data about me.

Better yet, Facebook: let me make my entire profile public. Seriously. Nothing would stop people more from posting information they think is private (but isn’t) than by owning up to reality and making everything public.

Tight networks don’t exist on the web; tight networks don’t operate by web economics; give up on the notion of online tight networks and use the web to maximize the power of loose connections.

That’s something I can care about.

(link via Aaron Chua | @aaronchua)

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs