Facebookers
In Facebookers we trust! Pew research: Active Facebookers are more trusting than non-networked counterparts; http://eicker.at/Facebookers
Tagged: Social Relations Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
Gerrit Eicker
Attention Economy
Scientists validate Dunbar’s number in Twitter conversations; http://eicker.at/AttentionEconomy (via @paisleybeebe)
-
Gerrit Eicker
Goncalves, Perra, Vespignani: “Modern society’s increasing dependency on online tools for both work and recreation opens up unique opportunities for the study of social interactions. A large survey of online exchanges or conversations on Twitter, collected across six months involving 1.7 million individuals is presented here. We test the theoretical cognitive limit on the number of stable social relationships known as Dunbar’s number. We find that users can entertain a maximum of 100-200 stable relationships in support for Dunbar’s prediction. The ‘economy of attention’ is limited in the online world by cognitive and biological constraints as predicted by Dunbar’s theory. Inspired by this empirical evidence we propose a simple dynamical mechanism, based on finite priority queuing and time resources, that reproduces the observed social behavior. … Social networks have changed they way we use to communicate. It is now easy to be connected with a huge number of other individuals. In this paper we show that social networks did not change human social capabilities. We analyze a large dataset of Twitter conversations collected across six months involving millions of individuals to test the theoretical cognitive limit on the number of stable social relationships known as Dunbar’s number. We found that even in the online world cognitive and biological constraints holds as predicted by Dunbar’s theory limiting users social activities. We propose a simple model for users’ behavior that includes finite priority queuing and time resources that reproduces the observed social behavior. This simple model offers a basic explanation of a seemingly complex phenomena observed in the empirical patterns on Twitter data and offers support to Dunbar’s hypothesis of a biological limit to the number of relationships.”
Brooks: “If the thing that makes it real is your capacity to have a theory of mind relationship with a certain number of people, I can still imagine that social media would increase people’s capacities. … If [social media tools] succeed they will slowly break Dunbar’s number. … I would expect that Twitter would have a small number of people with a huge number of connections, but they’re not listening to that many people, they’re just talking to that many people.”
Gerrit Eicker
Friends
Social network sites do not increase offline social network size or relations; http://eicker.at/Friends (via @gedankenstuecke)
Gerrit Eicker
Google Social
Google wants social badly: Gundotra becomes SVP of social, bonuses depend on social development; http://eicker.at/GoogleSocial
Gerrit Eicker
Relationship Business
Donato: Social commerce will have its biggest impact with naturally relationship businesses: the locals; http://eicker.at/28
Gerrit Eicker
Facebook Friendship Pages
Facebook starts Friendship Pages, containing the public wall posts and comments between two friends; http://eicker.at/17
Gerrit Eicker
Influence vs. Popularity
Vocus: Popularity is that people like you. Influence is when people listen to you; http://j.mp/cxE9gH (via @pfandtasse)
-
Gerrit Eicker
Vocus (PDF): “Influence is different from popularity but… An overwhelming 90% of respondents perceive a big difference between ‘influence’ and ‘popularity.’ However, qualitative review of open ended comments on this question shows the distinction is not always clear. A follow-on question also adds ambiguity, with 84% of respondents saying that there is a correlation between ‘reach’ and ‘influence’ on social networks. – Quality of network and quality of content have a defining impact on influence. The top contributing factors that make a person or brand influential include the ‘quality or focus of the network’ (60%), the ‘quality of content’ (55%), which tied with the ‘capacity to create measurable outcomes’ (55%), and the ‘depth of relationship’ a person or brand has with social contacts (40%). – Content is king, but context is queen. 50% of respondents said that the single most important action a person or brand can take to increase their influence online was to ‘create, post or share compelling content.’ – Views vary on effective measurement. A majority, 29% of respondents, said ‘action’ is the most important measure of effectiveness in social media, yet more than one-third (36%) also ranked ‘action’ as the least important. – Senior execs are willing to pay for influence. 57% of respondents said they would be willing to pay an influencer to help ‘drive actions and outcomes.’ Cross-tab analysis by title, role and organization provided additional insight as to who exactly is willing to pay for influence. A cross-tab analysis by title showed that the executive level, such as CEOs and CMOs (63%), would be most willing to pay for influence.”
-
Gerrit Eicker
Vocus (PDF): “Influence is not popularity – 90% of respondents seemingly drew a clear distinction when asked the ‘yes or no’ question, ‘Is there a big difference between popularity and influence?’ The 237 open-ended comments submitted along with this question indicated a perception that influence is serious and popularity is fun. – Influence drives, motivates, is steadfast, and causes people to take action, while popularity is hip, perhaps amusing and wanes easily amid a fickle audience. ‘Liking you and listening to you are two different things,’ wrote one respondent. ‘Popularity is an expression of volume while influence is an expression of value,’ said another. Some felt popularity was simply not linked to influence. ‘The way I see it, Simon Cowell from American Idol had influence, even when he wasn’t very popular,’ added a third respondent.”
-
Gerrit Eicker
Vocus (PDF): “This analysis of the previous question was validated in a follow-up question where respondents were asked to choose the single most important action a person or brand could take to increase their influence online. Fifty percent of respondents said, ‘create, share or post compelling content.’ Authenticity, a defining principle of social media ranked next with 31%, while ‘focus on contributing to fewer conversations, but more in depth’ ranked third with 10%. The remaining difference was near-evenly spread among the remaining choices including, ‘Contribute to as many social media conversations as possible,’ ‘connect with famous or influential people,’ and ‘be famous offline.'”
Gerrit Eicker
Social Media und Issues Management
Wer ist verantwortlich für Social Media, Issues im Speziellen? Eine alte Frage und Antwort: http://j.mp/IssuesManagement
-
Gerrit Eicker
Integrierende Kommunikation (Juni 2004, PPS; PDF, s/w): “BizBlogs, insbesondere Mitarbeiterblogs thematischer Experten, dienen dem kontinuierlichen externen Dialog, sind systemisch dezentral und ungesteuert: Experten können Issues tatsächlich identifizieren, priorisieren und kommunikativ gegensteuern. – Der klassische Gatekeeper in Form von Journalisten wird zunächst umgangen: Kunden und Interessenten haben Foren, um direkt aus dem Unternehmen Informationen zu erhalten und Feedback zu geben. Aber auch Journalisten können auf diese Informationen zurückgreifen und erhalten einen tieferen Unternehmenseinblick. – BizBlogs dienen zeitgleich als internes Analyseinstrument der PR-Abteilung und Geschäftsführung. Issues die ‘hochkochen’ können auch zentral identifiziert und priorisiert werden. Durch das Zuführen ergänzender Aufmerksamkeit mittels temporärer PRblogs und im Rahmen der gesamten klassischen PR-Arbeit, kann frühzeitig gegengesteuert und abgefedert werden.” [Ersetze: Blog durch beliebigen Social Media-Dienst.]
Gerrit Eicker
Social Search
Cormier: Social objects are the new low hanging fruit of social search optimization (SSO); http://j.mp/bNEfXf
Gerrit Eicker
CRM as a Collaboration Service
When does CRM become a collaboration service? Collaboration from the first point of communication; http://j.mp/9Lsl9H
Gerrit Eicker 18:22 on 17. June 2011 Permalink |
In a national phone survey of 2,255 American adults last fall, the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that: Facebook users are more trusting than others. Controlling for other factors, the research found that a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day is 43% more likely than other internet users and more than three times as likely as non-internet users to feel that most people can be trusted. – Facebook users have more close relationships. Controlling for other factors, the research found that someone who uses Facebook several times per day averages 9% more close, core ties in their overall social network compared with other internet users. – Facebook users are much more politically engaged. The survey was conducted over the November 2010 election season. Compared with other internet users, and users of other social networking platforms, a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day was an additional two and half times more likely to attend a political rally or meeting, 57% more likely to persuade someone on their vote, and 43% more likely to have said they would vote. – Facebook users get more social support. The survey explored how much total social support, emotional support, companionship, and instrumental aid (such as having someone help you when you are sick in bed) adults receive. Controlling for other factors, a Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day receives more emotional support and companionship. For Facebook users, the additional boost is equivalent to about half the total support that the average American receives as a result of being married or cohabitating with a partner. … Social networking sites are increasingly used to keep up with close social ties. Looking at those people that social networking site users report as their core discussion confidants, 40% of users have friended all of their closest confidants. This is a substantial increase from the 29% of users who reported in our 2008 survey that they had friended all of their core confidants.