Who is looking at your profile on LinkedIn?

Who is looking at your profile on LinkedIn?

If you are in the job market, or are an entrepreneur building a new company, or if you create value through business development partnerships, there is a feature on LinkedIn that you should probably know about. It’s pretty powerful and could lead you to explore opportunities that you otherwise wouldn’t have considered. But it might also seem a little spooky, as it did to me earlier today. I’ll explain in a minute.

LinkedIn premium users have access to some cool features. One is called Who’s Viewed Your Profile? I probably only check this every month or two, mostly out of curiousity, because I’m not really in the job market, and I haven’t yet talked publicly about any future entrepreneurial ventures.

Another premium feature is Jobs You May Be Interested, which is clearly in beta because today it suggested I consider applying for a “Nursing Adjunct Faculty” position at the Waubonsee Community College in Sugar Grove, IL. Hmmm. Hadn’t thought of that. But back to the real story…

Today I noticed that “someone at US Government” had viewed my profile. Normally it doesn’t just say “someone” but it actually gives me a name, pic, and company name of the person who looked at my profile. This was a little strange.

When I clicked to see who that someone might be, I was given a list of about 10 US Government employees who may have been the person looking at my profile. I don’t know why LinkedIn can’t be more specific. I find this rather odd. Nevertheless, I quickly saw that none of them were from the FBI or from any other department that might be singling me about because of my anti-political-party, anti-corruption, anti-war sentiments (which are actually becoming fairly mainstream, IMHO.) But I wondered how I would feel if I thought, or suspected, or knew that my personal political views and speech were being monitored by a taxpayer paid employee. (Maybe they are. I just don’t know for sure and I don’t even suspect it.) I wonder if Steve Jobs knew the FBI had a huge file on him. For a moment I truly felt empathy for millions of bloggers and social networkers in countries where speech is closely monitored. I can’t imagine actually living in a country where I felt singled out. It must be very stiffling, and would require great courage to express one’s opinion. In the past 2 days I’ve seen references to one country where the death penalty may be imposed for a subversive tweet, and that Indonesia may have a law that imposes up to 12 years in prison for the same.

On the contrary, I feel very safe expressing my free speech online here in the United States, and I feel very empowered using social networking tools to connect with technologists, entrepreneurs, and investors who are trying to build things and change the world. While I’m not as young as I used to be, I’m feeling an increasing sense of optimism that change is coming to world, not top-down change from political leaders or parties, but change inspired by like-minded, technology-empowered, socially-connected citizens of the world who want peace and respect and opportunity and liberty to be available to all.

I’m excited to 1) continue to develop my programming skills and 2) to build social tools that will enable millions of people to improve their lives and improve the world. That’s what’s up next for me, I hope.

 

#paulallenblog

from PaulAllenGplus’s Zipl.us Google+ Feed https://plus.google.com/117388252776312694644/posts/ZkR7ZMDqmZm

To Blog or Not To Blog (Because of Google+)

Kevin Rose, founder of Digg.com, announced last night that he is forwarding his blog domain KevinRose.com directly to his Google+ page, where he will be posting instead of blogging.

This is how he announced it on Twitter:

“Decided to forward http://t.co/hsxKjXW to Google+. G+ gives me more (real-time) feedback and engagement than my blog ever did.”

I have about 10x fewer followers on Google+ than Kevin does, but I have found a very engaging community there. If I post something there, I seem to get several times more interaction than anything I do on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or my blog. I don’t want to lose my 8 year archive of blog posts, but I’m not sure I’ll keep blogging on WordPress outside of Google+.

Which Social Tool Generates Most Engagement?

David Shellabarger also did something interesting yesterday. He ran a “social experiment.” Here it is:

I announced that I quit my day job to do Android contact work on G+, Twitter, Facebook and Linked. (Its true by the way)

This effects my personal and professional life. So where did I get the most feedback? The votes are in, lets tally them up.

LinkedIn: 0 comments on status update, but 2 great recommendations from co-workers that I specifically asked a recommendation from.

Twitter: 11 @ Replies. 1 Job lead.

Facebook: 15 comments (including my mom), 11 Likes, 1 message, 0 Job Leads.

Google+ 20 comments, 24 Likes, 2 Shares, 2 posts mentioning me, 2 emails and 5 Job Leads.

Google+ is only 11 days old and has probably fewer than 3 million users so far. But it is an amazing site, attracting very interesting people, and the signal to noise ratio there is much better. Other social networks mash you up into one big stream. But Google circles makes it easy to compartmentalize your reading as well as your posting — limiting your content to the appropriate audience.

And that is why, in my opinion, the engagement is so much higher. Because the posts are far more relevant than other streams.

Are you on Google+ yet? What do you think? Do you think other bloggers will switch to just using Google+ like Kevin did?

Advice to Facebook: Time to Launch Operation Baby Come Back

Google started field testing Google+ last Tuesday. This has been very widely anticipated. Rumors have swirled for months about Google’s social strategy — what would it be, and when would it happen?

Conventional wisdom has held for some time that Google is too geeky to get social right and that it is game over. Many pundits say Facebook has already won. Facebook has hired a bunch of former Google stars and has been considered the hottest place to work in Silicon Valley for some time. It’s hard to imagine that changing as the company marches towards a billion users and a very high profile IPO.

But Google+ is an amazing product. It is lightning fast, beautifully designed, and feature rich. I have spent dozens of hours on it during the past week and am convinced it will be a massive success. In my view it combines some of the best use cases of Twitter, Facebook and Skype all in one sweet user experience.

I’ve watched in near real-time as dozens of people have joined Google+ and made their first post, sometimes just typing “test” or “hello world.” Soon they start asking questions about how this thing is supposed to work, and they get immediate responses from other users. They start seeing the similarities and differences between Google+, Twitter and Facebook. After some experimenting, they typically end up having a very positive response to Google+.

Access to Google+ is still very limited. But a lot of people have joined already and a lot more are clamoring to join.

Google Plus: 1.7 million users so far?

Over the weekend I conducted an extensive analysis comparing surname and population data from the US Census Bureau to the Google Plus user base profiles. My conclusion was that as of July 4th there were 511,000 users in the U.S. and 1.2 million outside of the U.S. for a total of 1.7 million users.

The U.S. estimate is extremely accurate because of the census data, but since I don’t have surname popularity data for other countries the non-U.S. estimate could be significantly off. Still, even if it is off, there is no question that Google+ is seeing an extremely rapid adoption rate.

Like most new social products, the early adopters have arrived in force: Robert Scoble has 17,000 followers. Other influencers like Matt Cutts, Kevin Rose, Jeff Jarvis, Michael Arrington, Pete Cashmore, Louis Gray, Danny Sullivan, and Tim O’Reilly have thousands of followers already and show up on the Top 100 users list compiled by socialstatistics.com.

Technology execs like Michael Dell are creating buzz in the Google+ community by participating in video Hangouts. Mark Cuban has posted some photos of his NBA trophy. (Go Mavs!) Newt Gingrich became the first presidential candidate to sign up. And Ashton Kutcher has 2,800 followers so far, with a few more celebrities putting a toe in the water.

Each new high profile arrival gives another existing fan base a compelling reason to try out Google+.

How Fast Will Google+ Grow Virally?

As a company, Google has more online users than any company in the world, with more than one billion people served in May. Mark Zuckerberg announced today that Facebook has 750 million active users. So this will be a historic battle between the two biggest online players in the U.S. This won’t be Microsoft crushing Netscape, or Facebook eliminating MySpace. This will be a real fight. Both contenders are heavyweights. And it will probably go fifteen rounds.

I’ve been involved in social products since 1998 when MyFamily.com launched and attracted 1 million users in 140 days, making us the fastest growing community site up to that time. We passed Talk City to break the record. (MyFamily.com played a fascinating role in the early success of Ancestry.com.) Four years ago, a new company that I founded launched the We’re Related app on Facebook which got 1 million users in 29 days and went on to reach 80 million total users – all from family members inviting family members. I think I understand family virality. But that is just the tip of the iceberg for Google+.

Family

According to a fresh survey, 87% of Google+ users say they will invite relatives to join Google+ when they are allowed to. And on average they say they will invite about 12 relatives. By itself, this would help Google+ grow from 1.7 million users (my estimate on Monday) to several times bigger.

Friends

99% of Google+ users say they will invite friends to join the site – and on average, 179 of them! That kind of virality will be impressive.

Co-Workers

And 83% say they will use Google+ at work, and on average they will invite nearly 100 people from their company to the site. Yammer, Chatter by Salesforce, and other business applications have conditioned millions of businesses to simple asynchronous internal messaging. Some people think Google+ is a huge threat to these services.

Google’s Other Channels

But Google will not be limited to viral growth in the typical social fashion. Remember, Google already has a billion users of its other properties. It is the largest search engine in the world. Gmail is a major email service. Blogger (soon to be rebranded Google Blogs) is the leading blogging platform. Picassa (soon to be renamed Google Photos) is an incredible photo organizing and sharing tool. There are so many other properties like Google News and Google Reader that could also be part of the equation.

Google will likely get hundreds of millions of users on Google+ by finding ways to invite them to sign up while they are searching the web or using email. Or maybe while they are using the Chrome browser, which now has 20% market share, or Google Android, which is the leading smartphone platform in the world. I read yesterday that 500,000 Android phones are activated every day.

Being a part of Google’s marketing team would be a marketer’s dream. This is going to be the most successful product launch in the history of the world.

Facebook’s Response

Facebook’s first public response to Google+ came last Thursday when Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook would make an awesome product announcement today in Palo Alto. During the press conference today he announced support for group chatting as well as a significant integration with Skype, enabling 750 million Facebook users to have person to person video chats without leaving Facebook.

Many observers felt the timing was unfortunate for Facebook and that while these features will be great for Facebook users they were available in places like gmail and MySpace much earlier. For the first time it appears Facebook is playing catch-up.

If people love Google+ so much, will Facebook have to enable lists as filters, beef up groups and maybe even adopt the circle approach? Will they get in a race with Google to match feature for feature? Will Facebook start paying careful attention to what customers want, and iterate based on customer feedback as the Google+ team is doing so well. Tom Anderson, founder of MySpace, posted some nice compliments on Google+ about how involved the Google+ team is with its customers. They’ve already made a number of significant improvements to Google+ in the first week of field testing.

The possibilities of a feature war are exciting. Some of us geeks are having a hard time sleeping as we watch this play out.

The big question is will Facebook be able to maintain its lead through the IPO? What will happen to its possible $100 billion market cap? Google has been adding $1-3 billion per day to its market cap since the field test began. Is that coming out of Facebook’s valuation? Or will both continue to grow in users and value?

What Can Facebook Do?

As I look back over the past few years and the rise and fall of social sites like Friendster, MySpace, hi5, and Bebo, and as I consider why Facebook gained so many more users than all other sites combined, I think back to one of the biggest days of my life: when I met Mark Zuckerberg in person on May 25, 2007.

Background on Facebook Platform

Four years ago I attended the f8 event in San Francisco where Mark Zuckerberg announced Facebook Platform. It was an impressive moment in web history. Here’s what I wrote later that night:

I sat on the third row and drank deeply of the kool-aid as Mark Zuckerberg, who turned 23 years old just 11 days ago, presented what may be the best business opportunity for internet entrepreneurs in the past ten years.

A huge new opportunity was presented to the few hundred people in the room, including 65 companies that have spent the last few weeks developing applications for the launch of Facebook Platform.

Facebook is inviting anyone to develop applications for their users on top of what Mark calls their “social graph”–the core of their service which basically keeps track of real people and their real connections to each other.

I went on to predict in my most popular blog post ever that “Facebook will become the #1 social network worldwide and the first to get 1 billion users…”

(Read the full post here: http://www.paulallen.net/prediction-facebook-will-be-the-largest-social-network-in-the-world/)

Facebook already had a lot of momentum and user growth back in May 2007. They had 24 million active users at the time and were growing fast. I had been teaching internet marketing courses at Brigham Young University and knew from first-hand experience as well as from marketing studies that Facebook was the #1 most important web site for college-aged students.

But the primary reason that I believed that night that Facebook could reach a billion users was their new Platform. I knew that Platform would attract thousands of talented developers. It would unleash their creativity and soon, all kinds of valuable, useful and fun widgets would be a click away for Facebook users. But Facebook would benefit too: each application had the potential to increase Facebook’s virality. Cool apps could be instantly shared with other Facebook users. But each new app could also enable users to reach out to friends and family and co-workers who were not on Facebook yet, and invite them to join.

That evening, Zuckerberg said his small team couldn’t possibly create everything that online audiences would want, and they didn’t want to. They wanted their Developer community to do it for them. They just wanted to own and manage the social graph. He even said he would even allow developers to build photo and video applications to compete with Facebook’s own simple applications. He talked about a level playing field. Because that’s what Platform companies do.

Getting App Developers on Board

Just minutes after Zuckerberg finished making his announcement, I was on the phone with my lead engineer and product manager excitedly explaining how our company strategy would immediately shift from building a dedicated social web site for families (a la MyFamily.com) to building apps for families on Facebook. We bet our company on Facebook Platform.

During the next 2 ½ years we became a leading Facebook app developer. We built an application that helped you find all your relatives on Facebook, build a family tree, and share content privately just with your relatives. We attracted 80 million users and were growing by 1 million per week at our peak. Our internal surveys showed that forty percent of our users gave full or partial credit to our app for their decision to join Facebook. Facebook was helping us, and we were helping Facebook.

Our app was family history related so it attracted older users. As our growth skyrocketed, reports appeared showing that Facebook’s fastest growing demographic was women over 55. Our app helped with the mainstreaming of Facebook. And so did many other apps.

Companies like RockYou, Slide, iLike and Living Social focused enormous energy on building apps for Facebook. They were rewarded with tens of millions of users and huge valuations and funding rounds.

Facebook Platform was working its magic.

The Spirit of Wikinomics

In that famous May 2007 post I shared a couple of quotes from chapter 7 of Wikinomics that applied perfectly to Facebook’s Platform and to other platforms as well. (I highly recommend this book.)

“The winners in this evolution will be companies that can create the *most comprehensive incentive frameworks* to adequately reward all stakeholders.” (p. 207)

“Winning in a world of cocreation and combinatorial innovation is all about building a *loyal base of innovators* that make your ecosystem stronger.” (p. 210)

Initially Facebook had the best incentive framework I had ever seen. They gave developers the gift of free virality and they initially promised we could keep 100% of the revenue generated by our apps.

We not only bet our company on Facebook but we also became serious evangelists for the Platform. We held developer garages for top entrepreneurs and developers in Utah to try to recruit more developers to the Platform. In a healthy ecosystem, everyone benefits from the network effect. A rising tide floats all boats. Dozens of Utah’s best and brightest attended our events where we taught them about building apps in Facebook markup language, FBML, and hosting apps in the Amazon cloud for ultimate scalability. Our success was contagious.

At Stanford, my friend BJ Fogg taught a course in the fall of 2007 with Dave McClure about how to build engaging and viral Facebook apps. Students built apps that attracted more than 10 million installs during the semester. Funds started springing up that were going to back the companies who were building on this platform. It was an incredible period of growth for Facebook and its ecosystem.

The main point I made that night was this:

[Facebook's] growth will be dramatically accelerated by the Platform announcement. If Facebook is adding 100,000 new users per day with its own few simple applications (like its photo sharing, a very simple service that has given Facebook twice as many photos as all other photo sharing sites combined), what will happen when thousands or tens of thousands of developers start building apps in Facebook and marketing them to more users?

Facebook will reach 50 million, then 100 million, then 200 million users, and beyond.

Rather than continue to try to develop features within its own proprietary, closed network, basically keeping all of its users to itself (and kicking out widgets they don’t like, like MySpace does), Facebook intuitively gets the concepts that are so brilliantly discussed in Wikinomics (which are so non-intuitive to old school business types), and has chosen to open up its network for all to participate in. Because they embrace the winning philosophy, they will win.

Application developers can now have access to core Facebook features, such as user profiles and user connections, and even publishing to the News Feed, all with the control and permission of Facebook users. So if a Facebook user chooses your app, it will show up on their profile for all their friends to see, and they can enable that app with a single click, and so your application can spread virally to the 24 million other users.

Platform Helped Facebook Surge Past MySpace

At the time, perhaps the best analysis about how critical this developer platform (or “widget network”) would be to Facebook’s success came from the famed entrepreneur and brilliant investor Josh Kopelman. He wrote,

…Myspace’s lack of a clear “widget roadmap” created a big opportunity for their #1 competitor, Facebook.

Just last week, Facebook took advantage of that opportunity in  a huge way.  Specifically,Facebook announced their new development platform, F8.  I won’t spend a lot of time describing their announcement (I’ll leave that to others), but I agree with Paul Allen’s summary of the three key points:

  • Applications can be deeply integrated with Facebook
  • Distribution of the applications will occur through the network, and
  • The business opportunity Facebook is providing will give 100% of advertising revenue (for third party applications) and 100% of transaction revenue to the application developers.

By providing a clear roadmap – and business opportunity – for the widget makers, Facebook has just increased its virtual R&D budget by over $250 million dollars.  By welcoming third-party innovation, Facebook will reap the benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars of venture investment – and the Facebook user will have a much richer experience.  I’d wager that every widget maker who has previously relied on Myspace for traffic is hard at work this holiday weekend on migrating their application to support the Facebook API.

Think about it.  If you ran a venture-backed company and had to decide whether you wanted to focus your effort on:  (a) a property that welcomed you in and let you keep 100% of the revenue you generate or (b) a company with a vague policy that doesn’t let you generate any revenue, which would you choose?  I don’t think it’s even a decision.  It’s an IQ test.

Facebook has recognized (and embraced) something that Myspace has not – that there is more value in owning a web platform then a web property….

Major Growth

Today, Facebook is about 30 times larger than it was 4 years ago. It has been translated in 70 languages, mostly by its users. According to Quantcast, 76% of the visitors to Facebook are “addicts.” Zynga, the leading game company on Facebook Platform is going public and may be worth $20 billion. Facebook itself is preparing for an IPO early next year and may achieve a $100 billion market cap.

But besides games, what serious applications are being built for Facebook today? Why did Facebook go from promoting its Platform to hundreds of thousands of developers, to shifting its emphasis to Facebook Connect? Why did it stop letting its users add content and links from apps to their personal profile pages, so that their friends could discover what apps they were using and promoting? Why did it stop (for a while) helping apps communicate with their users?

Facebook seemed determined to make all of its app developers, especially games, pay for Facebook ads to get users.

Where have all the app developers gone?

Abandoning the Winning Philosophy

Something changed at Facebook in 2009. The spirit of Wikinomics was lost. I don’t know all the reasons why, but the Facebook Platform opportunity that promised free virality and 100% of the revenue from canvas page views turned into a nightmare for many app developers as viral touch points and communication channels were deprecated from mid 2009 to late 2010.

There were rumors that Zynga might be making more money in 2009 than Facebook, and that must have rubbed everyone at Facebook the wrong way. Facebook was spending a huge amount of money to support applications and probably wasn’t getting a fair piece of their success – not like Apple, which took 30% of all the revenue from its app sales. Something had to change.

I had warned in 2007 that a gaming company might actually make more money building on Facebook than Facebook itself would make:

It is even possible that some future Facebook app developers could end up with a greater market cap than Facebook–if they permanently maintain the 100% of revenue going to the partner model. For example, a MMORP game built into Facebook might someday have 10 million users paying $10 per month, or $1 billion in revenue, when Facebook might at that point have $500 million in advertising revenue. (Reportedly it will make $150 million this year.)

Okay, not likely, but maybe possible.

The cool thing is that the marketing costs for these application developers will be basically nothing. All viral. All courtesy of Facebook’s users.

If Facebook’s strategy team understood how to create the winning platform, then rather than eliminating the benefits to becoming a Facebook app developer, they would have tried to make it possible for dozens of companies in non-gaming verticals to also become massive successes on the Facebook Platform. Not just Zynga, Playfish and Playdom. It wouldn’t be stuck as just a social gaming platform. After all, with more users in more verticals, Facebook would ultimately benefit the most.

The core asset Facebook wants to own, extend, and leverage, is the social graph–who is connected to whom.

Facebook Platform Roadmap

In late 2009 Facebook announced their Platform Roadmap at another developer event. Publicly, they tried to spin the changes as being positive to users and developers alike. Leading developers knew this Roadmap would be absolutely devastating. Privately everyone was scared and upset. Publicly, no one wanted to say anything to Facebook or about Facebook that might cause them to be singled out and punished for their lack of loyalty.

The Roadmap was a series of design and API and policy changes that largely took away the opportunity for app developers. Over the next year and a half, these changes decimated the developer community and many startups that had sprung up around Facebook Platform.

There were legitimate reasons for some of the changes, including reducing the spamminess of many apps and reducing the huge costs that Facebook was incurring for hosting content and delivering billions of page views and user notifications at no charge for the apps. Some apps were harming the Facebook user experience. But there were definitely other solutions that could have been pursued.

Overall I believe the main impetus for the Platform changes was this: Facebook had reached a tipping point. It had achieved critical mass and no longer needed apps to “accelerate its growth.” By eliminating the gift of free virality to its app developers, by taking away notifications and eliminating the presence of apps on personal profile pages, developers (especially Zynga and the other game companies who were generating huge revenue) would have to buy Facebook ads to achieve growth. Facebook also knew they could easily build some of the most popular features of leading apps into its own user experience, which they did.

The Ecosystem Weakens

As the Facebook Platform opportunity disappeared, so did the VC funds and the angel investors who had been so energized to fund the next big thing on Facebook.

Hundreds of early entrepreneurs and developers had been building apps and evangelizing the Platform. But all that energy dissipated and a lot of dreams were shattered. I personally lost about 40 employees as a result of the Platform changes. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of other companies and you’ll begin to understand the pain that was felt as the Roadmap was implemented.

My company (and admittedly, ours is an extreme example) went from 21 million active users of our We’re Related app at our peak in late 2009 to under 500,000 at the bottom in late 2010 — that’s a 98% drop in users. Many other apps experienced similar fates – apps that would have improved in quality and value over time.

Our own product roadmap was really cool. Our customers had answered hundreds of survey questions about what features and services they wanted us to build next for their family and extended family. We had more than 200 million responses.  We hired a dozen talented engineers, many from Move Networks, and we were excited to move forward. But then the opportunity disappeared. For the next 18 months, we just tried to stay alive.

Mark Zuckerberg came to Provo earlier this year. He was interviewed by Senator Orrin Hatch in front of a crowd of 20,000 or so college students. He got a standing ovation as he entered Jimmer’s house – the BYU Marriott Center. It was actually a very cool, very surreal experience to have the world’s second youngest billionaire (Facebook co-founder Dustin Moscovitz is 8 days younger than Mark) gracing the campus.

Mark spoke passionately about how every industry would be reinvented in the coming years. Everything would become social. Then he mentioned my company as an example of how developers are going to build all the great apps for every vertical market. He mentioned that we had a million users. I can’t explain the pain I felt when I heard that. It was a dagger directly to the heart. Once again I was sitting on the third row listening to Mark. This time, I didn’t make any phone calls after the interview. I sat quietly, trying to make the pain go away, trying to cool down.

Operation Developer Love

Last year Facebook launched Operation Developer Love, an attempt to be responsive to the needs of developers and to keep them posted on the implementation of the Facebook product roadmap. There have been a couple of platform changes that have helped the developers this year. But if Facebook wants to regain the trust and love of the developer community, it needs to do so much more.

Can Facebook Be A Legitimate Platform Again?

Because Facebook focused on getting a piece of the games economy on its Platform, they may have hurt their chances to be a Platform for substantive applications in business, education, health, finance,  government/law, travel, real estate, and so forth.

Third party developers who want to build serious and useful apps no longer get any real viral boost from Facebook. To get users, you need a large advertising budget. One speaker at a Facebook conference last week in San Francisco told game developers to plan on buying Facebook ads to get 90% of the users to their game. Once you have a hit on your hands, it makes it easier, as Zynga has shown, to get the next hit. But even Zynga is spending tens of millions on Facebook ads.

The “business opportunity” Kopelman referenced is largely gone. Web sites may use Facebook Connect to slightly improve their conversion rates and to generate some re-engagement loops with Facebook, but Connect hardly helps third party applications grow virally. Facebook has seriously restricted its viral effect for new apps, which was the #1 reason why great entrepreneurs and developers wanted to build there in the first place.

There is no question that Facebook’s team is brilliant. 750 million users is a phenomenal achievement. Facebook pioneered the stream, which is addictive; brilliantly crowd-sourced its translation into more than 100 languages; launched Facebook Connect which is used for easy login by millions of webs sites; and has become the world’s leading social gaming platform. And now they have Skype integration too.

But unless something is done to improve the native virality of the Platform, and to enable monetization of apps, Facebook will never be the best Platform choice for non-game app developers.

Google+ API

When Google+ launches its developer platform, Facebook will have two fights on its hands. A feature battle to keep users happy. And a new battle to attract developers and to make sure their ecosystem is strong. Recalling what Kopelman said, they still need a “widget roadmap” so that they don’t become the next MySpace.

Two days after Google+ launched its field test, CNET’s Rafe Needleman spoke with Google’s Vic Gudontra (Senior Vice President of Social) about Google’s plans for an API. Vic spent 15 years at Microsoft and was General Manager of Platform Evangelism there. Vic said,

“I’m a developer guy at the core. It is inconceivable I would build something without a platform.”

Which Platform Will Empower the Most Developers?

Facebook knows that every industry will be reinvented in the next few years. Everything is going to become social. Developers can leverage Facebook’s social graph to invent all kinds of new things. But will they? Will they ever trust Facebook again.

For developers, the romance is gone. Developers are energized about platforms like iPhone, iPad and Android. But not Facebook. For more than a year I’ve not spoken to a single entrepreneur who has made Facebook a significant part of their launch strategy, because of what Facebook did to its first generation of app developers.

New Facebook games launch every week, and there seems to be a new Turkish video sharing app on the top 20 fastest growing apps list too, plus a few other odds and ends.

But Facebook must create a strategy to empower developers in every industry vertical – not just gaming – to go viral and create value for Facebook’s 750 million users.

Remember, Google owns Android and already works with tons of developers. Add Google+ to that, and Google can provide a huge social and mobile opportunity for developers.

How can Facebook ultimately win, given those Google advantages?

Remember the Wikinomics advice:

“The winners in this evolution will be companies that can create the *most comprehensive incentive frameworks* to adequately reward all stakeholders.” (p. 207)

“Winning in a world of cocreation and combinatorial innovation is all about building a *loyal base of innovators* that make your ecosystem stronger.” (p. 210)

I’d like to see Facebook return to its roots, to its original promises to the developer community and to rekindle the excitement we all had about working with Facebook to change the world. I’ll even volunteer to help Facebook reach back out to its developer community, from the hundreds of people who attended the original f8, to the hundreds of thousands of developers who began to dream about building the next big thing on Facebook.

Facebook could announce a handful of changes that could re-energize its developer community and give Facebook users new and innovative things to look forward to – besides just the next Zynga game.

Here are a few suggestions:

  • Let consumers put apps back on their profile pages in a limited fashion. Customers want this – we know, because we forwarded thousands of email complaints to Facebook from our upset customers when this feature was disabled. This would be a huge shot in the arm for developers.
  • Make it easier through notifications for apps to communicate with their users. Requests 2.0 is a very weak substitute for the original notifications.
  • Enable app discovery. Where is the directory of top apps in every category. Make the directory easy to find. Use algorithms like Genius to help people discover apps they will like. Please, do something to help the developers.
  • Let developers use social ads – the most effective form of ads on Facebook – rather than restricting them to being used only by Facebook. Ad revenue could help Facebooks apps grow and disrupt software being sold on other platforms.

Google’s Army of Developers

Tonight in a very insightful blog post Startup Boy said that as Android’s more open platform is Google’s best weapon against Apple’s iOS, so too “an army of 100,000 developers is Google’s best chance against Facebook.”

Here’s more of his post:

Facebook developers face two major problems. Firstly, to attract them, Facebook concocted and gave the developers access to artificial virality channels. Then, to prevent spam, they had to take them back. But they did so capriciously and arbitrarily, with some (i.e., the offerwall providers) being punished, and some (check a certain game company’s S-1) being rewarded. Secondly, Facebook is still figuring out its own business model, so what’s allowed and what’s not changes on a regular basis – look at the graveyard of social ad companies and payments companies and the recent introduction and mandates on Facebook credits.

Google should tell developers – “here’s a simple set of rules that will never change. Here’s a simple API that we will always keep backward compatibility with. Here’s an incentive and a reward for creating an application that brings more users into G+. Here’s a simple and clear way for users to export their information and their social graph. Here’s the standard small cut that we take on everything.”

Right now, the only true open platforms for any startup are email and the web. Android is a close third. Facebook, Twitter, iOS, SMS, etc. while beautiful and elegant, forget at their peril that there was a time when AOL, Compuserve, WAP, and other walled gardens were beautiful and elegant too.

Can Facebook Get Developers Back?

For two years the Facebook Platform team’s main message was that the in-Facebook app opportunity was pretty much going away, and that Facebook Connect was the new company strategy.

But that may not be enough now. If Google+ is going to attract an army of developers, what can Facebook do now? Can Facebook acknowledge that it abandoned its f8 launch philosophy, reneged on its early promises and made a lot of decisions that hurt developers? Rather than try to justify those moves, can Facebook apologize somehow, make some simple new commitments, and then work harder than ever to serve not only users and advertisers, but developers too?

Maybe Facebook can do what Startup Boy is telling Google to do: introduce a “simple API,” create an “incentive and reward” for bringing new users in or bringing them back, and introduce a “set of rules that will never change?”

Operation Baby Come Back

It’s time for Facebook to take developers seriously. Operation Developer Love is not enough. It’s time to pull out the big guns. It’s time to launch Operation Baby Come Back.

Perhaps Facebook should get Jesse Eisenberg (he sings in the animated hit Rio) to put on his best MZ tee and record this classic song from the 70s. Or if Mark can sing, that would be better still. They could send the video clip to all Facebook developers past and present.

Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
I was wrong, and I just can’t live without you

Facebook is big enough to live without app developers for a period of time. But my main point is that whichever social network provides the best platform opportunity for developers will have a huge advantage in the long run. And I actually think it will be the deciding factor in the social network wars.

And make no mistake, the wars have begun. Tonight Google’s VP of Social posted that they were opening up invites for a bit so they could double the Google+ userbase. They are ready to handle that much load. Very soon after his message spread through the system the Google+ doors were closed again.

I suspect this means another 1.7 million people will join Google+ as they respond to the invites over the next couple of days. I’ll be updating my surname-based analysis and estimate tomorrow.

When Google+ reaches 100 million users in the next couple of months, the Facebook team will need its own army of 100,000 developers who are fully motivated by proper incentives and iron-clad promises to build cool things on top of Facebook’s API. In my view, it’s their best shot against Google.

Meanwhile, I’ll be checking my Facebook every day, watching for the video.

Who will actually quit Facebook over privacy issues?

There is a lot of media coverage about the high-profile people who are quitting Facebook and some surveys claim that up to 60% of Facebook users may quit Facebook over the recent privacy issues.

I am very skeptical of surveys like this and so I decided to run my own survey on FamilyLink.com.

We have been the leading Facebook app for families for years and the #1 Facebook connect site for several months. Our audience consists mainly of Facebook users who also used the We’re Related application, so they tend to be family oriented, mostly female. I think the Sophos poll was skewed towards techie-types interested in security issues, so the 60% was very skewed.

I used identical wording as the Sophos poll question, and added one additional response, which is “I am not a Facebook user” since a small percentage of our users join FamilyLink.com without being a Facebook user.

Here are the results so far, from nearly 700 responses:

2% have already quit Facebook over privacy issue
8% say it is highly likely that they will
38% say “possibly”

[View complete survey results here]

We can cross tabulate this data by age, gender, county, and several other factors – so if you really want a full report on this, please email me: paul AT familylink.com

Regardless of the accuracy of polls like Sophos or our own, it is clear that Facebook has been paying attention to all the media coverage about the privacy issue, and has announced that tomorrow Facebook privacy will be “simplified.” (see MSNBC story)

This Week: Ancestry IPO, FamilyLink goes viral, Navigating Facebook Platform changes

This week is going to be amazing. Possibly, the most interesting week of my career. I’ll explain.

Ancestry.com is slated to go public on Wednesday. I always dreamed of being part of that IPO, but I’ve been out of the company (7 years) longer than I was in the company (6 years). But my excitement about watching a company I helped create trade on a public exchange is mounting. I cannot wait to see what happens when ACOM debuts on the NASDAQ this week.

I’m thinking about holding an IPO party at my house on Wednesday for the early Ancestry.com employees who are no longer with the company. It would be fun to reminisce a bit and see where everyone is now. If “public demand” for a party is high, I’m sure we’ll be able to pull it off on short notice. Between LinkedIn and Facebook, my blog and twitter, we should be able to get at least a dozen or two people to show up. If you’re interested already (and qualify as a “former Ancestry employee”), shoot me an email. (paul AT familylink.com) We’ll watch a couple of old company videos and hopefully some Tivo’d coverage of some of the business news about Ancestry from Wednesday.

This week is also exciting because FamilyLink.com is going viral. Our FamilyLink.com Quantcast chart shows that we’ve had more than 6 million unique visitors since we debuted last month and we are just getting started. We think our Flash-based family tree tool is the funnest online tree ever created, and it is getting tons of usage. We hope to be a top Facebook Connect site soon. In fact, Facebook’s Wiki shows FamilyLink as an example of how to create invites and requests using Facebook Connect. Facebook has been an incredible platform for our company to build on.

Even though Compete.com shows us as having more unique visitors than Ancestry.com, and even though we are classified by them as a genealogy site, we are actually a totally different creature. We are a family social site. Users of our Facebook applications (we have about 60MM users) can easily navigate to FamilyLink.com and enjoy an enhanced family experience there. We connect you to your living relatives. We help you share content and life experiences and memories with your immediate and extended family. Family trees are a fun part of our overall experience (because everyone loves to see how they fit into their family) but we are not currently a deep research site for ancestral records.

About 15% of our users consider themselves genealogists (which means 85% do not).  Many of them already subscribe to paid services like Ancestry.com or use free genealogy web sites for research. We believe that genealogy will likely be an important advertising category for us in the future, since we are attracting millions of families to our service and as the saying goes, “there’s a genealogist in every family.” But you can also say there is a photographer, event planner, scrapbooker, top chef, health nut, sports fanatic, vacationer and couponeer in every family. When we ask customers what additional features they want us to build into FamilyLink, we get everything from photo albums to recipe sharing to online chats and event planning tools. We will generate ad or product revenue from a  lot of categories as we try to meet the needs of millions of families worldwide.

This week is also intense and interesting because of all the upcoming changes Facebook announced for their Platform last week. Here are some links:

  • Video of Facebook’s platform changes. Ethan Beard, who heads up the Facebook Developers Network, describes the product roadmap in this nearly one hour video. Mark Zuckerberg introduced him.
  • Facebook’s developer policies have been condensed from 17 pages to 3 pages — all policies are now in one place
  • Nick O’Neill’s This Week in Facebook post shows how much is going on at Facebook right now. The pace of change is incredible, and it is hard to keep up with everything, but the pay off for being in the Facebook ecosystem can still be amazing.

More information has been coming out in the last few months about the best ways to monetize social web sites than I have ever seen before. The Social Ad Summit in NYC provided a lot of good information, especially about virtual currencies and virtual goods; PeanutLabs followed the Mike Arrington “Spam Facebook Like a Pro” blog post with some great survey data about how users prefer to pay for in-game virtual currency; and this article from VentureDig covers monetizing social networks with recommendations for 2010.

It’s a great time to be in social networking. Investor interest in social networking related companies seems really strong. For years the conventional wisdom was that social networks could not be monetized, but it turns out that for most of that time the fastest growing social networks (like Twitter today) weren’t even focused on monetization. They were sacrificing revenue or deferring even thinking about revenue to capitalize on the fact that millions of people would be joining social networks and that the network effect would lead to a few winners, with a winner-take-most outcome. That was a very good bet.

It is well known that Facebook has turned cash flow positive, Twitter raised money at a $1 billion valuation, and Zynga is generating a ton of revenue, some say about $250 million this year. But it is not so well known that teen social network myYearbook turned profitable this year (in Q1 according to CEO Geoff Cook) because of “Lunch Money” and virtual goods. There are other under-the-radar social networking companies and app/game developers that aren’t well known at the moment that will breakout in 2010 and become widely known.

Here’s to hoping that FamilyLink.com will be one of them.

OnDC 09: panel on politics and social media

Moderator: Peter Corbett, CEO iStrategy Labs

Kevin Merritt, CEO Socrata, Inc. (A venture backed startup in Seattle that helps government agencies get data online and it social)

Vijay Ravindran, was at Amazon 7 years, @catalyst, now at Washington Post

Tom McInerney, Lt. General U.S. Air Force (ret.), Fox News Analyst

Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico

Panelists were asked what was impressive to them so far about technology in politics and government. One mentioned the Pres. Obama campaign’s use of social media. Someone else said how IdeaScale and Google Moderator are being used in town hall meetings.

Vijay. Wikipedia’s announced move to use moderation in high profile pages, will ultimately make them more useful. At the Post, we’ve had success with whorunsgov.com, that shows government structure down at a lower level than Wikipedia.

Peter. This is about influencer identification and analysis. What other technologies are used for this? How can this harm or help our democracy?

Mike. There is great commercial value in being able to identify the right people and communicate with them. 3121 [an initiative of National Journal] is like Facebook for Congress. It’s named after the Congressional switchboard phone number. The idea is that someone will emerge in that community who will be the place you go if you are Rep and want to hear about immigration or if you are a Demo and want to hear about climate. It could be a low-level person. To be able to communicate through that person, to other higher level people, might be very helpful.

Vijay. It seems like Comcast’s customer service policy on Twitter is influenced by how many followers a customer has on Twitter. That has interesting implications if it spreads. Before, you had a broadcast mechanism to talk to voters; in our new social media world where you might be connected to 1,000 people and myself to 5, talking to a bunch that are connected to 1,000 — the multiplicative value makes you more valuable than you used to be. It changes the value in campaigns with young people, and it won’t be purely connected to turnout percentage.

Peter. So a young person may be willing to share a video or write a blog post or give $1?

Peter. How will things be different in the next election cycle? Anything you are excited for?

Mike. We are concerned about the fact that even though the technologies are billed as connecting people, they are in fact, sometimes isolating people. As more people get news from HuffPost or Fox, we aren’t having the common conversation we used to have. If a national campaign wanted to really move a story, have a big splash, they used to have to deal with AP, or Washington Post, or NY Times, but now there are a million places they can go to break a story. Politicians don’t need the Post or Politico. Their own content is now accessible. As we look ahead to 2010, the campaigns will have less and less worry about what we write about them, and will put more energy into reaching them directly. Campaigns are worried about their TV commercials being TIVOed (and skipped).

Peter. So is our democracy being strengthened by this or not? Is this better?

Mike. We love the fact the there is more you can get, and more premium quality. You used to have to read what your local news gave you. Now you can click away. You can see the raw speech, the raw materials for my story. You don’t need my account. There is a premium on understanding, explanation, things you can’t get from the raw materials yourself. I talk to journalism students. More smart people are reading more than ever.

Tom. Pres. Obama didn’t have a track record before, but now he’ll have a host of things about bills, etc. He’ll now live on what his accomplishments are. But he’ll have to justify what unemployment is, what the debt is. I don’t read the papers I used to read, I just get everything online. People consume a lot of content. It’s going to be interesting in the 2010 election, to see what role online plays vs. what the facts are and what people have to depend on. I’m in the TV business and everything is based on a 4-minute segment. You get 2 and the anchor gets 2. Your points have to come across quickly. It’s not in the depth. They do put a lot of background material up. Visual, sensual images have a powerful role to play. They can be quick and decisive.

Peter. How does the democratization of data play a role in our daily lives?

Kevin. Social media topic is an important one. I’m personally not very focused on the election process. We don’t look at that. But with regard to the use of social media, a couple of thoughts and concerns. One is: social media in general makes politicians more approachable than they have ever been. I went to an event 4-5 months ago Congressman Honda was there. Maybe it was because I had visited his page on Facebook, his feed on Twitter, I approached him, probably because I had the tangible sense that he was another human being. I don’t have a crystal ball on technology, but someone will take advantage of FB as a platform. Many people use Facebook Pages, but underlying this is a way to get into the social graph of influencers, people with large networks, there will be creative folks leveraging the platform for campaigning or fundraising. Vijay made a good observation on young folks being neglected, to them becoming a core central focus in the election process. We shouldn’t do that to the exclusion of those folks not comfortable yet with social media. Google Moderator had hundreds of thousands of logins during the Presidential Townhall. Kudos to the Sunlight Foundation for creating some interesting data sets that look at the political process, fundraising, lobbying, etc. I see interesting work in the future as more of these data sets come online, like Congressional calendars, as transparency comes into the process, you’ll see interesting ways of combining this data. We’ll get new learnings from this.

Peter. On the topic of transparency, exposing relationships, lobbying etc. Something was reported recently about lobbyists not having to register.

Mike. Pres. Obama is thinking of extending his lobbying restrictions to boards…. White house put out a letter today about lobbying rules. Facebook as a platform for candidates in 2010 — how little the surface has been scratched. David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama, his book is coming out on Nov. 3, anniversary of election. He will say their key driver was email. FB and Twitter was helpful for the optics. But it really didn’t change things. Texting and raising money online is why he is president.

Q. Has the quality of news coverage suffered because of sound bytes?

Tom. You have to be on point and talk in sound bytes. On the radio you can do 15, 30 min, an hour.

Mike. Who covers the expensive stories? Few reporters travel with the president now. Few cover the wars. It’s because of the economics. When a paper loses $1 in paper, they gain $0.10 online. So we have more talk, but not necessarily more facts.

Peter. Last week a discussion started happening around news organizations converting to non-profits.

Mike. Pres. Obama said he would be open to it.

Tom. Mike Young can give you views from Iraq and Afghanistan that are very informative. Online, you can get good stuff and bad stuff online, but how can you tell which is which?

Audience question: how will fund-raising change in the next election cycle?

Vijay. They didn’t abandon the big fund raisers, but they incrementally added new ways to raise money online. There hasn’t been a lot of innovation in getting money through social. Like what examples of making money from Twitter. There have been donation apps on FB that have raised like $28 and have gone no where. With all the tools in the platform, you’ll see people taking a cut. It’ll be done as an additive. If they think they can run their whole campaign this way, it will be a short shelf life.

Peter. If you have someone’s email address, a couple of companies can analyze their social graph and target their friends.

Tom. The Obama campaign did that and those that did it have turned it into a commercial effort.

Kevin. Medicare, and all the procedures that take place in it, one of the big pieces that is not visible is the cost of these procedures. At Socrata, we were up for renewal on our medical plan. One item was $5 m lifetime maximum benefit, the other was $2 million. I have no idea how much things cost, like open heart surgery. So we are taking medical transactions, and stripping out all the personal identifiable information … you can do some trending and analyzing. With an Attorney General office, we are looking at the cost per unit of a prescription drug at any pharmacy in the state. Some places may charge twice as much per unit. So as we think about health care reform, part of it is giving people some sense of what things cost.

Kevin. We have 35 years experience working with email, we consider them records. But is a Facebook comment considered a record. Am I allowed to moderate it, or is it a violation of a freedom speech issue? White house is taking every social interaction as a record and they print it off and send it off to an archive. Once there is more clarity about what a record is….

Vijay. Most politicians use social media to broadcast their message more inexpensively and not really as a two-way exchange. How many comments from politicians have you read on their message boards or fan pages?

Peter. How many blog posts does it take to kill a tree? [Referring to the Obama administrations printing and archiving of all online comments]

Peter. You used to be able to target for political affiliation on Facebook, but it was taken down about a year ago. I don’t know why.

Vijay. In 2008, one side used social media a lot more than the other side. My sense is that it’s much more of a political leaning element as much as it is the age group, their social circles. I see as many libertarians using social media effectively as liberals.

Peter. Gallup poll showed 63% favorable for Obama, but I used ScoutLabs which showed bloggers were only 52% favorable to Obama–why the difference?

Someone mentioned a Twitter hashtag #tcoc to follow “top conservatives on twitter”

Vijay. The media doesn’t know how to cover these trends.

Q. what is the political killer app of 2010?

Peter. One thing I’d like to see is a very sound, fantasy candidate system. Where whoever wins, all their money goes to their candidate.

Vijay. I’d like to see something like Google Wave to be able to parse the unstructured conversations that are occuring …

Kevin. Micropayments and virtual goods might be tied together to raise funds on Facebook.

Q. Will republicans reach the level of sophistication like demos did in 2008?

Peter. A very specific candidate ran and won. Brand Obama was good. He had about 3MM subscribers to his SMS.

FamilyLink Climbs Facebook Developer Leaderboard

Facebook Developer Leaderboard


Sorted by Monthly Active Users

Name DAU MAU Daily Growth
1. Zynga 47,142,368 161,442,415 1.11
2. Playfish 12,136,211 57,661,305 -0.04
3. RockYou! 2,493,761 41,616,918 -1.41
4. Facebook 11,868,141 32,375,076 -0.26
5. Causes 2,135,480 31,881,017 0.72
6. Slide, Inc. 1,234,691 24,757,153 -0.05
7. Familylink.com 1,266,743 22,096,540 0.72
8. SlashKey 5,830,463 18,709,422 -0.08
9. 3happybytes 549,065 18,643,657 -4.07
10. LivingSocial 708,836 17,740,792 -1.30

If you don’t count Facebook’s own applications, FamilyLink.com is now the #6 developer in the Facebook ecosystem, based on Monthly Active Users. It won’t be easy to climb this chart, but with some of the new features we are launching soon, there is a chance that we will.

Posted via web from Paul’s posterous

Social Media and Elections: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, revisited

A few years ago Howard Dean’s campaign manager Joe Trippi published a book called “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” I attended the AlwaysOn Summit at Stanford in 2005 when he came and spoke about his experience managing the Dean campaign. (And I bought three signed copies of his book, for me and my two friends who were trying to launch a political site called iCount.com — we never pulled it off.)

Trippi shared amazing stories about the real-time nature of the first web-savvy presidential campaign. The Dean campaign was electrified by smart use of the web for organizing volunteers and responding to them–making it their campaign, their candidate, their election to win or lose. Dean raised huge amounts of capital from small donations, but lost the primary, ironically in large part because TV helped turn the tide against him.

Trippi recalls his experience with the campaign as they went from long-shot to front runner in less than a year:

For the better part of a year, I have been the one person inside Howard Dean’s presidential campaign saying that we could actually win. Back when I signed on as campaign manager, back when we had seven people on staff, $100,000 in the bank, and only four hundred thirty-two known supporters, back when you answered the phones yourself or they just kept ringing, back when Howard Dean was little more than an asterisk, the last name on a long list of Democratic presidential candidates, I was the one looking people in the eye and telling them: Look, we’re gonna win this frickin’ thing. Now, here it is the end of 2003, and we’re actually on top, ahead in the polls, in the process of raking in more than $50 million, $15.8 million in this fund-raising quarter alone—a record—most of it from small donations of $100 or less. And whose fund-raising record are we beating? Our own! From the quarter before. We have an army of almost 600,000 fired-up supporters, not just a bunch of chicken-dinner donors, but activists, believers, people who have never been politically involved before and who are now living and breathing this campaign. Through them, we have tapped into a whole new vein of democracy and proven the Internet as a vibrant political tool. Now everyone is paying attention.

The amazing thing about the Dean campaign was that it had to create a lot of online community organizing tools from scratch. They did take advantage of Meetup.com, but that social network has never really gone mainstream. Facebook wasn’t even founded until 2004, and even then it was limited to college-aged students. It wasn’t opened to the general public until September 2006, and now there are countries where almost half the population are Facebook users. In the U.S., there are now 85,526,360 Facebook users. That is 28.1% of the population. And the continuing growth of Facebook in the U.S. is staggering. In July, that number was 69 million.

Last night I bought the “revised edition” of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” on my Amazon Kindle so I could see what Trippi had to say about the Obama campaign — he was on the Edwards team — and to read his thoughts about the rise of Facebook and Twitter, and the impact of these social media on elections.

Commenting on the 2006 election cycle, Trippi says:

By the time 2006 was over, at least two U.S. senators—Tester in Montana and Jim Webb in Virginia—owed a large part of their victories to early support from online activists.

But by 2008, online (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) made a huge impact in the presidential campaign, and Trippi thinks politics will never be the same again.

He shared one story of how an individual Facebook user could help energy a campaign:

Back in February, before I joined the Edwards campaign, Farouk Olu Aregbe, a twenty-six-year-old in Columbia, Missouri, was so excited about Barack Obama’s candidacy that he started a group on Facebook.com named “One Million Strong for Barack.” I didn’t know who the hell the guy was—no one knew who the hell the guy was—but by the time I joined Edwards in April, just six weeks later, more than four hundred thousand people had joined Farouk’s quest to bring one million supporters into Obama’s camp.

Trippi clearly feels awe for the massive growth of social networks and how easily campaigns can now engage with voters and be directly influenced by their democratic power. He makes it clear in his book that he feels extremely grateful to have been a part of the Dean campaign–the first major online presidential campaign, even though it ultimately lost–and for all the opportunities to consult worldwide that his leadership there has given him. But I can tell that he would have loved to have been on the winning team this time around–the first presidential election that was really fought and won with social media. He says:

DeanLink and DeanSpace paled in comparison to MySpace and Facebook and the millions and millions who were members of social networks as 2008 approached. Where Dean had had a photo gallery, now Flickr.com allowed millions to post photos, “tagging” them so that if you searched your favorite candidate’s name you could view every picture taken at a rally and posted just a few hours before. Our primitive text messaging network on Upoc.com may have been visionary at the time, but just four short years later it was nothing compared to Twitter, the hot new mobile social texting network.

Trippi believes that future candidates will be elected not from traditional “top-down” “big donor” party-insider based campaigns, but rather they will be chosen and funded by the grass roots, which he calls the “netroots.” In other words, We The People, who can now self-organize, choose our candidates, attract volunteers and raise gobs of money from small online donations. He seems quite optimistic about the chances for the people to take back politics after 50 years of corrupt transactional politics that have resulted in more and more TV ad spending and less and less voter turnout and activism.

This phenomenon will certainly not appear in all races at all levels at the same time. Famed science fiction writer William Gibson did say, “The future is already here. It is just unevenly distributed.”

But during every subsequent campaign cycle there will be a greater and greater chance that grassroots candidates who are truly skilled in using social media will emerge. They will be able to capture the imagination of large voter blocks, create new engagement with volunteers and voters, and win elections with less money needed for television ads and direct mail. Last year a 21-year old in South Carolina was elected to the school board after running a Facebook-only campaign.

Of course all campaigns are eager to reach large online populations with their message and raise money.

In 2000, presidential campaigns raised $528.9 million. In 2004, that jumped to $880 million. And in 2008 the campaigns raised $1.74 billion, an increase of 3.29x in just 8 years. During that same time, the number of Internet users in the U.S. more than doubled. Today almost 3/4ths of the U.S. population are online and more than a third of them are now on Facebook.

Barack Obama raised $745 million during the campaign. (Source: OpenSecrets.org Barack Obama Page) Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt said the campaign had more than 2.5 million total donors.

That really is amazing. Fund raising online is a very smart thing for campaigns to do. But that is not Trippi’s point in talking about a revolution in politics and it is not what interests me either.

What is most exciting of all to me is the prospect of elected representatives using social media not only during campaigns but after they are elected. They have the potential to make the act of governing open, transparent and accessible to all. They have the ability to use social technology to energize the citizenry to solve major problems, whether through the agency of government or from private initiative.

I started college as a political science major, but after college I’ve been in high tech for the past 20 years. Like Trippi, I’m a gadget guy and fascinated by technology, but I also love politics. I have a deep passion for our country and its founders, for our constitution, and for the liberty and justice the founders sought to secure for all by forming the union, with all its checks and balances.

As I study history, I find that many of the most important checks and balances are now gone. The federal government has usurped over the past 100 years many of the powers that were originally left to the states and the people. Today, a few people in Washington wield enormous power and influence and are subject to almost no checks and balances. Can you imagine what the founders would have thought — after all they risked to defy King George III for his abuses of power — when the US Congress voted in late 2008 to give a single individual — the Secretary of Treasury — the ability to use $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to try to prevent an economic collapse? He had the power to to pick and choose which financial institutions to bailout and which to let fail. I think giving such power to one person is unprecedented in American history. We definitely need a revolution from this kind of governing!

When the $700 billion become available to the Treasury department, the rule of law was out the window, and the politics of influence were in full force. On Nov. 11, 2008 the New York Times published an article entitled “Lobbyists Swarm The Treasury for a Piece of Bailout Pie.”

Jeb Mason, who as the Treasury’s liaison to the business community is the first port-of-call for lobbyists. “The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers among industries.”

Mr. Mason, 32, a lanky Texan in black cowboy boots who once worked in the White House for Karl Rove, shook his head over the dozens of phone calls and e-mail messages he gets every week. “I was telling a friend, ‘this must have been how the Politburo felt,’ ” he said.

I personally believe in limiting the role of government and simultaneously unleashing the creativity and philanthropy of the private sector to solve problems. French philosopher Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law” describes what he viewed as the proper role of government — to protect life, liberty and property. He criticized governments that engaged in “legal plunder” by taking goods from one group of people and distributing them to another. As fellow Frenchman Alexis d’Tocqueville admired US citizens for their civic and religious involvement and self-government, Bastiat admired the United States for limiting its government for the most part to its “proper domain.” But he criticized the US for two abuses of governmental power, slavery and tariffs, and was prescient about the risk that these could “bring terrible consequences to the United States.”

… look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues – and only two – that have always endangered the public peace. Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder. Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property. Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime – a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World – should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States – where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs – what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?

As in Europe, the role of government in the U.S. has now expanded in virtually every conceivable way. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown from under 10% in 1900 to more than 40% in 2009-2010. (Source: usgovernmentspending.com)

I am personally optimistic and enthusiastic about the role of social media in future elections and in government. Efforts like the Sunlight Foundation, Project Vote Smart, and GovTrack.us hold great promise. Now imagine when these and many other citizen-empowering web sites become social by using Facebook Connect or other technologies! Imagine if government data and actions become so open and transparent and social that millions of Facebook users every day could actually be involved in self-government, instead of merely playing Farmville and Mafia Wars.

At FamilyLink.com, we are taking our first baby step to participate in the intersection of social media with politics and government by launching SocialFire.com. Our politics page will track the number of Facebook supporters and Twitter followers for every major election in the U.S.

We have the ability to help campaigns attract thousands of additional supporters and followers and to run “flash polls” that can get hundreds of immediate answers to any question that political campaigns want to ask. We have used our internal survey tool since March and have gotten more than 30 million answers from our site visitors to help us decide what products, services, and features to develop next.

Our Socialfire team is talking with several candidates who could jump start their 2010 campaign by using our poll and advertising capabilities to attract hundreds or thousands of supporters/volunteers/donors.

If you are in politics, you should draw an important lesson from the Dean and Obama campaigns. You should realize that campaigns will be won and lost based on how effectively you use social media, in particular Facebook and Twitter, to engage with your potential supporters, volunteers, and donors. Since the average Facebook user now has 130 friends (source: Facebook press room), if a political campaign gets 10,000 active Facebook supporters, then through those 10,000 they actually have the ability to reach 1.3 million people!

Only 6 current Senators or challengers for the US Senate in 2010 currently have more than 10,000 Facebook followers, including Senator John McCain. Two of these are high profile challengers, Peter Schiff (running against Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd) and Rand Paul (Senate candidate in Kentucky), son of former US Presidential candidate Ron Paul, have more than 10,000 Facebook followers.

And the funding is already starting to flow to these social media savvy campaigns. Paul has raised more than $1 million already for his Kentucky Senate race from more than a thousand donors. Peter Schiff’s campaign is approaching $1 million as reported on his official Facebook page.

oh my gosh, facebook is for families

On Feb. 2nd, InsideFacebook reported that the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. 

In just the past 120 days, usage of Facebook by women over 55 has grown by an astonishing 175.3%.

Our team at FamilyLink.com is particularly excited as social networks attract older users because our mission is to connect families to each other using technology, and the glue that keeps most families (and extended families) together often happens to be the older female family members–moms and grandmas.

As they come into social networks in droves, a very large percentage of them do so with the primary purpose of communicating with their children and grandchildren–and not necessary just with their friends.

My mom started using Facebook actively just a few days after Christmas. During the holidays we had a big family discussion about how we could all keep in touch better. Everyone talked about their Blackberries, iPhones, Facebook and even Twitter. 

I am now friends on Facebook with my mom, my siblings, my 82-year old aunt, and dozens of cousins, children of cousins, nieces, nephews, and other extended family. And we all use We’re Related. In fact, the primary way we found each other was through this application.

Time Magazine published a “Nerd World” column this week titled “Facebook is for Old People” in which author Lev Grossman listed 10 reasons (all in jest) why older people love Facebook. Reason #7 was:

We have children. There is very little that old people enjoy more than forcing others to pay attention to pictures of their children. Facebook is the most efficient engine ever devised for this.

That’s pretty funny. But more based in reality than Grossman’s claim that old people want to force others to see pictures of their children is the fact that most older people care more about their family members than younger people do and they themselves want to continually see new family photos

Young people are busy with school, friends, and work. All of life is ahead of them, and they are optimistic about the future. It’s well known that college students phone home mainly when they are out of money. ;)

On the other hand, as we grow older, everything changes. What once was important in high school, college, and in our work years, no longer seems to matter so much. We have so many more memories to think about and we become more thoughtful about the past. As we age, watching children (and from what I hear, grandchildren) grow, and learn, and experience life, and staying in touch with our own remaining family members, becomes the most interesting and meaningful part of our own lives.

I think there is quantifiable evidence for this. While working at a previous company (from 1998-2002) my team discovered that the older people were the more times per month they logged into their private family web sites. It was pretty astonishing to see this hold true even for people up into their 80s. 

Because older people are flocking to Facebook, the We’re Related application (by FamilyLink.com) has jumped in the last few months to become the #2 most popular application on Facebook as measured by Weekly Active Users. For a few days, it was #1 in daily active users, but that number fluctates often as various apps experience occasional surges in traffic.

When we launched We’re Related in October 2007, we reached our first million users in 29 days, and our second million a few weeks later. We were surprised that our application spread so quickly, especially because Facebook had already clamped down on the “unlimited invites” that had helped the first successful apps reach millions of users in just weeks or months. Our cap was 20 invites per user per day, so Facebook users with a thousand friends couldn’t tell all of them about our app at once. And yet we still grew like crazy.

But what surprised us even more was our discovery that half of our first two million users were from Canada, and that 17 of our top 20 cities were in Canada. We teased our product manager (who is from Canada) about making this happen on purpose.

We discovered, through further investigation, that even though the US population is about 9.1 times greater than the population of Canada, at that time there were actually more women over age 55 in Canada using Facebook than here in the US.

Then it made sense. Older people, especially women, love the We’re Related application. In fact, it might be the primary reason they use Facebook — like it was for my mom.

We weren’t 100% sure why Facebook had more members 55+ in Canada than in the U.S. But this is our theory: since Facebook was originally for college students (first at Harvard, then at 60 Ivy League schools, then for all US colleges and universities) and then for US high school students, and only in September 2006 was opened to the general public, the perception was widespread in the U.S. was that Facebook was for young people only.

In fact, the famous NY Times article from June 7, 2007 titled “omg, my mom joined facebook” reflected a reality at the time in the U.S. that young people didn’t want older people (especially their moms) to see what they were doing online.

For some reason in Canada Facebook spread quickly to all ages. Maybe it hadn’t really taken off in Canadian universities. Maybe Facebook had launched in U.S. high schools but not in Canadian high schools. Or maybe Canadian youth don’t have as many things to hide from their parents. ;) 

Who knows? But whatever the reason, there were literally more men and women over 55 in Canada than in the US on Facebook.

When We’re Related launched, it became especially popular in Canada, probably because the large population of moms and grandmas embraced it and shared it.

We don’t know if our growth will continue at the current rate, but if it does we will have more than 50 million users by the end of this year. Not bad for an app that will turn 2 years old in October.

The challenge for us now, is to design a user experience that meets the widely varying needs of millions of families. Families come in all different shapes and sizes. 

We are anxious to create an experience that works for your family, that helps you stay in touch regularly with your siblings, parents, children, and extended family, in meaningful ways.

We would like to know what you want We’re Related to do for you and your family. How can we make it better?

Please comment on this blog about what features or design changes would lead you to use We’re Related regularly to keep in touch with your relatives.

We would really appreciate your suggestions.

Or, if you want to vote on each other’s ideas, please visit our customer feedback forum on Uservoice, where thousands of our active users are suggesting ideas and voting on them.

Please let us know what we can do for your family.

Twitter’s Cosmic Powers

I originally wrote this article for Connect Magazine’s December 2008 issue.

It’s been said that brevity is the soul of wit; it is also the soul of Twitter.

Twitter is the world’s most popular tool for “micro-blogging.” Every day, millions of people use Twitter to answer the question, “What are you doing right now?” As soon as they post a “tweet,” everyone who follows them can see what they are doing right now. It’s similar to updating your status in Facebook.

It’s called micro-blogging because you only have 140 characters per tweet. But you can pack a lot of info into 140 characters. Like Genie said to Jafar in the movie “Aladdin,” “Phenomenal cosmic powers … itty-bitty living space!”

Many people think Twitter is silly or a waste of time. But most of the people that I follow on Twitter are not posting what they just had for lunch or what they are watching on TV. Instead, they are smart people answering the question, “What did I just learn, read or think that is important to share?”

I don’t follow people on Twitter that post inane comments. But I do follow dozens of venture capitalists, employees at Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Web 2.0 startup companies and even a congressman from Texas. By carefully selecting whom I follow on Twitter, I have chosen to tap into an information stream, a constant flow of ideas and links from hundreds of the smartest (and most vocal) people on earth.

Twitter recently passed Google Reader (with my carefully selected blogs) as my most important source of business information. Partly because of their brevity I can consume so many tweets quickly.

The keys to success with Twitter are: 1) Getting the right client software and, 2) Selecting the right people to follow.

I use Twitterific software on my iPhone and Twitterberry on my Blackberry. And of course, Twitter on the desktop.

From Twitter I learn about things going on in Silicon Valley and New York and elsewhere that people I follow are planning to attend. Last month I learned about a social advertising summit in New York City, and within a day was signed up for it. This event was crucial in shaping our current business strategy.

Twitter, which raised $15 million in venture capital in May, recently purchased a search engine that indexes the hundreds of millions of Twitter posts. It is a powerful way to find out what thousands of people are thinking about any topic.

And it’s not just about following the conversations; it’s about starting them as well.

If I post a tweet, the 300-plus people who follow me on Twitter can read it. But it also automatically updates my Facebook status, so my 800-plus Facebook friends can see it as well. Some people using Twitter have tens of thousands of followers. If they link to a Web site or make a comment or break a news story, imagine how quickly the news can spread.

Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/paulballen.