ANTHEM™ Company Contact

August 08, 2008

"Winning" in social networking

Adam Zawel has a thread over on INmobile following our panel discussion on mobile social networking at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit a couple of weeks ago. He put up a poll asking the community "what does winning in mobile social networking mean?" The majority of respondents chose "Most users/depth of engagement."

I was working on a related blog post this week, so I posted this comment on the thread:

First of all, applying web-centric measurements to anything in the mobile space is a fool's errand akin to trying to apply print-centric measurements to radio. Furthermore, and in my opinion, it is myopic to apply advertising-centric measurements to social networking in general. "Most users" and "depth of engagement" are metrics that are used to indicate the potential to reach eyeballs (and for some measurement of time or engagement) so that a value can be placed on the ad inventory that supports the business. This assumes that a social networking site is a discreet and stateful experience that contains all of its users within its confines, creating a closed marketplace for communication, which drives engagement, which drives advertising dollars.

There is nothing wrong with this approach, mind you, I just think it is myopic:
- What will be the effect of having a portable identity and profile that can traverse the traditionally stateful nature of the now-popular discreet social networking sites?
- What happens when Mozilla adds a profile, a network address book, and chat functionality to Firefox?
- What happens when Microsoft adds social tools to Outlook, such that you can either create a new profile or bring your own from MySpace or Facebook or Hi5 or whatever?

If "social networking" can become a feature of other forms of engagement, then how relevant is "depth of engagement"? In this scenario, engagement would get even lighter, but user-centricity would become more important. Advertisers won't be asking "how long do people sit and look at your site?" Rather, they will ask, (as they do now of Google) "How many people use your address book as the first place they start when initiating a connection of some sort?" It won't matter how many user go to Facebook, because Facebook as a website will cease to exist though its many features and tools will be atomized and distributed across other consumer touchpoints. While I may never actually "go" to Facebook, I will be using it transparently every time I use my browser or my email or my mobile phone.

In all likelihood, the current winner in social networking, (based on ad-centric measurements) MySpace, will end up also winning in the second generation of social networking by using their leverage to become the de facto standard profile engine as well as the "address book in the sky" that everyone goes to first to conduct all of their personal communication.

Great. Now take this potential evolution of social networking as the first place you go to initiate personal communication and apply it to the mobile space. Rethink what your address book currently is. Rather than a static collection mostly of PEOPLE that you know, imagine a dynamic list of CONNECTIONS to people, places, businesses, media, objects and services, some of which you know, some of which you want to know and some of which want to know you. Furthermore, throw away the notion that establishing these connections will be based on the mobile-centric "phone call" and instead think about all the ways that such an active directory could make connections - through a browser, with your camera, using location, via a map, on your calendar, in your media player, via text or via voice.

In this way, "social networking" gets broken down into its component parts and embedded throughout your mobile device, fulfilling your future expectation that your most personal communication device should be able to facilitate your evolved notion of "communication."

I would further note that when this future is realized, it will mean an evolution of personal communication wherein everyone on the mobile value chain wins, including OEMs, carriers, and a host of communication service providers all working together to make connections more transparent and more valuable.

Posted by Shawn Conahan at 09:08 AM

August 05, 2008

The OEM Service Strategy

RCR Wireless lets me write for their Reality Check column now and again. Here is the link, and the text is below for those subscribing via RSS...

Along with every one of my friends in this industry, from entrepreneurs to product managers at carriers, I have been lamenting the state of our industry’s service model for several years: You can have the best product with obvious consumer value with high relevance in the mobile space, and it will absolutely tank when the carriers “put it on the deck” in an ill-named category where it is impossible to find. It’s not the carriers’ fault – they are just doing the best they can with the tools they have been provided. It’s not the OEMs’ fault, either – they are just providing hardware to the specification provided by the carrier.

This is true, but over the past 10 years, RIM went from startup to $67 billion company based on the concept of integrating one very important service (email) into a purpose-built device that was not just easy but addictive for consumers. Danger essentially followed suit with a purpose-built IM device.

Today, a confluence of events is presenting the opportunity for OEMs to embed a class of 3rd-party communication services not just into high-end smart phones or purpose-built devices, but into mid- and low-market feature phones. This is going to dramatically change the way such services are provided and the way consumers use their mobile devices.

“Dumb hardware” is now being forced to evolve. Mobile phones are basically radios on a very large trunked system. The word “terminal” was used until very recently for a reason: A mobile phone was meant as a termination point on the network, essentially completing a circuit-switched connection with another mobile phone. The really hard part, therefore, used to be inside the network, routing all those calls and making connections. Then packet-based networks replaced the circuit-switched world and meant connecting those same devices to information sources instead of completing a circuit. While it is true that operating the network infrastructure did not get any easier, mobile phone technology changed dramatically; no longer “dumb hardware,” they turned into what are basically small computers. This, combined with available mobile broadband networks, means you can now “put the internet in your pocket.”

As a result, the past few years have seen an explosion in the growth of data services on mobile phones. That has meant record sales of mobile phones, and record numbers of wireless subscribers. The downside of this growth in data services is interesting: According to Informa Telecoms & Media, due to flat-rate pricing of data, traffic is growing much faster than revenue. As an example, Vodafone reported for its recent fiscal year a more than tenfold increase over 2007 in data traffic, but only a 55% increase in data revenue. Informa Telecoms & Media is forecasting a 77% increase in global mobile data revenues from 2007 to 2012, with a 1000% increase in global mobile data traffic over the same period. Some sources predict that this trend signals the inevitable devolution of wireless networks into low-margin dumb pipes. Without offering an opinion on that viewpoint, what I can say is that I am seeing an exciting trend toward a robust data service integration strategy on the part of the OEMs.

I am specifically talking about integrating mobile devices with 3rd-party communication services like social networking, email and IM, which are sometimes called the Three Pillars of Personal Communication. I do not mean encapsulating a service like, say, MySpace, in an application and “putting it on the deck.” I mean INTEGRATING these communication services so that they are part of the native handset experience, making them as simple and transparent to use as, say, SMS. Why? Because the shift toward “openness” and “widget-based UIs,” will essentially disintermediate the hardware vendors from providing such services on their own while at the same time will empower them to establish partnerships that were previously off-limits. (Consumers are not likely to use a “Nokia IM” service over AOL Instant Messaging, nor are they likely to use “Samsung Mobile Social Networking Community” over MySpace Mobile.) To compete, the device manufacturers must seek out the high ground and provide a superior native communication experience integrating the 3rd-party brands that resonate with consumers.

This shift is happening now, and I can offer anecdotal insight into the future of feature phones. (My company, Intercasting Corp, is working with several OEMs to integrate these services, and so I have a good vantage point.) Imagine a camera phone that automatically sends every photo you take to Photobucket or Flickr. Also imagine clicking on a name in your address book and bringing up that person’s MySpace profile. Consider the simplicity of having an IM widget that is always on your phone’s home screen. These are examples of small improvements that are very hard to actually do which represent a dramatic improvement to the use of 3rd-party communication services and mobile devices alike. In a couple of years, consumers will simply expect to see certain service providers integrated into their mobile devices because that is where they are already communicating.

Here is some more good news: This is not necessarily an indication that OEMs will ultimately win the “hundred-year war” between wireless carriers and device manufacturers over ownership of the customer relationship. Almost every carrier is fully embracing this approach because they know it will drive service adoption and data usage, and there is massive opportunity for cooperation and collaboration. Everybody wins. But certain OEMs, namely the ones that move first and in the biggest way, will win more: The only negative effect here is to the OEM that does not fully embrace an integrated communication service strategy. As Apple has shown this industry with the iPhone, a better (or just different) approach can resonate with consumers in a big way, and once the bar is raised, it is raised for everyone who wants to stay in the game.

I continue to marvel at the pace of change in this industry, but I have not been this excited about a specific evolutionary branch of the mobile space in a long time. As communication devices, improving to the extent possible the communication capabilities of mobile devices is a winning strategy. Before our eyes, we are seeing what used to be strictly “hardware” companies transform into “software and service” companies, all to the benefit of our industry and the consumers who embrace it.

Posted by Shawn Conahan at 04:26 PM

July 18, 2008

AlwaysOn Stanford Summit next week

I just wanted to post a quick note that I am speaking on a panel next week at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit:

Mobilizing Your Social Network
Are social networks merely features of existing applications and services, or are they a more fundamental element of the mobile ecosystem architecture?

Moderator: Adam Zawel, Chief Collaboration Officer, INmobile.org
John Faith, GM & VP for Mobile, MySpace
Mauro del Rio, Chairman, Buongiorno
Babur Ozden, CEO, ZipClip
Kamar Shah, Head of Industry Marketing, Services & Software, Nokia
Shawn Conahan, CEO, Intercasting Corp

Adam Zawel is of course the face of INmobile, (the community for mobile professionals) and a very insightful guy. I think the discussion will be interesting, given the following:

You cannot talk about mobile social networking without decoupling the brands from the functionality and then asking who will ultimately win. Is it what we currently think of as the leaders, like MySpace or Facebook? It certainly looks like it is theirs to lose. But what about Nokia, with its software and services strategy? Could they roll social networking functionality into their devices, integrating the social networking sites, and accrete all value to themselves?

Here is a post I made a few days ago on INmobile responding to Adam's question about who will win in mobile social networking:

In my opinion, you cannot speculate about the future of mobile social networking without first examining what barriers or facilitators exist in the mobile space, as these will ultimately determine whether anyone even ::gets:: to win.

Secondly, you cannot handicap the winners without defining what "winning" is. I know opinions differ, but let me offer a perspective: Since social networking is an evolution of personal communication, and "facilitating the world's personal communication" is about as big a vision as one might offer, then "winning" in this space would to be the first link on the personal communication value chain. In the same way that the first stop you make when searching for something on the web is Google, the ambition of every social networking site should be to be the first stop you make whenever you want to communicate with someone. Everything else is secondary - with the pace of technology innovation, a SN site can hardly expect to compete on functionality when parity among all competitors is achieved within months if not weeks.

So how do you become the first link on the personal communication value chain, and how does mobile figure in all this?

Here are some dimensions that I consider important when thinking about social networking in the mobile space:

- Social networking should not be treated as an “app on the deck” but should be viewed as a native functional opportunity as big as SMS or MMS

- Social networking is an evolution of personal communication, not a fad

- The most personal communication device in history is the mobile phone

- Social networks are the distribution channel for new media, and in particular user-generated content

- Social networks compete with wireless carriers because they are in the same business, which is providing personal communication services

- The best way for carriers and OEMs to address this competitive threat is to integrate social networking functionality into the device

- The first link on the personal communication value chain is the address book

- Whoever owns the address book owns the customer relationship and becomes the first place where everyone goes to execute their personal communication

- If the address book is on a server and not on a device, you better DAMN WELL BE SURE THAT IT IS YOUR SERVER

Notice I do not direct that last point at a particular audience. My impartiality forbids it. The simple fact is that anyone on the value chain could own the address book and it would still be somewhere between better to great for consumers in general. Owning the address book is the MOST IMPORTANT THING for everyone involved:

Carriers: Vodafone bought Zyb so they could sync to and own the master address book on THEIR server. A friend of mine at Vodafone asked me last week whether I thought they overpaid for Zyb, to which I answered they got a tremendous bargain, given the strategic value of a company that enables them to own the address book of all of their subscribers.

OEMs: Nokia bought Intellisync so they could backup the address books of all their devices to THEIR server.

Any social networking site would do well to provide its users a mobile address book centered around their service. After all, if a person is a die-hard Bebo or MySpace user, then they would likely appreciate having all of their friends, regardless of communication mode, in one place and built around the tool they use most often to communication with. The value to the social networking provider is obvious: When a user puts all of their contacts in one place on your server, that will definitely keep them coming back every time they want to initiate communication.

But the opportunity goes far beyond that. Assume for a moment that in the future you will be able to make your identity (or identities) portable beyond the confines of a certain social networking site. You could add your Facebook friend to your friend list on MySpace, for instance. Additionally, your mom, who uses no social networking site, could add your MySpace profile to her mobile phone address book, which will not only have your mobile number, but also a link off to your profile.

The social networking site that achieves this in the biggest way the soonest will not only be locking its users to itself for a long, long time, but will also be the single starting point for all personal communication, regardless of channel. It’s like being the master switchboard for all communication. THAT is a valuable thing to be. Or will it be a social networking site per se? What about a sort of "meta layer" or facilitator of social networking functionality instead?

For instance, what about the carriers? If there is not someone at every carrier at the SVP level or higher who is completely and vehemently fearful of the implications of losing control of the address book, then they run the risk of fucking themselves by misunderstanding the nature of the mobile social networking opportunity and incorrectly embracing the seemingly innocuous functionality that will ultimately result in their downfall. It would be akin to Xerox PARC giving away the GUI that made Apple and Microsoft what they are today.

Perhaps that was a bit strongly worded. ;-) I am provocative because I know that most carrier execs fully understand that they are competing with every form of personal communication, from email and IM to Skype to smoke signals. Yet the default stance is to "put a link on the deck" and treat social networking sites like applications or WAP sites. They may understand that social networking is an opportunity of some sort, but most do not fully get the size of the threat. And the best way to neutralize a threat is to make them part of your army.

Anyway, the silver lining in that the carriers shouldn't even own this whole opportunity because there is a problem for the carriers in guarding the address book, which is that they are all more valuable when they integrate the top 100 social networking sites around the world into the address book. So if they give it up entirely, they lose. If they lock out the SN sites, they lose. If they partner, they win, but if they partner with the wrong company, they lose. The only logical move is to partner with everyone, accrete value to the mobile consumer by doing so, and monetize the hell out of it.

My conclusion: By building an ecosystem of interoperability and providing social communication functions via native device functionality, the social networking sites will enjoy more usage and happier users, the carriers will additionally monetize their base while reducing friction and at the same time checking a potentially competitive threat, the OEMs cross over to service model by facilitating device integration, and ultimately consumers get a better user experience. If executed properly, all ships will rise with the tide.

Posted by Shawn Conahan at 12:24 PM