On July 31 2010, Twitter passed the number of 20 billion tweets sent since the service was created in 2006. This is quite remarkable, considering that the threshold of 10 billion tweets had only been reached 5 months before, in March 2010. Currently, Twitter states that there are about 750 tweets sent per second and 65 million sent per day. From these figures it is easy to see that Twitter is even more quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with than we anticipated in our podcast on the business uses of Twitter.

Among the uses we identified was employing Twitter in PR and product announcements. The goal must be to get your message across to as many people as possible. So, having many followers is good, having many more followers is even better, meaning the more followers your Twitter-Account has, the more return on your announcements you will see. But this is only half of the truth. Even more important is the question whether your followers re-tweet, i.e. redistribute, your tweets – and in doing so spread your announcement further and attract new followers to your account. This is exactly what HP Labs Research tried to analyse in a recent study called “Influence and Passivity in Social Media”.

HP-Researchers determined that the average Twitter-user only re-tweets one out of 318 tweets he receives. However, this average does not tell the whole story, because the vast majority of users almost never redistribute messages, while a select few are very active in doing so. Now, seeing that in order to make your tweets as widespread as possible it is important to get your followers to re-tweet them, you could just measure the total amount of re-tweets you get. But if you consider the difference in activity across users, as mentioned before, such a total would be biased depending on which users follow you and their general likeliness to re-tweet messages they receive. HP’s study tries to amend this by introducing their IP-algorithm, a way to assign relative influence and passivity scores to every user. In this model, influence depends on the quantity and quality of the audience a user influences, and passivity is a measure of how difficult it is for other users to influence him. In short, HP-Researchers try to determine the degree to which a Twitter-user can get his followers to re-tweet his tweets and visit the URLs he links in those tweets – given that most users are passive by nature and not easily motivated to re-distribute or visit URLs they receive in the first place. In that sense, the attention a user gets from normally passive followers is even more valuable than that of generally active ones.

After analysing 22 million tweets with this method, HP Labs Research determined that the Twitter-account “Mashable” is the most influential one. This, as you probably know, is the account of Pete Cashmore, CEO and founder of Mashable.com, currently rated second on Technorati.com’s Top 100 blogs worldwide. Pete founded his blog in 2005 at the age of 19 and has since risen to “must-read-status” on all topics concerning technology and social media in particular.

What is his secret then? It is very good content. In a world of social communications, wisdom of the crowd and the long tail it is not enough to simply have good content. Aside from being interesting to readers, very good content not only sparks the interest of people but is also wrapped in a form that stimulates reflection and comments on the topic – and motivates readers to tell their friends about it. As a business user, you need to keep this in mind. It is not enough to send out PR and marketing material clearly identifiable as such. Instead, you need to try to talk to your customers on a personal level, engage them in an open conversation. In so doing, you will not only develop a favourable reputation with customers but will achieve referrals, too, bringing your customer’s contacts and their contacts’ contacts into the conversation. Making the information you distribute viral, as the term goes. Aside from referrals, reputation gains and ultimately ROI, there is another use in engaging your customers (and your partners and employees, for that matter): In the true spirit of crowd sourcing, it could very well be that you will be able to gain additional insight into the mind of your stakeholders, harness their knowledge and experience and ultimately develop better services and products for your customers – all based on talking to them as equals.

Doodle was created in 2003 by Swiss computer scientist Michael Näf, a graduate of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH). Näf was later joined by fellow ETH-graduate Paul E. Sevinç and in 2007 incorporated Doodle in Zurich. They now have 10 employees.

The company is partly funded by venture capitalist Creathor Venture, who is engaged in more than 20 companies, mainly from Germany and Switzerland. Additionally, Doodle has also received funds from the Cantonal Bank of Schwyz (Schwyzer Kantonalbank) through that bank’s innovation foundation. In terms of income, Doodle offers targeted adverts that are displayed to users of the free basic service. Users can, however, buy “Premium Doodle” for CHF 28 to get rid of the ads. Another interesting service introduced in 2009 is “Branded Doodle”, which targets business users in particular and allows for a branded, corporate Doodle instance and offers additional efficiency and security features (CHF 480 for the whole package).

Doodle has created quite a buzz in the three years since its incorporation. The service has not only been featured in several big Swiss and European print and online media, but has also been recognized across the big pond. Doodle was mentioned in well-known blogs like Techcrunch, WebWorkerDaily or CNet and has even made it onto washingtonpost.com.

Among several national and international prizes, Doodle has also won Mashable’s 2008 Open Web Award in both the Places & Events and the Blogger’s Choice categories. In 2009 the University of St.Gallen, a renowned Swiss business school, listed Doodle as the third most innovative Swiss ITC Company, trailing industry heavyweights Logitech and Swisscom.

In May 2010 Doodle reported 6 million unique monthly visitors to their website, double the numbers of 2009. In June 2010 a new calendar view option was introduced to Doodle. The company described this as a major improvement and core of the next generation of their product. The main idea was to integrate Doodle scheduling into a user’s existing calendars (e.g. Google Calendar, Lotus Notes or Outlook Calendar). This is a smart move. It eliminates the need for checking both your Doodle and your calendar separately and also converts the traditional, old fashioned table form of Doodle into a more practical calendar view that users are familiar with. Still, it remains to be seen if Doodle can turn its success in Switzerland, a relatively small market, into a global success story.

Regardless of such future developments, Doodle is a fine example of how Web 2.0 and social communications is meant to work. First of all, a service needs to be instantly understandable and usable. Even if there is quite a lot of code, servers and what not in the background, users do not want to be bothered by lengthy introductions or hand books. Secondly, Doodle facilitates daily communications by a smart, non-intrusive way. People want and need to communicate, even if a day today does not have more hours than a day 100 years ago. The solution is to communicate more effectively. And that is what Doodle is all about.

So, let me ask you again: Do you still use email CC back and forth – or do you doodle?

The classic Everett Rogers graph of product diffusion, including ideas such as innovators and early adopters, is well known even the world over, and the terms used can be found in every magazine article about new market trends. But is it right?

Rogers stated that adopters of any new innovation or idea could be categorized as innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%), based on a bell curve. These ideas about diffusion of innovation are among the standard vocabulary of product managers and marketers. But in a Marketing Bulletin, 1995 article I was shown recently, Malcolm Wright and Don Charlett raise some big questions about the Rogers Model, stating that the Bass Model, also from the 1960s, is more accurate.

Examples they quote to show how the Bass model has given good predictions include consumer durables like televisions and clothes driers, but also more complex projects such as diffusion of cocoa-spraying chemicals among Nigerian farmers, spread of an educational innovation in the US, and purchase of photovoltaic home energy systems in South-West US.

So, what is wrong with Rogers’ model?

I had assumed like many that complex products need a little market testing by innovators and early adopters before the mass market will adopt them. However, some of the examples quoted above in support of the Bass Model instead are pretty complex. Wright and Charlett question two key assumptions:

1. That some individuals are “venturesome”, as a personality trait that is consistent and correlates with length of time in education; however, the evidence for this trait is weak.
2. That the early phase of marketing is dominated by media advertising, and word of mouth becomes important as the market begins to mature.

The Bass Model stresses the influence of interpersonal communication, including nonverbal observation, right from the start.

So why has the Rogers Model been so popular?

My guess is that it probably worked quite well when applied to buggy software that needed a period of beta testing or of being in stealth mode, but then the idea became over-generalized.

If Bass works best, what does that mean for marketers?

Before answering that question, I would pose another one. Why might it be even more important now? The key lies in network effects. Social media creates powerful network effects, so if the power of interpersonal communication was important before, it is now even more so. If the Bass Model is really more accurate, focusing on mass advertising as products are launched, or concentrating mostly on early adopters could waste valuable time and make the difference between product success or failure. The key is to realise that network effects are the best friend a marketer can have, and should be aimed for as early as possible.

It all started on April 15, when the ash cloud from the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland caused several European countries to close their air space. Consequently, Swiss International Airlines had to cancel all flights to and from the UK and Norway. Up until then, Swiss’s Facebook fan page had mostly served only as a marketing instrument. Fans, or customers if you will, were told about special offers, new destinations, corporate results or new website functions, for example. But when the volcanic ash crisis hit air traffic in Europe and the company’s hotlines had trouble coping with the amount of callers, the company’s Facebook team started to post updates and information there. And passengers took advantage of that. As increasing numbers of flights were cancelled, Facebook turned into a hub for customers unable to get information through Swiss’ temporarily overloaded website and/or telephone line.

Instead of having to tell each caller the same things (check if your flight is leaving at all and only come to the airport if you have a confirmation), the Facebook fan site served as a self-service support community. On such a community, customers profit from an accumulated knowledge base and can get help from other customers who might have had a similar problem or have other insider information. Only if this self-service support fails will the customer have to actually call a corporate hot-line. This frees up a lot of support resources and support operatives can use their time for the “serious cases” instead of having to answer the same basic questions again and again.

Dell, for example, has institutionalized this concept in their Social Community. They offer support forums, blogs with additional industry insights and IdeaStorm, an innovation community that lets customers post ideas on how to improve Dell’s products and services.

But, having a huge amount of information and knowledge available through the community doesn’t only free up support resources on the corporate level. It also improves a customer’s support experience, because even a skilled support operative can’t have an answer to every possible problem. If a problem is very specific and maybe not yet addressed in support handbooks or procedures, then other community members might be able to help instead. Of course, this only works if there are enough skilled community members. So key to a successful Social Support Community is to attract valuable members, give them incentives to participate, reward member efforts and maintain a helpful and open community culture. In creating a self-service Support Community and motivating customers to help each other, customers will get better help faster, feel valued and thus are positively inclined towards the company. So, not only can support costs be lowered, but such viral effects benefit the corporate image and ultimately sales, too. The power of Social Communities!

I only came across this bold competition called mYprize 4G Developer Challenge today - it is run by YTL Communications, who belong to the Malaysian YTL Corporation. On their website they say about themselves:

The YTL Group’s core businesses are ownership and management of regulated utilities and other infrastructural assets, serving 10 million customers in three continents.

YTL Corporation’s strategy of providing “World Class Products and services at very competitive prices” along with its history of Innovation, has led directly to it recording a compounded annual growth rate in Pre-tax profits of 55% over the last 15 years, and an enviable track record of creating shareholder value. It has been paying dividends every year since it was listed on KLSE. YTL Corporation’s strategy has also resulted in it and its subsidiaries accumulating numerous International Awards in the process.

While YTL is not a long-time telecommunication company at all, they decided to build the country’s fastest 4G (2.3GHz WiMAX) wireless network through their 60% ownership in YTL Communications. Now such diversities are not uncommon at all in Asia and China. Many of the largest tech and telco companies originated from construction, ship building, food supply or e.g. container harbors. So not so surprising then that YTL itself is active in O&M Activities, Cement Manufacturing, Construction Contracting, Property Development, Hotels & Resorts, Technology Incubation, REIT, and Carbon Consulting.

Back to YTL Communications. They decided to run this competition collecting new ideas on how to use this new high-speed wireless network using a very nice social innovation community platform. In case you want to still participate, though, time is running out as submissions must come in by May 1.

Ever wondered what people were doing while sitting in front of their computer? You can now! All you need is a webcam and a little site called www.chatroulette.com. 17-year-old Andrey Ternovskiy from Russia set up this simple but intriguing way of meeting total strangers. Launched in November 2009, his idea has been featured in numerous news magazines around the world, including the New York Times, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and our very own 20min.ch here in Switzerland.

How does it work? You don’t need to register, just go the site, hit the “new game” button and chat away. If you don’t like who you see, click “next” and you get a new partner. As Robert J. Moore stated on techcrunch.com, 89% of participants are male, 11% female. There is an age restriction of 16 in place for the site, but no formal verification is conducted. This is certainly an issue, as chatroulette isn’t for minors. In fact, there are quite a few perverts taking advantage of the completely anonymous character of the service, as a sample of screenshots on tumblr.com shows.

Aside from such unfortunate encounters, which are a sad reality in cyberspace, there are a lot of  “relatively” normal people playing chatroulette as well. Compete.com shows a veritable hockey-stick-effect of pageviews for www.chatroulette.com, currently reaching nearly 1 million unique visitors, while Alexa.com ranks the site among the top1000, traffic-wise.

A quick ad hoc experiment by myself taught me one thing: The whole idea sounds quite fascinating, in theory. But after connecting to my first handful of random strangers, the whole thing started to bore me. And when my next “partner” revealed more than I ever wanted to know, I knew – this was my first and last chat roulette.

The number of ways that implementing an in-company community platform can make staff more productive is growing all the time. These are my top ten.

1. Get started fast. Collaboration software is intuitive. Learn a few basic rules about where to do what, and then be guided by what you would do in the real world. So users can get started fast.
2. Focus on the task. As less mental real estate is given to the application, more can be given to the task.
3. Ease of sharing. Users don’t have to wonder which form of communication suits the task best, or try to fit in with others’ working styles, as everyone is using the same toolset.
4. Valuing content over delivery. Ease-of-use means IT-savviness does not distort the perceived value of the  input, so people see ideas for what they are - and are more confident about submitting them.
5. Credit where it’s due. A more transparent platform means less chance of credit-stealing (claiming authorship for others’ work). When work processes and output are directed at the community, it is clear who has done what - which is better for the morale of those that actually do most of the work!
6. The power of the group. The impact of the single creative individual is important, but can be overstated. We are all creative, but mostly more so when we work closely with others.  Innovation works better when we have people to fire ideas off and be inspired by.
7. Chance encounters. The more users get a chance to decide what they need to follow, the more chance that good ideas are seen by the people most interested in them, not just by a pre-determined distribution list. That increases the chance that good ideas have productive consequences.
8. Retaining talent. One of the main reasons that talented people switch jobs is that they feel they don’t make a real difference where they are. It’s not just financial rewards that inspire creative people, but having their work generate tangible results.
9. Retaining knowledge. When key people are out of the office, or even have left the company, does the knowledge go with them? And who has access to that knowledge? The more resources are in a shared space, the more their expertise is kept live and can be absorbed and developed by others.
10. Fewer meetings. The saying “you can meet or work, but you can’t do both” has some truth in it! The group aspect of community communication reduces the need to meet - and of course also cuts across geographical and time-zone barriers.

People read blogs because they are interested in the thoughts, experiences and knowledge that a blogger has. The best blogs also entertain, too. But what they do not do is paid editorial advertising - that’s for the banner ads. When a blog writer gets caught accepting payment for positive product mentions, what follows is a PR disaster, all the worse because other bloggers feel that their world has been tainted.

That’s why TechCrunch quickly made a big deal of it this week when an intern of theirs got caught being rewarded with a laptop for a post: he got fired and all his posts got wiped immediately. No names were given, and reaction seems to be that TechCrunch’s responded well and maintained their credibility. A few bloggers though, traced the guy’s identity and wondered who was willing to pay him - it’s a known rule of the game that any interests must be declared. The unfortunate thing is that innocent startups had posts about them removed and may also come under suspicion of bribery, too!

If a positive blog post is worth getting, it is prominent enough to get some scrutiny too. If the writer gets paid, the truth will comes out, readers will naturally react in three ways:

1. Not to trust the writer again
2. To assume a company paying for positive mentions could not get them any other way
3. Not to trust such a company

This is something that has not really dawned on some European companies, who see blogging as a legitimate form of paid advertising - in fact, one Swiss social media marketing company, Trigami, bases its business on getting paid blogging coverage. It will eventually dawn on their customers, I think, that this is not what social media marketing really is. The fact that their business model is not big news in the blogosphere is probably simply because they are only doing it in German - if they start with English-language ones, wait for the storm! However, regardless of language, the basic rules of SMM - be open and helpful, and network for all you are worth - may mean hard work, but they are there for a reason!

Alex Williams at ReadWriteCloud just wrote an interesting post about social media and business, based on a new IDC survey stating that “57% of U.S. workers use social media for business purposes at least once per week”. According to the survey “While marketers are the earliest and largest adopters of social media, these tools are now gaining deeper penetration into the enterprise with use by executive managers and IT.”

What Williams adds is that it is not just social computing: “if social computing represents the new business process then cloud computing is the delivery mechanism.” That’s a nice point - the two have developed in step. The cloud is group-friendly. It is much easier to maintain participation in a group when backing up or transferring data across hardware is not an issue, and sharing is helped hugely by platform independence. A newer phenomenon, being able to use whichever device is at hand including smartphones and netbooks, makes communication much more fluid, too.

However, another factor may be even more important in the development of social apps: the cloud makes it easier for users to switch, combine, and experiment. A few favourites apps of mine are Stixy, a kind of online cork board, Doodle, great for planning meetings and get-togethers, and Slideshare, for uploading and sharing presentations. But there are hundreds (or more) of useful cloud-based apps that can be used alongside the major application suites and even mashed together.

The result is a high rate of evolution of social apps, with winners offering the most useful features and the most intuitive interface. Application suites then have an incentive to get into the cloud, so they are in the same ecosystem and co-evolve.  These phenomena mean that the overriding limitation for users is not the platform, and not even what applications are available, but simply how clear they are about their group’s aims, processes, and how well they can select the features that fit them.