Archive for the 'linkedin' Category

Is Facebook appropriate for IBM?

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

IBM apparently, depending on how you measure it, has fewer product pages on Facebook or any other social media than its main competitors. Facebook has always been for the consumer market but that doesn’t mean it always should be. It needs to evolve. Many companies ban their employs from using it because it is not currently for business. When it becomes for business they will allow it. I think the Facebook verb “Like” is badly named. It means you want their updates to appear in your newsfeed and consequently in your friends’ feeds. Your friends can exclude it from their newsfeed but it’s a pain. Facebook may be for individuals but individuals work for companies. Coronation Street (as a random and possibly incorrect example) is for individuals but IBM still advertise in its commercial breaks. Facebook may be for cool young kids but these kids are gradually moving into the workplace and bringing their tools with them. Some Facebook info can show up in a google search, a lot of people object to that but it’s all configurable. So, Facebook is currently not the best tool for the job but it’s one of them. It will be a shame if a big corporation like Google can just come along and displace them by taking their ideas, they need to respond to the competition and evolve.


A new broadcasters’ business model?

Svolta nella Social TV: SKY sigla un accordo c...

Svolta nella Social TV: SKY sigla un accordo con Zeebox (Photo credit:

What should be the new broadcasters’ business model given that “advertising revenues are shrinking”.

Personally I never watch adverts. With Sky+ I go past them. Even before that I used to make cups of tea etc. Broadcasters need you to be so gripped by a programme that you don’t want to miss the return from the adverts. But in general the channels I watch are channels I pay for, including the BBC with the license fee. I guess there’s indirect advertising through product placement, and even sponsorship, and maybe banners in football grounds. I pay a fortune to TV companies for far more content than I could ever watch.

Is it true that “advertising revenues are shrinking”? That advertising money to broadcasters is dropping, rather than ROI from advertising dropping. Surely if the advertising can be shown to make money then it will still come, although it may be redistributed.

Targeted advertising could make the adverts more effective and so the advertisers could pay more to get to fewer people. As the ‘broadcasters’ deliver to viewers individually and know more about the viewers this can be effective.

Making twitter feeds available to the broadcasters could create a twitter feedback loop. It could just help reduce every programme to the lowest common denominator. But twitter is also good for making people watch things in real time. If my friends are chatting about a programme I’m watching, and journalists etc too, then I want to be there with them seeing their comments about things as they happen. Reading the feed a few days later when I watch the recording is not the same. The discussion enhances the programme, like in the old days when families watched TV together.

The partnership of Sky with Zeebox, combined with internet connected TVs and media streamers could change everything. Zeebox can/could connect to all the TVs on the LAN and know what you’re watching. It could report directly to the TV company to say whether you’re watching their programme, and whether you’ve switched it off. It enhances the viewing substantially in terms of helping you discuss the programme with your friends and so making you watch it in real time. Being able to select your “friends” based on common interests means that one programme doesn’t need to be reduced to being suitable for the whole family we can have the audience groups selecting and refining themselves instead.

Maybe we’re heading back to event television with good quality targeted programming.

My twitter feed