The Next Twitter or Facebook is the Open Web

Photo Credit: Open on Flickr by Mag3737 

The following is also my column in this week's issue of Advertising Age.

As Edelman's crystal ball guy I can't go to a meeting without being asked what will succeed Twitter or Facebook as the future king of community. It's unfortunate, but it's just how history has conditioned us to think.

Remember, however, that Second Life was digital marketing's Vietnam.

Communities come and go. Hubs seem to lose their innovation edge just as consumers grow more fickle, new venues emerge and viable monetization options remain scarce. If history repeats itself, Facebook and Twitter will one day be replaced by something else. However, this time it will be the open web.

A group of standardized technologies are emerging that will evolve social networking from destinations we visit into something bigger - a federated address book that makes every single web site that chooses to adopt them entirely social.

Jeremiah Owyang at Forrester Research has been thinking about this deeply. This week Forrester is releasing a paper that outlines a five year vision for how the open web, thanks to connective technologies like OpenID, will become one giant social network. This global brain will follow us everywhere and influence every purchasing decision.

While Forrester doesn't get this tangible, here's a fictional scenario to consider.

Today online shopping means visiting Amazon.com, reading reviews from strangers and conducing a transaction.

Tomorrow, as everything becomes social, you will be able to shop Amazon directly from within your iGoogle page without ever having to visit the site. What's more, Amazon will show you what your Gmail address book friends have publicly said about a product and/or its category in any one of thousands of online communities. Finally, to help you further Amazon will offer an aggregated view of your friends' friends opinions in a way that protects their identity.

So how should marketers prepare? Owyang advises to focus on advocates, evolve models from push to pull and adapt internal cultures. I think, however, it starts with something more fundamental.

Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data, rather than brand, that will become the primary way we make decisions. The greatest rewards will go to those who embrace and participate in as many communities as they possibly can in credible ways.

Comments

[mikeroblogger]

Love the graphic with the neon. I couldn't agree more. I just spent the last hour on ff disusing video camera choices with other ff's. The only thing we used Amazon for was to get prices. A nice group of people who are knowledgeable in the equipment I was looking for joined the conversation. One hour later, it was clear what I wanted to purchase. This is the first time I’ve made a purchase decision in this manner. I have to see how it all works out, before I can call it a success though.

[Rick Burnes]

"Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data, rather than brand, that will become the primary way we make decisions."

If you agree w/ this, which I thoroughly do, the outlook for traditional online display advertising is bad. Traditional online advertising is focused on brand building.

[CDot]

I agree with you completely, but if these changes come to fruition, the outlook for a lot of traditional media and marketing strategies -- not just online display advertising -- is not good. That's the beauty of modern communications, though. It's constantly evolving.

I particularly like your observation that peers and their data will be the foundation for decision-making, not brands. That's already happening to some extent, especially with younger audiences. It's not exactly the same, but I read in yesterday's Parade that celebrities who were once box-office cash cows are no longer sure bets for movie studios because young people are more apt to see flicks based on recommendations from friends or genre.

http://www.wordpress.com/cshaner

[Gyerr]

the conversation is way overrated

people trust brands

[mcluhead]

Facebook and Twitter aren't communities. They are technology platforms. The distinction matters.

[Stuart Foster]

Opening the doors and just accepting that eventually the web will be one large social network is a tremendous step towards mainstream adoption. Basically it becomes well...get on the boat or get left behind.

You have to adapt to not being able to control the message. But once you let go...you will find navigating the ocean a far better alternative.

[Jeff Janer]

I agree with your premise that peers and their data will be the foundation for decision-making - the challenge for brands, therefore, is to engage with these peer groups in a useful way and to be able to affordably scale their efforts.

http://springpartners.com/publishers/

[areg]

great post Steve, but I think we can't underestimate the importance of brands. Peer networking and personal recommendations will become important, but their real value is in how they reinforce brands, and help create greater brand equity. One will reinforce the other.

Areg

[mScottD]

conversations keep circling around how "communities" are the new thing and we have to be prepared for the influence of the network. Hello everyone - communities have been influencing decisions forever. Buying a new car? Asking my neighbors or family. Wife has a new favorite running shoe - she is telling all of her friends. Nothing has changed on that front...it is just a new platform (not even speed, in some cases). Brands support the decision making process by being familiar and need to continue to strive that way.

[Tedel]

What is the open web? Seriously... what is that?

The Internet is a bunch of computers linked together by telephone lines, serving requests of many indivuals who request access to some information either by typing a web address (URI) or just clicking on a link that takes you there.

There is no such thing as an open Internet. Wake up.

[Rob Frankel]

There IS such thing as a sustainable, organically grown and financially-remunerative online community. It's called Branded Community® and we've been running them since 1998. I'm pleased to see that onliners have discovered the power of aggregating individuals. I'm also pleased to see how quickly faux "communities" like MySpace, SecondLife and Facebook come and go.

I'm pleased because it's been over a decade for us, waiting for the market to discover that technology is not the answer, but that http://www.i-legions.com Branded Communities is. Perhaps when people realize that there's more to life than selling advertising to eyeballs that rarely click through (Hey, remember women.com?), they'll be interested to see how we've organically grown Branded Community consistently since 1998 -- while generating real revenue and enhancing brand loyalty.

[Utero Maximus]

Although "brands" may have been tarnished by the blackmarketeers from the East, take a look at what the big names are doing to their brand-name items: improved them even more. The peer and their data may works only on the superhighway, but on an island-setting where I live, accesses become a challenge and peer data is almost worthless. I believed in "brands" rule in the fast-pace market.

[Rob]

Steve,

Really like your post overall, but not sure about this sentence: "Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data, rather than brand, that will become the primary way we make decisions."

Don't our peers form opinions about brands based partly on their experiences and the messages they receive? And if so, isn't it still just as important to focus on those two things, which in my mind are integral parts of the brand?

Would love your reaction to that question and some related points in my post "Changing technology and what it doesn't change," here: http://www.semanticargument.com/?p=270. Thanks for a really interesting/informative blog.

[maayanroman]

While I agree with some of your article, in terms of branding I tend to agree more with Gyerr and mcluhead. Brands do in fact maintain a level of control over their public perception while communities and peers can take part in the dialogue by influencing individuals opinion. It's marketing 101 level stuff to understand that there are trusted individuals in the public called opinion leaders who others look to, so marketers need to get on the good side of those leaders.

Furthermore, good brands are like people and in my opinion are the mass-market stand-in for a salesman. Research has shown that people are most attracted to ads and brands with people, companies that have faces with which you can associate the construct that is the brand. Just look at how ask.com brought back Jeeves (http://uk.ask.com/) or how the most effective design elements on web banners to catch eyeballs is to show faces and "body parts" http://www.useit.com/alertbox/banner-blindness.html. Having a 'mascot' that represents the brand is more likely to cause self referencing and more engaged consumers, which inevitably means top of mind awareness when it comes to purchase decisions. Perhaps where communities come in is helping people evaluate the brands on hard facts after people have become aware due to emotional appeal.

[Ian Lyons]

I think there's a little too much focus on the social graph being the holy grail - there are too many situations where I simply wouldn't turn to my friends for recommendations. I am however prepared to trust reviews from a small number of strangers - as long as they have the same preferences and constraints as I do.

This would require not only a federated address book but a federated profile - which customers control. The more I trust your brand, the more access to my profile you get.

[The System]

It's not just peers and their data that will provide information for purchasing, more importantly information that you've previously provided or is held about you, will be used to provide you with products that yoyu will probably buy, through API's to your personalised interface. Imagine never having to fill out a form again for a car insurance quote, and having the best available quote delivered to your desktop or social networking platform of choice on it's renewal date.

[Dom Conlon]

Peer based WOM is a factor in spreading brands and the idea of an Open Web is exciting to this development but I agree with other posters here - the brand is still important because it needs to reach those peers in the first place. And if everyone is following everyone else then who is doing the innovating? Who leads the way in being the first to try the new product and then do the first reviews?

[Engago Team]

Now Twitter has broken into mass media and market after the 1 million race and Oprah, it's time to change.Open Web is apparently the best idea for now.Quit facebook and Twitter.Go Open Web - where the cool people are.

[GRM]

Open web is actual and future best way for internet. People like writing opinion!

[MSolution]

"open" anything will rock, open source has already made its mark!

M.

[DTs Flash Drive Blog]

Yep - one, unified open web is the next logical step in evolution. The power that is shifting back to the people through social media is becoming increasingly organized and coherent. If brands or companies cant get behind this concept and embrace the revolution they will be goners.

[Paul]

I agree with Gyerr that people trust brands and I think that will remain true even with the evolution of social media.

With that said, I have to agree with your closing statement that, "The greatest rewards will go to those who embrace and participate in as many communities as they possibly can in credible ways."

[Steve Hirsch]

You state:

"Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data, rather than brand, that will become the primary way we make decisions"

I think this fails to recognize that your peers rely on brand to make decisions. Brand still matters, and maybe even more, in an environment where we connect with our friends to help us make buying decisions.

Steve HirschAllAdvertisingAgencies.com

[@davehonig]

Quite the opposite Rick, The outlook for online display advertising is tremendous. I agree with Steve when he says "Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data". But Open ID doesnt really solve any problem for marketers.

The Conversation may perhaps be over-rated. Want to read some incredibly insightful studies on social theory, check out http://media6degrees.com/about/reading.html

The growth in social media has largely failed to create a meaningful platform for advertisers to help monetize this creationThe problem that is being solved today is how to provide a solution for major brand marketers with a way to reach scalable, highly targeted audiences, and use the understanding of the social graph to target not just people within target segments, but the people connected to those people who display high degrees of homophily, the tendency of like-minded individuals to cluster with other people who strongly resemble them.It all starts what matters to brands, and thats their customers. Customers make a brsnd, start there and amplify.The Data is just the first part, unlocking the power of that data and amplify is where Marketers will all want to be, and many are testing right now.

[www.freefor15.com]

Nice work on the neon signs. I am wondering if you did all the photography for it.

I still cant believe why Twitter is becoming so popular? It has far less functions for people to communicate although it is nice thing to use. I can't see it overtaking anything anytime soon.

Erikhttp://www.freefor15.com