The Business Web 2.0
As CEO of business-based social networking site WeCanDo.BIZ, read my take on the role Web 2.0 technologies can play helping businesses to grow.
Monday 30 June 2008, 9:07 AM
What's happened to OpenSocial?
Google announced OpenSocial to much fanfare last October. Within weeks almost everyone, except Facebook, had jumped on the bandwagon, promising a fully social web. Ten months later, what has happened to it?
I will admit to having been something of a sceptic when Google first trumpeted the concept behind OpenSocial. OK, an open platform for allowing widgets, pieces of code which add functionality to websites, to be shared across websites to bring the features of one website to another painlessly, sounded good in concept. But I had just turned my back on MySpace, one of OpenSocials largest supporters, because of the infuriatingly childish widgets on that site; and I was beginning to get as frustrated by the "social applications" that had started to choke Facebook. Why would I want such puerile wastes of time spread across the whole web?
Not many others on the web shared my view, however, as Google soon showed an impressive list of supporters, including LinkedIn, Plaxo, Hi5, Ning and Salesforce.com and others joining MySpace. Even Ecademy said they would be supporting it.
In spite of all the excitement and big names behind it, though, my cynicism stayed during the early weeks as I waited for the euphoria to turn into useful applications that website owners could use and show their users benefit from.
Ten months later, I am still waiting.
Last November I added a Google News Alerts to make sure that I didn't miss any announcements on such useful applications and successful deployments. I have just been away for a few days and checking through the news I have received on "open social", it is all reports of local celebrities that opened social clubs or towns whose social services offices are going to open later, rather than news that the biggest names on the web are deliverying on the early OpenSocial promises.
Taking a look at the Google developer blogs on OpenSocial, it seems full of the results of surveys asking how useful people would find it, plus a schedule of OpenSocial related events at last months Google I/O developer conference, but nothing on released or even forthcoming applications.
A common way of sharing widgets and applications with social elements to them, taking your list of friends with you wherever you go, showed promise. But has OpenSocial fizzled out before it's begun?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Wednesday 25 June 2008, 12:41 PM
VISA helps Facebook to woo small businesses
Interesting news this week that VISA has signed a deal with Facebook to offer services to small businesses on the latter's social network.
The first 20,000 businesses signing up to "friend" VISA will get a free $100 voucher to spend on Facebook Ads, the platforms advertising product. There will also be a facility for small business owners to meet others in a similar position. Both VISA and Facebook suits have been spouting the normal stuff about everbody winning etc.
This is an intriguing move as Facebook has not proved itself to be a social networking platform that lends itself well to business, regardless of size. I would imagine a large number of its members are IN businesses, but I think they possibly share my view that, much as in real life, you keep your professional life and friends & family quite seperate. Atempting to friend both on Facebook leads to you looking starchy to your mates, but verging on the unprofessional to your work contacts. You are never quite sure whether to post a picture of you in a suit or a gorilla costume without it rubbing one or the other up the wrong way. Then there is the fuss the Facebook membership kicked up when the Beacon adertising platform was launched, forcing Facebook to tone it down.
A quick search amongst UK members shows that only about 28,000 of the 8 million on Facebook mention "business" on their profile at all, whilst the BBC have reported that there is 80,000 small businesses on Facebook worldwide. That's amongst a base of 120 million members. And you can't say it's because business people haven't heard of Facebook.
But here's the rub -- none of the leading social networks really serve to do much for small businesses. MySpace and Bebo are too dominated by teens. Fine if you are selling Heelys, but of no use at all to B2B businesses or those counting on customers with a good income.
Business focused sites like LinkedIn and Xing should offer a better capability to network with peers and get access to wealthy new customers, but both have roots set in the technology and media sectors (just because that's where the early adopters are, not because of a vertical focus) and are little more than job sites anyway. LinkedIn is further positioning itself as a social network for people who happen to be in business, rather than FOR businesses, by adding a Time Out alike restaurant listing to its forthcoming release. I think small business people would rather see and pay for sound business advice from experts and get a HR or tax helpline from their online network personally.
My own site at WeCanDo.BIZ seems to be one of only a few targetting small businesses with tools to help get business done. So with the VISA announcement is Facebook going to wipe the floor with us? Little doubt they'll get the 20,000 small businesses they want signed up to the VISA programme (mainly in the US, which isn't our target for now). But once all the $100 vouchers have gone, I wonder how many of those small business managers will be advocating Facebook as the best social network on which to get business done?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
The first 20,000 businesses signing up to "friend" VISA will get a free $100 voucher to spend on Facebook Ads, the platforms advertising product. There will also be a facility for small business owners to meet others in a similar position. Both VISA and Facebook suits have been spouting the normal stuff about everbody winning etc.
This is an intriguing move as Facebook has not proved itself to be a social networking platform that lends itself well to business, regardless of size. I would imagine a large number of its members are IN businesses, but I think they possibly share my view that, much as in real life, you keep your professional life and friends & family quite seperate. Atempting to friend both on Facebook leads to you looking starchy to your mates, but verging on the unprofessional to your work contacts. You are never quite sure whether to post a picture of you in a suit or a gorilla costume without it rubbing one or the other up the wrong way. Then there is the fuss the Facebook membership kicked up when the Beacon adertising platform was launched, forcing Facebook to tone it down.
A quick search amongst UK members shows that only about 28,000 of the 8 million on Facebook mention "business" on their profile at all, whilst the BBC have reported that there is 80,000 small businesses on Facebook worldwide. That's amongst a base of 120 million members. And you can't say it's because business people haven't heard of Facebook.
But here's the rub -- none of the leading social networks really serve to do much for small businesses. MySpace and Bebo are too dominated by teens. Fine if you are selling Heelys, but of no use at all to B2B businesses or those counting on customers with a good income.
Business focused sites like LinkedIn and Xing should offer a better capability to network with peers and get access to wealthy new customers, but both have roots set in the technology and media sectors (just because that's where the early adopters are, not because of a vertical focus) and are little more than job sites anyway. LinkedIn is further positioning itself as a social network for people who happen to be in business, rather than FOR businesses, by adding a Time Out alike restaurant listing to its forthcoming release. I think small business people would rather see and pay for sound business advice from experts and get a HR or tax helpline from their online network personally.
My own site at WeCanDo.BIZ seems to be one of only a few targetting small businesses with tools to help get business done. So with the VISA announcement is Facebook going to wipe the floor with us? Little doubt they'll get the 20,000 small businesses they want signed up to the VISA programme (mainly in the US, which isn't our target for now). But once all the $100 vouchers have gone, I wonder how many of those small business managers will be advocating Facebook as the best social network on which to get business done?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Tuesday 24 June 2008, 9:14 AM
LinkedIn taking a wrong turn on the way to revenue?
The business pages have been full in the past week of the news from business-biased social network LinkedIn that it has just raised $53million in a fourth funding round led by Bain Capital. The $1 billion value it puts on the company is obviously getting some scrutiny when LinkedIn is predicting revenues this year of just $75 - $100 million. It claims profit, but I couldn't find figures to support this.
Web 2.0 currently has the air of the crazy days of the Dot Com Boom, when anyone with an e-commerce site and a banker as a friend found themselves a paper millionaire. As a 30 year old with a small secure e-commerce company based near Cambridge, I too got engulfed and remember the day clearly when I was at dinner with bankers from a reputable US firm telling me my company was worth £4 million today, but in 9 months I would be worth £10 million, and £100 million the end of the year after that. My company turned over £1.75 million at the time. So confident were they, they offered to lend me money against my future worth. Dreams of Elton John as a neighbour and a McLaren F1 for trips to Waitrose saw me doing the deal and selling my company, although I never actually took up the personal loan. And thank heavens I didn't, as when the crash came six weeks after I signed I was left with nothing.
So the pressure is on LinkedIn -- and Facebook come to that, valued at $15 billion through Microsoft's investment of $240 million for a mere 1.6% stake last year -- to show to those of us with both feet on the ground and burnt fingers how they are really worth what people are paying. Some proof is needed that Wall Street is not believing its own hype, as it has been show to do before.
LinkedIn has always pointed to a prosperous membership as the basis of much promise, with its 23 million members having an average household income of $109,000. Easier to make money from than a bunch of teens, says Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of LinkedIn, and I wouldn't argue. But let's not skip over the detail of exactly HOW he can make money from that enviable user base.
It's becoming accepted that there are probably only three ways to "monetize" Web 2.0 businesses: sponsorship, subscription and advertising revenue. The first means the site, or groups of pages, get branded as being presented by such-and-such and, so far, LinkedIn shows no signs of taking this route. I would say their traffic numbers are high enough to do this, but they seem keener to build their own brand than take money to promote someone else's.
LinkedIn currently charges a subscription for a premium level of membership and this has had some appeal to obessesive networkers and recruitment consultants, who get easy access to what amounts to 23 million CVs. LinkedIn is now a key tool for high-end headhunters, but these guys disappear quickly when the economy takes a squeeze and recruiting slows. Surprisingly, the near endless supply of contacts in LinkedIn seems not yet being adopted by general sales teams as a prospecting database, even though I have read a few articles recently that suggest social networking could provide a viable alternative to cold calling (see http://tinyurl.com/6fn9k3 as an example).
Advertising is probably where much of LinkedIn's revenue comes from today and I would expect it to play a big part in the future. Who wouldn't want access to the profile of average member they have?
So I read with interest an interview with LinkedIn's European MD, Kevin Eyres, on the Telegraph website this week (http://tinyurl.com/5ky3dz). There was all the normal stuff in there trying to justify a $1 billion valuation, but the REAL news was that on its way to do so, LinkedIn will be launching a rival to Time Out shortly! Yep, the way forward is a London restaurant listing, it would seem.
I have thought long and hard since I read this as to how any business could consolidate a facility for planning a night out with a careers website, when it should be proving it can dominate a market with a narrow focus (LinkedIn has strong rivals in Europe, such as Xing and Ecademy). The only reason I can think this might make sense is if it then sells advertising to restaurants, bars, clubs and shops who'd like high earners as patrons. Makes some sense I guess and I am sure the high-end brands will be fighting over each other.
But then I remembered that LinkedIn promotes itself as a business focused social networking site. Yes, it has individual members and each earns a lot, but those same members also have high powered jobs in companies that spend a whole lot more than they do individually. Is there not much more potential in giving business to business companies the facilities to engage with influencial people within the corporations they are targeting? Doesn't LinkedIn offer, say, HP or Vodafone a much higher return from being able to tap into senior executives at prospects than Thomas Pink or Waggamamma are likely to get from the same people as individuals?
To me this move suggests that LinkedIn perceive they are sitting on a big collective of individuals who happen to be in business, rather than a business networking site. I have posted on this before and this move provides further evidence that LinkedIn is missing a role as the mother of all business enablers because it can't see itself as anything other than Facebook for the wealthy.
I'd be interested in your views.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Web 2.0 currently has the air of the crazy days of the Dot Com Boom, when anyone with an e-commerce site and a banker as a friend found themselves a paper millionaire. As a 30 year old with a small secure e-commerce company based near Cambridge, I too got engulfed and remember the day clearly when I was at dinner with bankers from a reputable US firm telling me my company was worth £4 million today, but in 9 months I would be worth £10 million, and £100 million the end of the year after that. My company turned over £1.75 million at the time. So confident were they, they offered to lend me money against my future worth. Dreams of Elton John as a neighbour and a McLaren F1 for trips to Waitrose saw me doing the deal and selling my company, although I never actually took up the personal loan. And thank heavens I didn't, as when the crash came six weeks after I signed I was left with nothing.
So the pressure is on LinkedIn -- and Facebook come to that, valued at $15 billion through Microsoft's investment of $240 million for a mere 1.6% stake last year -- to show to those of us with both feet on the ground and burnt fingers how they are really worth what people are paying. Some proof is needed that Wall Street is not believing its own hype, as it has been show to do before.
LinkedIn has always pointed to a prosperous membership as the basis of much promise, with its 23 million members having an average household income of $109,000. Easier to make money from than a bunch of teens, says Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of LinkedIn, and I wouldn't argue. But let's not skip over the detail of exactly HOW he can make money from that enviable user base.
It's becoming accepted that there are probably only three ways to "monetize" Web 2.0 businesses: sponsorship, subscription and advertising revenue. The first means the site, or groups of pages, get branded as being presented by such-and-such and, so far, LinkedIn shows no signs of taking this route. I would say their traffic numbers are high enough to do this, but they seem keener to build their own brand than take money to promote someone else's.
LinkedIn currently charges a subscription for a premium level of membership and this has had some appeal to obessesive networkers and recruitment consultants, who get easy access to what amounts to 23 million CVs. LinkedIn is now a key tool for high-end headhunters, but these guys disappear quickly when the economy takes a squeeze and recruiting slows. Surprisingly, the near endless supply of contacts in LinkedIn seems not yet being adopted by general sales teams as a prospecting database, even though I have read a few articles recently that suggest social networking could provide a viable alternative to cold calling (see http://tinyurl.com/6fn9k3 as an example).
Advertising is probably where much of LinkedIn's revenue comes from today and I would expect it to play a big part in the future. Who wouldn't want access to the profile of average member they have?
So I read with interest an interview with LinkedIn's European MD, Kevin Eyres, on the Telegraph website this week (http://tinyurl.com/5ky3dz). There was all the normal stuff in there trying to justify a $1 billion valuation, but the REAL news was that on its way to do so, LinkedIn will be launching a rival to Time Out shortly! Yep, the way forward is a London restaurant listing, it would seem.
I have thought long and hard since I read this as to how any business could consolidate a facility for planning a night out with a careers website, when it should be proving it can dominate a market with a narrow focus (LinkedIn has strong rivals in Europe, such as Xing and Ecademy). The only reason I can think this might make sense is if it then sells advertising to restaurants, bars, clubs and shops who'd like high earners as patrons. Makes some sense I guess and I am sure the high-end brands will be fighting over each other.
But then I remembered that LinkedIn promotes itself as a business focused social networking site. Yes, it has individual members and each earns a lot, but those same members also have high powered jobs in companies that spend a whole lot more than they do individually. Is there not much more potential in giving business to business companies the facilities to engage with influencial people within the corporations they are targeting? Doesn't LinkedIn offer, say, HP or Vodafone a much higher return from being able to tap into senior executives at prospects than Thomas Pink or Waggamamma are likely to get from the same people as individuals?
To me this move suggests that LinkedIn perceive they are sitting on a big collective of individuals who happen to be in business, rather than a business networking site. I have posted on this before and this move provides further evidence that LinkedIn is missing a role as the mother of all business enablers because it can't see itself as anything other than Facebook for the wealthy.
I'd be interested in your views.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Monday 23 June 2008, 1:22 PM
Will Web 2.0 kill industry associations and networking organisations?
It was only a few weeks ago I questioned whether search engines were offering much more than you could get from social networking websites. Offline I had some people agree, but the general feeling was that search engines are around for a while yet. Not least of all because use of them is on the increase as social networking establishes itself in popular culture.
Amongst the people I have been speaking with, however, there seems to be a feeling that industry associations and offline networking organisations could fall under the guilotine of Web 2.0, finding themselves at the blocks sooner.
WeCanDo.BIZ has membership of the Federation of Small Businesses, one of a number of industry bodies aimed at promoting the interests of UK-based small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), alongside things such as the Forum for Private Business, Business Links, Chambers of Commerce and others. As I see it there are two key benefits to being part of such organisations: one is discounted access to key business services (the FSB offers free banking, cheaper insurance etc.), the second is a forum to network and maybe do business with other members. Sure, the FSB also represents the interests of SMBs with the country's law makers, but as individuals we can probably do more by voting in enterprise friendly MPs when we are given the chance.
Sit back and think, however, and you soon realise that the things you value most from such bodies are available on the internet for free. Many forums exist in the UK for sharing ideas with other small business people, such as UK Sales & Marketing Forums and A1 Business Forums. There are networking sites, such as WeCanDo.BIZ, which actively promote trade between their members (who get to join free). All of these things can be done at any time, on line, and are not restricted to once a month networking events at unholy hours in local hotels. These sites promote contact between members all the time, so produce more leads more regularly.
Pure networking organisations offer questionable value next to their online counterparts too. Why would anyone join Business Networking International (BNI), The Athena Network, Business over Breakfast, Refer On or any other organisation charging, in many cases, hundreds of pounds a year to network once or twice a month when online business networking sites allow you to do it when you want, as frequently as you want for free?
I agree that nothing beats face to face contact for getting business done, but any sales or business person worth their salt will know that some level of qualification before you meet saves you wasting time. So why not network online and when you've found someone you really want to meet, do so face to face, one to one so you have their undivided attention? Get the hard work done online at a time that suits all parties and leave the time spent meeting to productive business conversation rather than never ending pleasantries?
I admit I do a lot online -- it's easy and cheap. And business are waking up to a world of possibilities online. Might this be to the detriment of those industry bodies and networking groups who aren't moving as fast as the rest of us?
I'd love to hear your views.
Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Amongst the people I have been speaking with, however, there seems to be a feeling that industry associations and offline networking organisations could fall under the guilotine of Web 2.0, finding themselves at the blocks sooner.
WeCanDo.BIZ has membership of the Federation of Small Businesses, one of a number of industry bodies aimed at promoting the interests of UK-based small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), alongside things such as the Forum for Private Business, Business Links, Chambers of Commerce and others. As I see it there are two key benefits to being part of such organisations: one is discounted access to key business services (the FSB offers free banking, cheaper insurance etc.), the second is a forum to network and maybe do business with other members. Sure, the FSB also represents the interests of SMBs with the country's law makers, but as individuals we can probably do more by voting in enterprise friendly MPs when we are given the chance.
Sit back and think, however, and you soon realise that the things you value most from such bodies are available on the internet for free. Many forums exist in the UK for sharing ideas with other small business people, such as UK Sales & Marketing Forums and A1 Business Forums. There are networking sites, such as WeCanDo.BIZ, which actively promote trade between their members (who get to join free). All of these things can be done at any time, on line, and are not restricted to once a month networking events at unholy hours in local hotels. These sites promote contact between members all the time, so produce more leads more regularly.
Pure networking organisations offer questionable value next to their online counterparts too. Why would anyone join Business Networking International (BNI), The Athena Network, Business over Breakfast, Refer On or any other organisation charging, in many cases, hundreds of pounds a year to network once or twice a month when online business networking sites allow you to do it when you want, as frequently as you want for free?
I agree that nothing beats face to face contact for getting business done, but any sales or business person worth their salt will know that some level of qualification before you meet saves you wasting time. So why not network online and when you've found someone you really want to meet, do so face to face, one to one so you have their undivided attention? Get the hard work done online at a time that suits all parties and leave the time spent meeting to productive business conversation rather than never ending pleasantries?
I admit I do a lot online -- it's easy and cheap. And business are waking up to a world of possibilities online. Might this be to the detriment of those industry bodies and networking groups who aren't moving as fast as the rest of us?
I'd love to hear your views.
Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Thursday 5 June 2008, 12:49 PM
Are search engines facing extinction?
It might seem odd to suggest that search engines are dead given Google's rude health and Microsoft's recent interest in acquiring Yahoo! to increase its presence in search, but it would seem a few people I have spoken to recently are starting to wonder if search engines are as useful as they once were.
The main point of contention seems to be the value of getting 67,000,000 responses to a search query when perhaps just a few would be more useful, especially if what is shown is very much more relevant -- and by my definition, not those who have spent a fortune on SEO. Like a social network profile if searching for a person; a business directory or network for a company; or a fact-based wiki for pretty much anything else.
And that's the thing, many people now know other web services they'd go to first when searching on something specific. Search engines could easily turn into a last resort if you can't find what you need elsewhere, or actively want to waste your time to scanning through a million results.
I had a forum debate with the managing director of a business directory recently about whose site was better: his directory or my business lead and referral site. I'll spare you the tittle tattle, but his assertion was that his site was better because if you typed "accountant" it came back with 22,000 entries. I said WeCanDo.BIZ was better because it came back with a handful, but within those you could see which of those was used and endorsed by your own business contacts. Few people need 22,000 accountants, but if they did then his site would be better (how you use that information is a moot point). I believe a person would be likely to choose one business over any of the 22,000 others if came with a recommendation from someone they know and trust. Not hard to do -- you just mash up a business listing with your social graph, as we have done at WeCanDo.BIZ.
And this got me thinking. If I search for a friend or a specific person, why do I need 714,000 responses with irrelevant content or many multiple entries referring only fleetingly to the person I am trying to find? Why would I not go to Facebook or LinkedIn -- or even Spock, which attempts to consolidate a person's profile on all -- instead? These days, it stands me in better stead for getting straight to who I want without having to read everything written about them by strangers.
And then there is everything else. So I want to know what happened to car maker TVR? Type that into Google and I get 18,000,000 entries. But the most reliable version of TVRs current status possibly sits on Wikipedia, with a link to the official website if I want the marketing version of why they aren't making cars any more.
We are all used to searching on Google but has finding information on teh web moved on under Web 2.0? Is Google actually the best resource for loacting information we can easily and arguably better get elsewhere? Google has grown massively on the back of companies spending money to get listed higher with their keywords, but this is an arms race from which there is ultimately only one winner - Google. No one can be first forever unless you are prepared to pay. And, interestingly, Google's search has hardly developed recently, with most of its efforts and money now going into new ventures such as Google Earth, Google Apps and the Android mobile operating system. Perhaps Google shares the same vision for the future of search engines as I do?
Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
The main point of contention seems to be the value of getting 67,000,000 responses to a search query when perhaps just a few would be more useful, especially if what is shown is very much more relevant -- and by my definition, not those who have spent a fortune on SEO. Like a social network profile if searching for a person; a business directory or network for a company; or a fact-based wiki for pretty much anything else.
And that's the thing, many people now know other web services they'd go to first when searching on something specific. Search engines could easily turn into a last resort if you can't find what you need elsewhere, or actively want to waste your time to scanning through a million results.
I had a forum debate with the managing director of a business directory recently about whose site was better: his directory or my business lead and referral site. I'll spare you the tittle tattle, but his assertion was that his site was better because if you typed "accountant" it came back with 22,000 entries. I said WeCanDo.BIZ was better because it came back with a handful, but within those you could see which of those was used and endorsed by your own business contacts. Few people need 22,000 accountants, but if they did then his site would be better (how you use that information is a moot point). I believe a person would be likely to choose one business over any of the 22,000 others if came with a recommendation from someone they know and trust. Not hard to do -- you just mash up a business listing with your social graph, as we have done at WeCanDo.BIZ.
And this got me thinking. If I search for a friend or a specific person, why do I need 714,000 responses with irrelevant content or many multiple entries referring only fleetingly to the person I am trying to find? Why would I not go to Facebook or LinkedIn -- or even Spock, which attempts to consolidate a person's profile on all -- instead? These days, it stands me in better stead for getting straight to who I want without having to read everything written about them by strangers.
And then there is everything else. So I want to know what happened to car maker TVR? Type that into Google and I get 18,000,000 entries. But the most reliable version of TVRs current status possibly sits on Wikipedia, with a link to the official website if I want the marketing version of why they aren't making cars any more.
We are all used to searching on Google but has finding information on teh web moved on under Web 2.0? Is Google actually the best resource for loacting information we can easily and arguably better get elsewhere? Google has grown massively on the back of companies spending money to get listed higher with their keywords, but this is an arms race from which there is ultimately only one winner - Google. No one can be first forever unless you are prepared to pay. And, interestingly, Google's search has hardly developed recently, with most of its efforts and money now going into new ventures such as Google Earth, Google Apps and the Android mobile operating system. Perhaps Google shares the same vision for the future of search engines as I do?
Ian Hendry
WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
