Category Archives: social networking

Why Google+ failed, a product view

vic-gundotra-googleToday is Google+’s fifth anniversary. By most measures, despite massive investments, it was an epic failure.

I’ve been following all of Google’s attempts at social. I knew Buzz, Wave and Google+ weren’t going to work. You can watch me say so in this Bloomberg clip, where I went on against Robert Scoble.

Here are some of the reasons:

A hard line between product and marketing

I’ve talked to Googlers at almost all levels, including several at the VP and SVP level. Some of my closest friends work at Google. What stands out to me is that there is a hard line between product and marketing. Engineers build something and then marketing goes and figures out how to market it.

In the online world — and especially in social — this is a relic and counterproductive. Marketing has to be baked into the product and vice versa.

This is something that Facebook understands at its core. But it’s something that seems to be lost at Google.

People tagging is one of the smartest things Facebook (or any company) has ever done for distribution. (See https://blog.agrawals.org/2007/10/10/the-power-of-the-social-graph/) Is this a product idea? A marketing idea? Yes. Yes. It’s both. And the only way you come up with something like this is having people from a lot of disciplines involved in the product.

Part of Google’s challenge is that it hasn’t had to do a lot of marketing. Its key products — search, mail, maps — have been so much better than the competition that people naturally loved them.

Google did great with Google+,  if you consider traditional marketing. The Google+ ad below was beautifully executed. It should have won an award. But it didn’t move the needle, because that’s not how consumers “buy” social products. (Incidentally, the ads that agencies love — that show off their creativity and win awards — are rarely the ones that are effective.)

Google+’s botched invite process

An invite process is key to attracting users, but it is also important for engagement.

This was the flow when Google+ launched:
  • Rakesh invites Sundar.
  • Sundar accepts invite.
  • Sundar sees nothing, leaves.
  • Rakesh sees nothing, leaves.

(This was the initial flow. It’s possible that the team changed it weeks or months later. I did my testing at launch.)

This is what the flow should have been:
  • Rakesh invites Sundar.
  • Sundar accepts invite.
  • Sundar is automatically connected to Rakesh. (He accepted the invite, it’s logical to connect them.)
  • Rakesh gets an email saying “Sundar has joined Google+. Say hi to him!”
  • Rakesh (who is likely lapsed because of cold-start problem), now has a reason to go back to Google+.
  • Rakesh says “Hi” to Sundar on Google+.
  • Sundar gets an email that says Rakesh has responded on Google+.
  • Rinse, repeat.

Google could also have (with permission) scanned my email contacts and suggested groups like “close friends,” “business contacts,” “family,” “college,” etc. I’d be much more likely to invite close friends than bulk spam everyone I’ve ever interacted with. (a la LinkedIn.)

The Wave invite process was similarly botched. Here was a product designed for groups, but the invite process was such that I couldn’t guarantee my whole group would get in on it.

An emphasis on technology, even when it isn’t needed or is antisocial

In the Google Wave demos, there was a lot of emphasis on the real-time nature of the platform. Changes happened instantly! You could enter a few characters and everyone would see it right away. It seemed that the people who worked on it were very proud of their technical achievement.

It may have been a technical achievement, but it’s not a great social experience. I wouldn’t want you watching letter by letter as I wrote this blog post. It takes some time to form cogent thoughts. I edit and re-edit myself. From the producer side, I don’t want that level of detail exposed. (Especially if I sucked at spelling or typed really slowly.) As a consumer, you don’t really want to sit around and wait for me to type.

Showing instant updates in this context is a bug, not a feature. IM clients don’t show you letter by letter for this exact reason. If we’re showing stock quotes, obviously it makes sense.

Circles was another feature that was technically a differentiator, but socially irrelevant. (And, truly, it wasn’t a differentiator. Facebook had similar functionality, but buried it.) Unlike engineers, most people aren’t highly organized. They don’t group their friends into lists. They don’t actively manage their lists. They don’t want to constantly worry about privacy. Consumers want to make the least effort possible to use a product. Google+ was the opposite of that.

Even the terminology was geeky. +1 means nothing to a normal consumer. I know what it means because I used to participate in Usenet forums. But that’s not common.

Google Photos is exactly on the right track with this. The team understands that people are lazy. Using Google’s machine vision technology to make it easier to find pictures solves a tremendous challenge for people. I love showing friends pictures of kids from birth to now. They can watch kids grow up just by using the scroll bar. Machine vision is also much, much harder for Facebook and Apple to do.

The kitchen sink and the complicated sell

Google tends to have a lot of feature bloat in its social products. They might be great products, but they are hard to explain to people.

The recent social successes have had simple value propositions:

  • Instagram – share photos w/filters
  • Snapchat – share disappearing photos
  • WhatsApp – free global text messaging (way around ridiculous fees for SMS)

You’ll notice Twitter isn’t on the list. It has failed to reach the masses despite billions in free media. There’s no simple value prop.

I have the same problem. I’ve worked in journalism, publishing, telecom, search, local, automotive, payments. I have cross-discipline experience: I’ve done journalism, engineering management, product management, market research, biz dev, UX, corp dev, angel investing and marketing. A typical recruiter (including Google recruiters) looks at all that and says, “Why would I look at this person?”

But sit down with me for 45 minutes and learn how I work and the depth of my thought processes and the usual reaction is, “Why haven’t we hired this person?”

Google doesn’t have 45 minutes — or even 45 seconds to make the pitch to consumers.

Outlook for Allo

I watched the keynote and Allo falls into the same bucket of a complicated sell. Why is a user going to adopt this? Is it for:

  • Tons of emojis. (Piece of cake to emulate.)
  • To play command line games? Zork 2016 (Piece of cake to emulate.)
  • Google Assistant.
  • whisper SHOUT. (Piece of cake to emulate. iOS 10 includes this.)

Better to pick one thing and knock that out of the ballpark. You aren’t going to win FB Messenger users over with emoji. Given Google and Facebook’s relative strengths and weaknesses, I’d bet it all on Google Assistant. Another plus: It adds virality to Google’s other products.

The other key challenge for Allo will be distribution.

WhatsApp built its base outside the U.S. The primary reason people adopted it initially was to avoid paying the exorbitant cross-border SMS and MMS fees. There was an easy, compelling reason to switch.

Facebook Messenger used its insane time-on-site and hundreds of millions of users to build its user base. They had a massive (and personal) friend graph to work with.

So far, I haven’t seen anything from Google about how it’s going to attract users.

Recommendations for product folks and managers

  • Build interdisciplinary teams. The best products come from a team that understands various facets of consumer experience.
  •  Build growth mechanisms within the product experience.
  •  Focus on 1 or 2 easy-to-understand pitches.
  • With more fully featured products, those can be exposed contextually, as people become accustomed to the product. e.g. when Facebook started its move into mobile, they didn’t do big interstitials about mobile. They put a little phone icon next to statuses that were posted from mobile. This subtly introduced the mobile product without hitting people over the head.

Have questions on building products? Hit me up on Twitter at @rakeshlobster or stay tuned for my office hours.

Facebook could make billions in search. Here’s how.

People search on Facebook. All the time.

Most of Facebook’s efforts on search, have focused on the search box — the one that looks like Google’s. People search on Facebook all the time. But they don’t search in the search box, they search in status field.

Facebook

If Facebook copies Google’s definition of search, they will (and have) failed.

What do I mean by people search on Facebook? Consider this example:

SearchFB

This is no different than a Google search for “Senegal”. Except, I am asking my friends, in a highly inefficient manner. There’s a high likelihood that someone in my friend network (of 600+ people) has been to Senegal or knows something about Senegal. But my post doesn’t efficiently reach those people. FB should identify this as a query for “Senegal” and present this post to my friends who have been to Senegal.

That creates a better search experience because I get expertise from people I actually trust.

If you expand distribution to friends of friends, you are almost guaranteed to find someone who has an answer. In this case, in an efficient way, my friend Mandy has expanded the search to her friend in the last comment.

It could either be highly prioritized in news feed for them, or they could get a notification that says “Your friend is looking for information about Senegal? Want to help him out?”

Known results that are accessible to the user based on permissions — photos, check ins, status updates — could be presented immediately.

Modifying Facebook in this way also helps improve the social experience and increases the liquidity in the market. By expanding the distribution to my friends most likely to know the answer, I get an answer faster. This also opens up the possibility of creating new relationships or renewing old ones.

Scenario:

  • I haven’t talked to friend Bill in a while.
  • I post a “query” for Senegal.
  • FB knows that Bill has been to Senegal. (Pictures posted from there, status updates from there, logins from there, etc.)
  • FB surfaces the “query” to Bill.
  • Bill sees it and responds.
  • Bill and I reconnect.

Fact-based queries vs. taste-basted queries

This all works better for matters of taste vs. fact. Google is going to give you a much better, quicker answer for queries like the “value of pi” or “5+2” or “weather in Miami”.

Yes, I could ask this in Facebook — and I did:

pi4

More than an hour later, I still had no answer. (And my non-technical friends, who didn’t know what I was doing, would think I’m an idiot.)

But those are matters of fact — and, by the way, have zero advertising against them.

Think about queries like “plumber,” “dentist,” “lawyer,” “auto insurance”. Those are queries of taste. And, it may shock people, but that’s where you make your money in search! Travel, law, professional services and insurance are among Google’s top money makers.

While many people, including Wall Street analysts, treat search as a monolith, search is actually a collection of verticals. Each has different levels of monetization. Many fact-based queries have no advertising against them.

Facebook doesn’t have to solve the queries of fact. Leave those to Google. (It could, but people aren’t searching FB for those.)

Facebook can pick off the higher-value queries and the ones that are most likely to add to the FB experience and value proposition: a place where you come to interact with your friends.

FB can also use these “queries” as a way to turn its ad into higher revenue, intent-based ads. In addition to your friends comments, you’d see — clearly identified — responses from advertisers to your query.

Someone who posts a query “anyone know of a good hotel in London?” could be presented with an advertiser comment for “hotels in London.” This presents a highly relevant ad that someone could turn to immediately. (It could also be time delayed — if I don’t get a response from a friend, the advertiser comment shows up.)

Often, you’re forced into a space by business needs or the stock market demanding that you have a “search” or “social” strategy. Or there’s a hole in you business model. See also: wireless carriers in payments, video, content, pictures.

The easiest thing to do is to try to copy someone else who has been successful. But if they’re already dominant, how are you going to win? You can’t just create something to plug a hole in your business strategy; you need to plug a hole in the customer’s needs.

When designing new products, you should figure out what makes you different and better. Then build off that. Facebook needs to play to its strength: a connected community where people share with each other.

Google has failed at social; Facebook has failed at search. Here’s why.

Today’s the 5-year anniversary of the launch of Google+. It was an unmitigated disaster for Google. Despite spending many man-years of development, endless hype in the media and Google’s attempt to cook the books on usage stats, the network is essentially dead.

Google+ failed for a simple reason: It blatantly tried to copy Facebook instead of playing to Google’s strengths.

We’ve seen a lot of attempts to copy successful products of others. Facebook tried to compete in search. Facebook tried to copy Flipboard (Paper), Instagram (Camera) and Snapchat (Poke). All of these attempts failed.

The only product in recent memory where the copy was more successful is Facebook Live, which is essentially Meerkat. I’d argue this was because Meerkat didn’t really solve a compelling user problem. Most people don’t need to broadcast 1-way video. Those that do need broad distribution, which Meerkat lost as soon as it was cut off from Twitter. (To the extent people want video, it’s 2-way, such as FaceTime, Skype or Hangouts.)

The reason these copies didn’t succeed? They didn’t incorporate what was unique about the new platform; what made them successful. In Google, that is search. In Facebook’s case, that’s social.

Google+ required you to replicate what you’d already done on Facebook. Create a profile, friend people and post. The unique and much better features of Google+ — Hangouts and Photos — were buried by comparison to the Facebook- product. Why would anyone repeat all the work they were doing on Facebook on Google+? Or switch to a platform where none of their friends are for no real benefit?

Google embedded Google+ everywhere it possibly could (YouTube comments, giant alerts, etc.) But it didn’t effectively do it where it mattered: in search. Hundreds of my friends use Google everyday. The results that they click on are more likely to matter to me than results that the general population click on. Despite the fact that I have a network of hundreds of people, I’m still searching in isolation.

If my buddy Bob spent 2 hours researching a trip to Senegal, shouldn’t I be able to learn from his efforts? Shouldn’t I be flagged that Bob did this work, maybe went to Senegal and had knowledge on the topic? Maybe I should reach out to him and learn about it? (Of course, this always needs appropriate privacy permissions. I shouldn’t be able to see Bob’s searches unless he makes them available to me.)

rosewood_sand_hill_-_Google_Search

A friend wrote a review in Google’s local product of Rosewood Sand Hill. That should be front-and-center on this screen. It’s what I would consider by far the most relevant. But it’s nowhere to be found.

The right way for Google to play in social is to add a social layer to Google. If the value proposition to the consumer was “have your friends help you search,” instead of “use a version of Facebook without your friends,” I imagine Google+ would have been much more successful.

People search on Facebook. All the time.

Conversely, most of Facebook’s efforts on search, have focused on the search box. People search on Facebook all the time. But they don’t search in the search box, they search in status field.

Facebook

If Facebook copies Google’s definition of search, they will (and have) failed.

What do I mean by people search on Facebook? Consider this example:

SearchFB

This is no different than a Google search for “Senegal”. Except, I am asking my friends, in a highly inefficient manner. There’s a high likelihood that someone in my friend network (of 600+ people) has been to Senegal or knows something about Senegal. But my post doesn’t efficiently reach those people. FB, through, NLP should identify this as a query for “Senegal” and present this post to my friends who have been to Senegal.

That creates a better search experience because I get expertise from people I actually trust.

If you expand distribution to friends of friends, you are almost guaranteed to find someone who has an answer. In this case, in an efficient way, my friend Mandy has expanded the search to her friend Chris in the last comment.

It could either be highly prioritized in news feed for them, or they could get a notification that says “Your friend Rakesh is looking for information about Senegal? Want to help him out?”

Modifying Facebook in this way also helps improve the social experience and increases the liquidity in the market. By expanding the distribution to my friends most likely to know the answer, I get an answer faster. This also opens up the possibility of creating new relationships or renewing old ones.

Scenario:

  • I haven’t talked to friend Bill in a while.
  • I post a “query” for Senegal.
  • FB knows that Bill has been to Senegal. (Pictures posted from there, status updates from there, logins from there, etc.)
  • FB surfaces the “query” to Bill.
  • Bill sees it and responds.
  • Bill and I reconnect.

Fact-based queries vs. taste-basted queries

This all works better for matters of taste vs. fact. Google is going to give you a much better, quicker answer for queries like the “value of pi” or “5+2” or “weather in Miami”.

Yes, I could ask this in Facebook — and I did:

pi4

More than an hour later, I still had no answer. (And my non-technical friends, who didn’t know what I was doing, would think I’m an idiot.) Mihir asked about chatbots — I’ll get to this in a minute.

But those are matter of facts — and, btw, have zero advertising against them.

Think about queries like “plumber,” “dentist,” “lawyer,” “auto insurance”. Those are queries of taste. And, it may shock people, but that’s where you make your money in search! Travel, law, professional services and insurance are among Google’s top money makers.

While many people, including Wall Street analysts, treat search as a monolith, search is actually a collection of verticals. Each has different levels of monetization. Many fact-based queries have no advertising against them.

Facebook doesn’t have to solve the queries of fact. Leave those to Google. (It could, but people aren’t searching FB for those.)

Facebook can pick off the higher-value queries and the ones that are most likely to add to the FB experience and value proposition: a place where you come to interact with your friends.

FB can also use these “queries” as a way to turn its ad into higher revenue, intent-based ads. In addition to your friends comments, you’d see — clearly identified — responses from advertisers to your query.

Someone who posts a query “anyone know of a good hotel in London?” could be presented with an advertiser comment for “hotels in London.” This presents a highly relevant ad that someone could turn to immediately. (It could also be time delayed — if I don’t get a response from a friend, the advertiser comment shows up.)

Bots

Facebook is trying to do this in a ham-fisted — and annoying and needlessly interruptive way.

I was recently hit by an Uber while walking across the street. My cousin asked me about it on Messenger. Here’s what happened:

uber.jpg

My cousin is asking how I’m doing after I was hit by an Uber. Messenger is throwing an ad for Uber in both of our faces. (Not only once, but three times. See my post on bots.) There are some great uses for bots. Sticking irrelevant ads in front of people isn’t one. (I’ll talk about good use cases in a future post.)

Often, you’re forced into a space by business needs or the stock market demanding that you have a “search” or “social” strategy. Or there’s a hole in you business model. See also: wireless carriers in payments, video, content, pictures.

The easiest thing to do is to try to copy someone else who has been successful. But if they’re already dominant, how are you going to win? You can’t just create something to plug a hole in your business strategy; you need to plug a hole in the customer’s needs.

These are just two big examples of how you could win by playing to your own strengths — and your user’s frame of reference about your product.

When designing new products, you should figure out what makes you different and better. Then build off that.

How Color can chart a course to avoid being the next Wave

Yesterday, I wrote about Color, a new app that has the promise to become a ubiquitous, location-aware sensor network. It’s first incarnation is as a photo sharing application available on iPhone and Android.

The initial launch has met with much criticism, including comparisons to Wave — a doomed social effort from Google.

Consider the similarities:

  • Enormous expectations. Wave was hyped by Google and given high profile executive attention at Google I/O. Color’s expectations have been set by having raised $41 million.
  • Poor out-of-the-box experience. Both Wave and Color have poor first experiences for the casual user. Even industry luminaries are scratching their heads.
  • Big change in user behavior. Both Wave and Color go against established patterns of user behavior. Wave tried to replace email. Color is challenging the notion of manually creating friend lists.

Google made a number of key execution mistakes in the launch of Wave. Fortunately, Color has avoided the biggest one: Wave was opened slowly on an invite-only basis. Despite the fact that the product was based on group interactions, you couldn’t get enough invites. I know. I tried to get my entire team to use Google Wave, but I couldn’t secure enough invites. Color doesn’t require a special invite.

The Color app should provide an easy way for viewers to see where a picture was taken.

The Color app should provide an easy way for viewers to see where a picture was taken.

There are a couple of other key mistakes Google made. Here’s  how Color can avoid them:

  • Lack of notifications. When I would make a change in Google Wave, the other participants had no way of knowing that I made the change. (Short of logging back into the service.) After I did this a few times and got no response, I stopped using it. The same exists with Color. I will see people’s photos randomly added to my Color application, but I don’t get notified when it happens. Getting notified when other people nearby are using Color would increase usage because you wouldn’t feel like you were talking to an empty room. It would also make face-to-face interactions easier. Notifications are an important part of ramping up any social network. At some point, your product will become so popular that people will use it all day unprompted. (I shut off Facebook email notifications long ago.) Until then, you need to nudge people to use it.
  • Lack of clear use cases. Most people have a really difficult time adopting radically new product concepts. You need to hold their hands and show them how it could apply to their lives. Wave didn’t do that. You were dumped into a blank canvas with a lot of unfamiliar controls. Color is much the same. There’s little guidance as to how Color can improve your life. The initial controls are so tight that you also can’t easily see how other people are using the product.

Then there a few things that are specific to Color and its goals that should be improved:

  • Lack of location/time liquidity. Color matches you with people based on photos being taken at the same place at the same time. That’s overly restrictive. Outside of major events and cities like San Francisco, this is going to be infrequent at best in this stage of the product’s adoption. It’s as if you launched foursquare and could only see tips left by users in the last 5 minutes. Older content has value. A few years ago, I took a set of pictures at Liberty Tavern. These pictures are valuable even now. And they’re certainly better than showing nothing. Showing older content would also encourage more people to take pictures. If privacy is a concern, older pictures with faces could be excluded with face detection software.
  • Locations aren’t visible. For a product that is focused on location, it doesn’t do a good job of showing it. I have random people in my Color feed, but I don’t know where I might have bumped into them — I have to guess at that. It would be better if I could select a person and see a map of where I met them with the date and time. Someone commented on one of my pictures asking where it was taken. That’s not a question they should have to ask. The data is already in the network; it should be accessible. (With the caveat that private places should be obscured so that someone doesn’t follow you home.)
  • People can’t connect with experts. One of the big reasons for the success of Twitter is that it works even if you don’t have any friends. When I’ve done user research on social products in the past, I inevitably had people who said “I don’t have any friends” or “my friends are stupid.” Social products need to work even in these scenarios. In fact, most of my real friends aren’t on Twitter. But I can still derive value from the people who are. With any social product, you’ll have a few people who are on the bleeding edge who can seed content for you. Exploit that. To fit into Color’s model of not requiring explicit follows, they could be added automatically if someone browses their pictures.

See also:


Checking in with foursquare at SFO

SFO is a hotbed of foursquare activity

SFO is a hotbed of foursquare activity. Creative Commons image by Håkan Dahlström.

With the increasing use of mobile applications such as Yelp and foursquare, it’s becoming possible to pull ideas from thin air. Users of these apps can leave tips for others to find that are linked to a specific location.

In most places there aren’t enough tips yet to make filtering an issue. San Francisco International Airport, with more than 57,000 checkins on foursquare, is an exception. It offers a glimpse of what we can expect as these services become more popular. The airport is the perfect petri dish for tips: it serves a technically savvy audience and people often find themselves there with plenty of time on their hands.

The SFO tips page contains dozens of notes including places to eat, complaints, ground transportation, wifi and power availability. Mixed in to all of this are ads, other spam and random observations. Some examples:

have a corned beef sandwich at max’s if you’re flying southwest. the best! well, really good

When you enter short term parking do it as far to the right as you can (lvl 2) & then immediately head to lvl 1. There is always parking next to gate and that is the lvl that connects to the terminal

Free wifi at the Continental lounge in Terminal 1- be warned, it’s located outside Security

Smoking hot brunette woman at gate 20. Stop by and smile at her. She is so lovely!

Bart to Millbrae gets you within 1 block of an in n out burger. Great for 3+ hour layover!

Heading to wine country? Take a moment to stop by St. Supery in the heart of Napa on Hwy 29. Mention this to get a 2 for 1 tasting.

Sorting through the volume of tips can be overwhelming. As the volume increases, we’ll need ways to filter them. Among the ways to filter:

  • Timeliness. Some of the tips, such as wifi at the Continental lounge, are evergreen. Others, like the smoking hot brunette are very timely. Tipsters should be able to flag their tips to self destruct. As I wrote earlier, being able to identify tips by timeliness would allow for new applications, such as sharing rides. (“Anyone want to split a cab to Moscone?”)
  • Social network. Among the tips were tips from people I follow on Twitter, including Danny Sullivan and Adam Lasnik. Being able to surface these would increase relevance.
  • Ads vs. not ads. Sometimes people want ads, especially if it can save them money.
  • Keyword search.

Places like airports are especially complex because they’re really collections of places, sometimes with other groupings and physical restrictions. Being able to filter tips by terminal would also be useful. But then maybe that’s best left to GateGuru.

Now we're going Places

I’ve been writing about Twitter and location since my first post about Twitter in 2007. This week, Twitter launched Places, which allows users to add their location to a tweet.

Here’s a screenshot from 2007:

Twitter location 2007

Embedding location in a tweet the hard way in 2007

and today:

Embedding location in a tweet in 2010

In 2007, I used a third-party application from Where to include my location. Clicking on that link would take you to a map on Where’s site showing the address. (The link in the original post no longer works.)

With the launch of Twitter Places, the search is done within the Web browser (and soon in Twitter’s mobile applications). You can select where you are from a list of nearby places. Clicking on the place name brings up the map above and the option to view tweets about that place.

Although the difference between the two may seem subtle, they are significant:

  • Because the place is metadata, it doesn’t count toward the 140 character limit.
  • Place names are human readable, unlike addresses and latitude/longitude. Knowing the name of a place makes it much easier to find than just a street address, especially in dense metropolitan areas.
  • Places are unique to a specific venue. Doing a pure location-based search would return tweets from surrounding businesses or businesses that have since disappeared.
  • Integration in to the main Twitter experience means broad exposure and eventual standardization of place identifiers. That has been a longstanding challenge in the local space.

Twitter’s geo APIs have been available for several months and third parties like bing have created interesting applications like Twitter Maps. With the availability of places across the Twitter platform, we can expect to see more interesting applications including both real-time applications (ride sharing and ticket exchanges) and historical (restaurant reviews, past events).

Once Twitter allows owners to claim their Place and associate it with a Twitter account, we could see official tweets of announcements and offers incorporated into a Place’s search results.

When pictures are tagged to a Place (instead of a lat/long), we’ll have the ability to visually browse a venue in Twitter.

Twitter and foursquare: the tipping point to getting local business online

Crepe cart in Seattle

Crepe cart in Seattle

Getting small local businesses to go online has been the holy grail of the Internet. I’ve written before about some of the reasons local business don’t go online and suggested several ways that they could use emerging technologies to get online with minimal effort.

That finally seems to be happening. Whether it’s a crepe cart in Seattle, ice cream store in San Francisco or a restaurant in Sedona, businesses are using the simplicity of Twitter for their virtual presence.

Most local businesses are too busy running their business to exert a lot of effort maintaining an online presence. If it’s not easy, it won’t get done. My favorite example of a small business reusing their existing work is the Webcam pointed at the wall of Beachwood BBQ where they list the pints on tap.

The challenge is that these businesses are only announcing their presence to existing customers or passersby. While this can help drive repeat visits through specials, notices of new arrivals, etc. it does little to bring in new customers.

That’s where foursquare comes in. This location-based social game allows users to “check in” to places they visit. Check in often enough and you become the “mayor” of that place. Savvy businesses have latched on to this and begun offering discounts to their mayors.

It has also been incorporated into the foursquare check in process. When I checked in at a restaurant in Seattle, I was presented with an offer at a nearby bar: happy hour all day for the mayor or $1 off well drinks for anyone else who checked in. (Checking in updates your social network status, providing further exposure for the business.) It’s one of the first examples of location-based mobile advertising that works. The process is a bit cumbersome now, but it provides a glimpse into where the technology is headed.

In addition to providing exposure to businesses, it solves a user problem that local search has long failed at: discovery. People often don’t know what they’re looking for when they’re out. Suggestions, even if they’re sponsored, help fill the discovery gap.

Foursquare offer

foursquare mayor offer