There has been a meme circulating the blogosphere about a Fast Company article in which Duncan Watts, a Columbia professor, attempts to debunk the Tipping Point theory. Watts set up simulations to test who the initiators of viral epidemics are.  He found that influencers are not necessarily the starting point of viral epidemics.  Instead the initiator of an epidemic was left up to chance.

Watts states that Tipping Point supporters “start with an existing trend, like Hush Puppies, and they go backward until they’ve identified the people who did it first, and then they go, ‘Okay, these are the Influentials!” Malcom Gladwell suggests that “articles by academics can ever do is uncover a little piece of the bigger picture.” So at the end of all this research you are telling me that we can’t come to a conclusion on whether the theory is correct? What a letdown!

I think that the Tipping Point is a great model to use when marketing a product or an idea. Without the Tipping Point marketing and PR would be simply left to chance. Perhaps that’s the reality but humans can control a number of factors that help them increase the odds of spreading virally. Scott Karp has a great article about the role that influentials play on the web. Trust me that on the web the Tipping Point theory is real.

I have a couple of contacts that I can reach out to and they can essentially assure me that my article will end up on the homepage of Digg. There are others that if they place a link to my site, will instantly generate thousands of visitors to my site and an increase in my subscribers. Without those influentials, my self-promotion would be left to grassroots marketing where I target people on an individual basis. Eventually word of mouth helps things spread but influentials can provide a significant boost.

As Scott Karp points out, “Influence on the web is all about connectivity — the larger the network, the more powerful the links.” This all relates back to the question of whether or not the Tipping Point is real. On the web it definitely is and it is limited to a set of influencers who also happen to be highly active linkers. Anybody can become an influencer though by becoming active and linking to other things that interest them.

On the web, we read things from people that have shared interests. If you pick a space that enough people are interested in, you too can build your influence. Eventually, you could become the reason for a tipping point. Do you think the Tipping Point is real? Is there a select group of influentials or is that part of the theory non-sense?

Caroline McCarthy does a wonderful job detailing the overall trend at tonight’s New York Advertising Meetup at Googleplex East: “Old media’s not dead, it just has to be Google-ized.” Over the course of an hour, Google executives from radio, print, search and agency relations discussed (read: pitched) their online and offline products to the Madison Avenue audience.

Granted the event was hosted on their turf, Google did have a right to pitch their products and talk up why a YouTube campaign may return the greatest ROI of all online initiatives. Sure, there were some blanketing statements like the one I just listed, but I couldn’t help think about spaces outside the dominant Google; of things that Google has yet to touch.

What about mobile? Yes, Google makes great mobile applications like Maps, Search and Reader but what about advertising? “None of us know what the [mobile] monetization models could be,” Derek Kuhl, Head of Agency Relations, admitted. In the US, search is king, expected to hit $1.4 billion in revenue by 2012 although three in ten mobile users recall seeing mobile advertising. Ouch.

Above: A pamphlet with a QR Code in the Google logo. Text reads, “Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. - Gore Vidal. ‘I hope it is the same half!’ Print Ads TGIAF at Hemisphere (Google’s NYC cafeteria) 1/31/08″

In the most subtlest of ways, Google introduced a comprehensive (what marketer’s like to call, “integrated”) mobile advertising initiative via a soon-to-be-announced product for Newspaper Print Ads: QR Codes. Already available and widely popular/useful in Japan, QR Codes will work in tandem with Google’s offline advertisements in newspapers. (Wait, I thought print was tanking?) Similar to a bar code on a cereal box, QR Codes are compact enough to store valuable information (think a website address or coupon). For Google, this means taking a text ad that was placed in print, utilize the corresponding QR Code and draw the reader to another destination.

This may seem menial in comparison to Android efforts, but Google’s foray (at least in the US) into mobile advertising via QR Codes changes the dynamic completely. As the sales and engineering teams test the product internally, expect the industry to steadily roll-out awareness programs and updated software for leading smartphones and the iPhone.

P.S. I also asked Kuhl if he or any other panel speakers had any update about Twitter-competitor Jaiku and (I guess) the answer was expected: “I don’t have any updates except that we acquired it.”

Update: Dan Frommer at Silicon Alley Insider points to Google’s Print Ads barcode information website.

I love talking with non-profits. They typically are very passionate along with being willing to try new and exciting things. I was talking with a friend of mine who works at a large PR firm focusing on non-profits and we started chatting about business. She contested most non-profits don’t know how to operate in the digital world and I rebutted that they do, they just need to tweak their old methods a little.

Let me explain, social networking is nothing new, the human race has been creating social networks since we first realized it was easier to hunt together than alone. Digital social networks are based on principles rooted in classical networks, just accelerated online. I began to relate the new digital techniques to more classical non-profit tools.

Tagging

The Old Way: Growing up in the city I always remember seeing stickers and tags placed around the city in support of some social cause or another. These stickers were quick and dirty ways to spread a message and a non-profits’ supports could carry the stickers around and tag at will.

The New Way: Digital tags are no different. Creating digital tags that your supporters can put on messaging boards, forums, home pages and social networks generates similar reactions to tagging a subway sign or bus stop (aside from the fact that tagging is technically illegal). I have always been a fan of tagging because it allows for interaction at the lowest level and creates exposure.

Meetings

The Old Way: Meetings (in the sense of mini-events) are the essence of any grass roots social campaign. Meetings allow users to engage with other like minded individuals and share ideas. Meetings also build a sense of community and give the host a chance to pass along informational fliers and packets.

The New Way: Digital meetings can do the same, compliment your physical meeting by streaming it online and hosting a chat session. Even the most novice computer user can set up a free chat room with free video conferencing. Allow users to submit comments and follow up with them by sending packets of information and digital tags to their email.

Publications

The Old Way: Once you have a movement going you need to send your information to the masses. Typically this means printing posters, fliers and books. Nothing keeps a movement going like tangible media in the hands of people who want to pass along your message.

The New Way: Digital copies offer similar results but at a fraction of the cost. Think about this, handing out a book or flier to someone who is in your town is simple, find them and give it to them. What if you want to send it to someone in California or Alaska? Why not send them a digital copy of your book with a coupon or credit to get it printed at Kinkos? Using this model you can give someone two copies of your literature (digital and hard copy) at a fraction of the cost.

Public Service Announcements

The Old Way: In the past network television stations had time slotted for PSAs. These slots were normally during the worst hours and only reached the unemployed or the chronically late. Production cost were high and often the reach was negligible.

The New Way: Today content is king, and the internet is the station. Creating low budget PSAs that have an interesting viral hook can get more results than any TV spot could. Create a fun, low budget, video clip of your PSA and host it on several free video sites. Focus on the message not the production. Then using your new network of contacts inform your waiting public that their new video has arrived.

These were just few examples I came up with last night while chatting with my friend. I am sure there are a million more techniques out there that non-profits already know how to do and only need to transfer them to the digital world.

Can you think of any? Let me and the rest of the world know, we would love to hear about them.

Michael Barbaro, of the New York Times, is reporting today on an interesting story involving Target and some bloggers. The story revolves around a marketing campaign Target has undertaken during the winter season.

According to the Times Amy Jussel, founder of the blog ShapingYouth.com, called to complain about an ad the ‘cheap chic’ store was running. The ad depicted a woman making a snow angle on the Target logo, a bullseye appeared to be pointing at the woman’s crotch.

Target’s reply to Jussel was, “Unfortunately we (Target) are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets.”

Target’s justification for not dealing with bloggers is based on, in its words, “to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest,” basically Target doesn’t think anyone that goes to Target stores read blogs.

I can understand Target’s apprehension in targeting bloggers. Working with a small PR staff you really have to hedge your bets and target publications that will get you the most ROI. That being said I have to wonder two things. How small is Target’s PR staff and how many people does it take to answer an inbound request?

If Target is claiming its PR staff is too small I have a solution: Hire more people, your Target. If Target really didn’t want to talk to a blogger, it should have never sent a reply to the initial email. While I don’t suggest this, saying ‘no comment’ is far more dangerous than actually not making a comment.

In the end Target has the right to do what they please, but do any of you out there feel slighted by Target because they feel bloggers don’t matter? Will any of this effect target’s bottom line? Probably not, but it is always interesting to see how companies view their publics.

This weekend while attending Widget Dev Camp in Washington, D.C. I had the opportunity to check out a pretty slick new Twitter application that charts the number of occurences of any given word on Twitter over a period of time. Spikes for any given word are typically a result of some event occuring on or around a specific date. For example if you chart “apple” you will see a spike around the time of Macworld.

Other charts yield interesting yet not surprising results. If you graph Obama versus Hillary, you will see Obama winning by at least a 2-to-1 margin. You can also use the charting for viewing your popularity versus your friends. I found that I have surprisingly active Twitter conversations. I spoke with the developer of this application and he said he is indexing absolutely all tweets on Twitter going back to November.

He also leveraged and open-source MIT project called “Similie” that provides simple graphing services for developers. I was impressed with the speed of queries considering the number of tweets being stored in his database. Twitter’s slow load time may not be due to their database though but instead due to the overhead required to handle the constant text messaging going through the system.

If you’d like to chart yourself against your friends or try to find random anomalies, go check out Twittermeter.

Over the past few months I have been thinking about the distinction between social networks, the social graph and social platforms. While preparing for a presentation the other day I decided that it was time to actually define what social platforms are. In the process of defining “social platforms” I had to first define what social networks are and what the social graph is. There has already been much discussion as to whether or not there should be any distinction between the social graph and social networks.

My assumption is that there is one social graph for each individual and they can be part of multiple social networks. The social graph is the sum total of all our real-world connections and the sociological bonds (or ties). While social networks have a very similar definition the primary distinction is that we can be part of multiple social networks but we each only have one social graph. There are three primary types of social networks:

1. Those that represent our real-world connections,
2. Those that represent virtual/fantasized connections, and
3. Those that represent a mix of virtual/fantasized and real-world connections.

This brings us to social platforms. Social platforms are one step above social networks. Social networks can be both real-world and virtual; our social graph combines all of them. So what is a social platform?

A social platform is an operating system that leverages the power of social connectivity to virally distribute applications.

It’s as simple as that. We can leverage our various social networks or anybody in our social graph to help distribute the applications that we find useful or entertaining. All social platforms must include the following features:

1. A markup language enables developers to display both personal and social information without accessing the information
2. An API (application program interface) that provides access to the core elements of the platform (e.g. a cell phone’s phonebook or Facebook profile wall)
3. A system for defining a user’s connections (bonds or ties)
4. Privacy settings that enable users to control what information applications have access to

Are there any other components that social platforms must have? Do you think any of the ones I included are not a necessity?

Yesterday a bit of news came across the wires that I almost missed. World of Warcraft (WoW), a MMORPG, reached 10 million users. Having 10 million users of any social network is pretty amazing but consider this: Every WoW user pays between 13 and 24 dollars a month to maintain their online account.

At its essence WoW is a social network; like minded people come together online to share a common experience and make connections. The fact that these people do it while slaying orc kings and mystical monsters is no different than a social network based on people who enjoy needle point. To be honest I don’t understand either.

WoW is making 1.8 billion dollars a year maintaining a social network. I never like quoting marketing books but Blizzard, the makers of WoW, have really found a way to maintain the Long Tail when it comes to this product. Blizzard has a ‘niche’ market of 10 million users who are incredibly loyal to their brand and product.

What does this mean for other social networks based on a free service, supported by ad dollars, model? Reconsider your deliver model. WoW works because it delivers an incredibly content rich experience, combined with an addictive game play model. If Second Life had considered changing their business model maybe they could have been as successful as WoW.

I am not saying by any means that all social networks should begin charging for their service, that’s ridiculous. Just consider for a second if you were launching a new social network, would following the WoW model be that bad? I don’t think 1.8 billion dollars a year is a terrible way to run a business.

I am also predicting that Sony’s Playstation HOME is going to be a wild success and that is based on the very free content model I was describing against. All I am saying is don’t discount user base from paying for a service. If your network or service is worth paying for, users will pay for it.

I would love to hear some of your thoughts on business models for social networks. Who out there would pay for a social networking service? Would you like to see something more interactive than the typical online social network?

Last week I sat down with Eric Litman, Managing Director of Washington VC, to find out more about his company and what he does. Washington VC is a private equity fund that incubates early stage companies through the exchange of complementary technologies and marketing services. They are highly active in the technology space and include portfolio companies such as Software.com, Dial-A-Geek (who’s president I interviewed last week), Snowboards.com and a number of others. Check out my interview to learn more about their company or check out the Washington VC website.

When the Facebook platform launched last May, an influx of application developers realized that the quickest way to get a large fan base was to create games and apps that leveraged the popularity of existing brands. One of the first targets was throwback games. The Pacman game (which was later renamed “U-Arcade” probably because of a legal notice), rapidly gained over 2.5 million users. Ultimately, Pacman was removed and was replaced with a set of various arcade games.

I witnessed one application developer go and scrape all of Miniclip.com’s games and try to get as many users as possible prior to being forced to shut down. For some, the business model failed. For others, such as Mark Pincus who recently launched the Zynga Gaming Network, build entire portfolios on the back of copyright games. The most well-known case of copyright infrigement has been the Scrabulous game.

In new markets, the most aggressive survive. Often times we witness questionable tactics used to build mini-empires (and hopefully eventually large empires). I have to wonder if some of the questionable tactics that have been used in the social gaming space will eventually result in the downfall of a few mini-empires. Whether or not the result is the downfall of social gaming empires, the social gaming space is most certainly one of the fastest growing segments within the social web.

As we see platforms expand from one social network to another and eventually beyond social networks, we will witness the power of social gaming expand exponentially. Just the other night I was discussing the impact of cross-platform social gaming. Imagine being able to play the same game on your phone, on a social platform, or on a video game console. While this may not be immediately available, we are going to witness the expansion of social platforms beyond social networks and this is going to most definitely have a net positive impact on the social gaming industry.

According to the London entertainment guide “This is London,” the BBC is setting up a social networking site for those that are 6 to 12 years old. This appears to be a rival to the Disney owned Club Penguin site. I’d hate to be the one sitting at a meeting where we determine that six year olds have become our new target market.

The main argument against the BBC launching this site is that they are a publicly funded organization and this has nothing to do with any of their programs. I’m sure they see this as a huge marketing opportunity though. While children play on the site, the BBC will market BBC owned programs that are for the younger generations. From a business stand point it makes a lot of sense but for a company funded by the government, it may not make much sense.

Regardless of Bristish related issues, this brings up another issues which is the question of social networks and young children. The first thing that will probably come to mind is the risk of pedophiles. At the same time, we begin teaching our children about socializing early on and perhaps a large portion of socializing now takes place online. I know with my own friends most of my daily interactions take place online until I go out later in the evening.

As we drive more children to participate in web-based socializing we are suddently perpetuating what has already begun to occur. I wonder if this leads to a world in which children will learn to connect almost completely online. If you want to learn more about the impact of having our children spend so much time online, I highly recommend the Frontline special, “Growing Up Online.” Do you think we should limit our childrens’ online activity? Won’t less computer interaction at a young age increase creativity?