Over the weekend I walked into a restaurant and noticed something really interesting on their wall. Where many individually owned eateries usually hang framed reviews or features from local newspapers, this restaurant had a framed review from Yelp. Specifically, it had the Yelp logo and one of the online reviews, which raved about the restaurant. This immediately made me wonder – what’s more influential these days, a good review on Yelp, or a review in the paper?
I had just returned from my 10-day honeymoon in Hawaii, where my wife and I used three factors to determine where to have our meals:
Two guidebooks from Frommer’s (which were sent to me complementary thanks to a Twitter contest)
Suggestions from locals
Yelp
While Frommer’s was usually reliable, we ended up primarily using Yelp to make these decisions. This is because it provided us with a good idea of how many people went to the restaurant (based on how many reviews it had), how people liked the place (the number of stars) and specific suggestions (in the reviews and quick tips). It also had the website and map right there – basically everything we needed in one place. We read through reviews of each place, which offered great recommendations, and we found most of them to be spot-on.
For us, Yelp reviews were much more influential then a newspaper review. It contained feedback from many different people rather then one reporter, and allowed us to get a a wide range of unbiased feelings about the restaurant. I’m not saying a reporter would lie – but it’s a newspaper article is only based on one person’s perspective (as was Frommer’s) and didn’t always align with our experiences. More and more, as Yelp provided us with more accurate information that Frommer’s), we only used one factor in determining where to dine: Yelp.
So is Yelp more influential then a newspaper review? For me, the answer is yes. If I were to read a great newspaper review of a restaurant, I would still check it out on Yelp before going. Also – with restaurants and businesses now aware of Yelp’s power, they are beginning to focus more and more on their online reputations, often contacting unhappy customers (who write negative review) to fix problems (which they often note in their reviews).
MTV’s public health campaign encourages young people to get routinely checked for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The Associated Press reports, “MTV says the idea is to remove the stigma attached to getting checked out for STDs.”
While this is a nice idea in theory and I applaud MTV for fully integrating mobile into their campaign outreach, I think most people, no matter how much they typically share via Foursquare, are unlikely to publicly broadcast their appointment for STD screenings.
This Foursquare partnership would be more successful if it was linked to MTV’s political campaign, “Rock the Vote” which encourages young people to register to vote and make their voices heard. If they offered a badge for checking in to a voting location, I think the response would be tremendous.
What do you think? Can MTV leverage Foursquare for such a person declaration?
Li (left) will return to Reuters, while Gelles (right) will replace him in the FT’s NYC Bureau
Kenneth Li is headed back to Reuters. Li, the former global correspondent for Reuters, who has served as a media correspondent the last two years at the Financial Times, will take on the role of Editor-in-Charge of Technology, Media and Telecoms for Thomson Reuters.
During his previous time at Reuters, Li reported on Time Warner and Comcast’s takeover of Adelphia and correctly predicted Rupert Murdoch would continue to monetize WSJ.com after announcing he would make it a free site. He also co-founded Reuters popular business-sector blog “MediaFile,” which highlights the intersection of media and technology.
While at the Financial Times, Li worked under media editor Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, who noted to Li via Twitter that the FT will miss him “and not just for his superior suits and peerless coiffure.”
With Li’s departure, the Financial Times will move David Gelles, a technology reporter currently within their San Francisco Bureau, to New York to cover U.S. media.
This week Facebook announced the launch of a new feature – Facebook Places. Much like the mobile application Foursquare, Facebook Places will let you “check in” to your current location via Facebook on your smart phone. It will display your location updates to all of your Facebook friends.
You may find yourself asking – doesn’t this same application already exist with Foursquare, Gowalla and others? Why yes, yes it does. However, the Facebook Places application is also going to allow your friends to check you in to places, whether you like it or not.
Of course you can alter your Facebook privacy settings to disable the ability for other users to check you in, but the Facebook default settings will indeed allow your friends to check you in.
Facebook Places does allow businesses to “claim” their venue and provide updates to users who check in via the application (exactly like Foursquare).
While it may seem Facebook is simply duplicating an application that already exists by another provider, what the real concern is here is how Facebook is increasingly making moves to become a one-stop-shop for online and mobile activities.
For example, more people upload photos to Facebook than competing photos services like Kodak Gallery, Snapfish or Shutterfly. Facebook also has the Marketplace application which aims to compete with Craigslist. Businesses now consider their Facebook fan page as vital, if not more, than their company website. The addition of Facebook Places is another intentional move to gobble up competing online players.
Can Facebook extinguish enough competitors to ultimately become the singular destination for online and mobile sharing? What do you think?
This is a guest post by Cathy Pittham, Managing Director, Racepoint Group Europe
A recent article, “PR Firms Make London World Capital of Reputation Laundering,” in the August 4th edition of The Guardian has been getting a lot of attention lately. The piece talks about the increasing amount of public affairs work being done by global PR firms in support of countries such as Russia, Sudan and Rwanda – the last being a Racepoint Group client.
This article challenges the reader to think about the kinds of countries that get reputation assistance in Western media and policy markets. If decisions were made strictly based on assessments by NGOs, special interest groups, Western governments and media pundits, many of these countries might not have agencies representing them. The reality is, however, that work done for these countries is often the subject of the same kind of practical assessments that Western governments have made in dealing with these countries for decades.
A good example would be prior to the Nixon administration, when no US government had engaged with China since the 1947 revolution. The widely held view was that it was not appropriate to deal with a Communist regime during the Cold War. Yet Nixon had a vision for a free China based on the notion that opening dialogue and promoting capitalism would generate Western style freedoms. This, in turn, led to an opening of business channels, locating dozens of Western PR firms in the country and a détente that has cemented partnerships between the East and West that, 40 years ago, were unimaginable.
While the jury is still out on whether the promotion of capitalism in China will yield a democracy, what is undeniable is that it has led to a vastly improved lifestyle for hundreds of millions of people.
The argument that countries that have policies we might not like are not entitled to communications representation is a flawed perspective. Opening channels of communication ensures that influence can occur in both directions and provide better balance. And often this communication is in support of agendas that are strongly in favour of the interests of the citizens of those countries. For example, enabling countries in Africa to promote their agendas in the West gives them access to new capital and investment to create jobs, drive technological innovation and ensure a better future for the wider population.
Our work in Rwanda focuses on positioning the country with potential investors around the world, with the international tourist industry and with the Diaspora in order to reconnect Rwandans everywhere. We also promote the extraordinary lessons that the Rwandans have learned in rebuilding their country following the tragic genocide of sixteen years ago – a lesson that can teach ‘The West’ (who largely turned their backs on Rwanda during the genocide) a thing or two.
We have focused in particular on the possibilities extended by digital communications. We have built and launched two online Rwandan communities (Rwanda Fact Check and Friends of Rwanda) that highlight key news and facts – serving to correct misinformation that emerges elsewhere. This is supported by engagement via Twitter, Facebook, FlickR and YouTube. These resources allow us to educate and inform people beyond Rwanda’s boundaries about the challenges and opportunities for rebuilding a country from democratic, judicial, cultural and economic standpoints.
Since September last year, we have increased discussions on Rwanda tourism by 183%, on the economy by 129%. Our two communities online receive approximately 2,000 visitors a month with traffic coming from 21 different countries. Our 1,000 Twitter followers include representatives from the media, World Bank, UN and International Finance Corporation among other key stakeholders.
I’m very proud of the work we do for Rwanda. It encapsulates all the values that differentiate Racepoint Group as an agency. At all times, we facilitate honest and open dialogue that seeks to balance historic perceptions with true representation of the country as it is today. The impact and devastation of the genocide Rwanda suffered is always acknowledged.
Applying oversimplified definitions of Western values is not helpful in a world that is much more nuanced and complex. So, while Mr. Booth’s article suggests one view, in my opinion it lacks the depth of understanding required in assessing such a complex situation.
Yesterday Google announced that the company would end development for Google Wave, basically putting an end to the product that we were told would change communication as we know it. It was positioned as email 2.0, a combination of Gmail, Twitter, Facebook and everything else that we love about the world of communication. Only – it would be magical. We could move conversations, bring people in and out – and if you ever had a chocolate craving, it would send you a Snickers bar right through your computer screen.
When Google Wave was launched, it lacked some very important details. Most importantly, it didn’t offer anything useful. There was not a specific use people could latch onto, and the the way it was rolled out did not allow people to have large groups of users they could easily communicate with. It also appeared so different that it came across as complex and unnatural to use.
Hopefully Google will learn from this mistake, especially as it continues to develop social products such as Google Buzz and GoogleMe, in their attempts to overtake Facebook.
If you’re a foodie, you have a login for restaurant reservation website OpenTable. If you’re gadget savvy, you may also have their mobile app on your smartphone. The popular reservation service has seen great success thus far in 2010, confirmed by their recently quarterly earnings announcement.
In a post by Erick Schonfeld of TechCruch, he reports “OpenTable is installed in 14,128 restaurants and seated 15.6 million diners last quarter, up 27 percent and 52 percent, respectively.” Not only is OpenTable becoming the go-to source for reservations, but users are also raising their level of engagement with the site.
Schonfeld wrote, “Those diners have now written more than 7 million restaurant reviews. As a point of comparison, Yelp has a total of 12 million reviews across all local businesses, and CEO Jeremy Stoppleman considers the those reviews to be Yelp’s single most important competitive advantage.”
Digest that for a second. Yelp, which reviews all types of businesses, not just restaurants, has 12 million reviews, and OpenTable, which exclusively provides restaurant information has 7 million?
OpenTable clearly understands the value of creating a site users want to spend time on, not just log in and log out. By allowing customers to write reviews of their dining experiences the site becomes about something more than just reserving your table.
Additionally, OpenTable is hopping on the “group buying” bandwagon and offering a new weekly special they are calling “Spotlight.” This will operate the same way Groupon, LivingSocial and BuyWithMe do, and offer specials like “$25 dollars for $50 dollars worth of food at Grill 23.”
As RaceTalk commented in a post last week, the group buying concept entices customers to try places they normally wouldn’t because they are being offered a discounted price (recession, anyone?). Additionally, the sites incorporate social media channels allowing users to post their purchase on Facebook, Twitter and more. Some sites also offer referral bonuses to customers who bring in new users.
Should OpenTable decide to incorporate social media sharing on their site and explore referral bonuses, the company’s growth potential is exponential. OpenTable is paying attention to emerging trends and adapting quickly.
Social Media Michelin awards OpenTable three stars!
A new trailer is out for the upcoming Facebook movie, “The Social Network” is out. This trailer gives much more information then the first preview, which was only audio. Scenes from the newest make it appear very similar to Ben Mezrich’s book, which the movie is based on.
The film will be released October 1, and based on Facebook’s widespread popularity, it would be no surprise to see the movie become a box office hit. It’s star-studded cast of Justin Timberlake and Jesse Eisenberg (“Zombieland” & “Adventureland” should also help with ticket sales.
Ironically, “The Social Network” can’t be advertised on Facebook itself, because that would violate the company’s API. However, people can still post the movie trailer to their personal pages.
This week ESPN pulled an article from its website about LeBron James, which has caused quite a commotion. The story, written by Arash Markazi, is about James’ recent adventure in Las Vegas, which includes the line, “The more you hang around James, the more you realize he’s still a child wrapped in a 6-foot-8, 250 pound frame.”
The article was published by ESPN.com then quickly pulled down, but not before search engines and others were able to capture the content. At first, many speculated the James’ business team was behind the spiked article, as a similar situation happened last summer, when someone from James’ camp confiscated a video tape of James’ getting dunked on by a college basketball player. Video of the play was eventually shown when someone else had the move recorded on their personal camera.
ESPN has also received criticism for airing James’ hour-long special, “The Decision,” which blurred the boundary lines between the news organization and James (and was simply done in poor taste). This has also lead many to believe ESPN has a vested interest in James’ reputation, which could be another reason for the spiked article.
ESPN has published a statement in regards to why the article was pulled:
ESPN.com will not be posting the story in any form. We looked into the situation thoroughly and found that Arash did not properly identify himself as a reporter or clearly state his intentions to write a story. As a result, we are not comfortable with the content, even in an edited version, because of the manner in which the story was reported. We’ve been discussing the situation with Arash and he completely understands. To be clear, the decisions to pull the prematurely published story and then not to run it were made completely by ESPN editorial staff without influence from any outside party.
Markazi also released a statement of his own, about his reporting:
I have been in conversations with ESPN.com’s editors and, upon their complete review, understand their decision not to run the story. It is important to note that I stand by the accuracy of the story in its entirety, but should have been clearer in representing my intent to write about the events I observed.
Questions have also been raised about a possible suspension for Markazi.
This blog post was contributed by Alison O’Leary, who works in Racepoint’s UK office.
After a week working with Irdeto (a Racepoint client) out of their Beijing office, I’ve come back with a different view of the great Chinese firewall. True, my broadband speed was pretty slow, I couldn’t access Citrix from my hotel room at all and trying to get onto Twitter actually crashed my laptop, but it’s not the picture of doom and gloom painted by much of the Western media.
Yes, Western companies are having to abide by Chinese censorship requirements, with Google the most talked about case in point, and we all know the Chinese government operates the world’s most extensive system of Web monitoring and filtering, but social media is really making a difference to its overall impact.
China already counts the world’s biggest Internet population, at 470 million users – already more than double that of the USA – and consultants BDA China predict that Internet users will reach 800 million by 2014. And those users are making the most of it. According to a recent report, the Chinese are twice as likely to use chat and three times more likely to micro-blog, blog and use video conferencing than American users. The Netpop Research study shows that mainland Chinese citizens are “more likely to share information broadly and openly.” Something of a surprise given the country’s censorship has been such a topic of contention. Nevertheless, the study estimates that up to 92 percent of Chinese netizens use social media, meanwhile, only 76 percent of US netizens do the same.
What really came across when talking to Chinese colleagues and ex-pats during my time in Beijing though was the huge popularity of bulletin boards. There are 117 million of them in China and it is here that many of the population express themselves, sharing often contentious news and views. Some deliberately translate everything in English so that stories can disseminate at a quicker rate before being found and censored. Check out www.chinasmack.com as an example. When you add the 221 million blogs and 176 million social network users who also use these platforms to spearhead criticisms of many companies and spread ideas and news, it’s clear to see the game changing impact social media is already having.
As time moves on it will be interesting to see how things develop but one thing’s for sure, with the world’s largest Internet population grabbing the social media gauntlet, the great firewall of China has the hardest job on earth trying to keep control of it.
