Skip navigation

Tag Archives: redes sociais

Pesquisa da AOL e da Nielsen aponta o e-mail como a “aplicação de internet mais utilizada para compartilhar conteúdo (66%), seguido de plataformas de redes sociais (28%) e programas de mensagens instantâneas (4%)”.

Via Tiago Dória

Visão interessante do Gerd Leonhard sobre a empresa. Esses pontos foram tirados de uma palestra que o Gerd deu em Dubai:

  • Doing business with the new consumer is not a technology play, it is a culture play – marketers must build on emerging cultural practices, not emerging technology. Key to these emerging practises are social consumption, social transparency (the tyranny of transparency), social trust and the use of social currency (FB Credits)
  • Doing business with the new consumer is not a technology play, it’s a people play; technology will never replace people; people who use technology will replace people who don’t. The thing about people is that they are social – and they share; sharing should be hardwired into your value proposition – building share-ability into what you say and do (‘social brand actions’). And from this humanistic perspective, communicating why you do what you do is as important as explaining what you do and how you do it
  • Doing business with the new consumer is not a technology play, it’s a content play – businesses must become publishers as well as producers – connecting consumers to ‘likeable’ (filtered/curated) content as well as producing likeable products
  • In the new framework, Facebook is not a network, it’s a social OS enabling and empowering social action
  • To help businesses profit from the social OS, agencies must become proficient in the 5Cs – contextualising, connecting, curating, culling and collating
  • As a social OS, Facebook is the premier platform for social commerce – social commerce is the “new normal” – adding a social layer to retail will become a hygiene factor for successful commerce
  • The simple success formula for operating on the Social OS – create more value than you capture (Tim O’Reilly)

A opinião que tá no título é de Jonathan Blow, um game designer, em uma boa entrevista sobre jogos:

Jonathan Blow: Well, they’re not very social. A game like World of Warcraft or Counter-Strike or whatever is way more social. Because you actually meet new people in clans or guilds. You go do activities together and help each other out, right?

[With certain social games] it’s about the game exploiting your friends list that you already made, so it’s not really about meeting people. And it’s not really about doing things with them because you’re never playing at the same time. It’s about using your friends as resources to progress in the game, which is the opposite of actual sociality or friendship. Maybe not exactly, but it’s not the same thing, right? They’re really just called social games because they run on social networks but they’re way less [social] – like sitting down and playing a board game with friends at a party is a way more social game. That’s an intensely social experience, right? So, like whatever. I hate that name.

PC Gamer: Do you still think social games are “evil” then?

Jonathan Blow: Yes. Absolutely. There’s no other word for it except evil. Of course you can debate anything, but the general definition of evil in the real world, where there isn’t like the villain in the mountain fortress, is selfishness to the detriment of others or to the detriment of the world. And that’s exactly what [most of these games are].

O Gustavo Mini escreveu um post foda sobre músicas e redes sociais. Muita gente pode pensar que essa interatividade entre artsitas e fãs é algo recente, que surgiu com a internet, mas não é bem assim:

O mais curioso foi a história do They Might Be Giants, que criou um serviço de música por demanda por telefone antes do advento da internet se espalhar. O sistema era muito simples: a banda gravava as músicas numa secretária eletrônica, publicava o telefone em jornais como The Village Voice e pronto. Claro que nem todo mundo podia escutar ao mesmo tempo, mas o recurso ficou célebre entre os fãs e a banda chegou a disponibilizar 500 músicas através desse sistema hoje jurássico.

E o bom humor dos caras desse projeto, cahamado Dial a Song, é sensacional , como se pode ver no slogan que alude à precariedade das máquinas e à dificuldade de conseguir ouvir, já que só rolava uma ligação por vez:

“Always Busy, Often Broken.”

E eles anunciavam  produto com o seguinte título:

“Free when you call from work”

Um outro case interessantíssimo apresentado pelo post do Gustavo Mini envolve a banda Devo e a fodástica Mother, puta agência inglesa. Além de vender bem o espírito da banda, ainda é um bom soco na cara do maldito focus group:

A banda trabalhou junto com a hotshop de publicidade Mother, de Nova Iorque, numa série de vídeos de supostos grupos de pesquisa com consumidores pra, entre outras coisas, escolher a nova cor do tradicional chapéu da banda. Interatividade ou statement conceitual? O sarcasmo não deixa dúvidas do quanto o Devo ainda mantém da sua tradicional crítica bem humorada à indústria cultural e ao mundo da comunicação. Flutuando entre categorias, eles transformaram a campanha promocional do disco em conteúdo relevante não só comercialmente, mas também artisticamente.

Projeto brasuca que eu já conhecia há um tempo mas minha ignorância ofuscou seu brilho até ver este vídeo. Se puder levar os dados do delicious pra Busk para lá irei eu.

Dá uma inveja do caralho!

Via UoD

Eu me amarro quando pessoas falam em redes sociais e cagam pras redes sociais online, focando nas redes que existem desde que o mundo é mundo.

After mapping humans’ intricate social networks, Nicholas Christakis and colleague James Fowler began investigating how this information could better our lives. Now, he reveals his hot-off-the-press findings: These networks can be used to detect epidemics earlier than ever, from the spread of innovative ideas to risky behaviors to viruses (like H1N1).

Me amarro no Augusto de Franco!

Dentro dessa grande revolução em que vivemos – e muitos de nós nem percebemos – existe uma enorme diferença entre Redes Sociais e Mídias Sociais. E vejo muita gente se confundindo bastante – até mesmo profissionais da área –, entrando em contradição quando falam dessas duas coisas que interagem, mas que são, ao mesmo tempo, bem distintas.

Dentro dessa nova versão de mídia, o que mais gosto e sempre deixo claro em qualquer bate-papo que tenho sobre o assunto é a fase ou parte do relacionamento com o usuário de redes sociais virtuais ao pé da letra. Sistemas e plataformas são ótimos e nos trazem grandes ferramentas para agilizar a única matéria-prima necessária neste ambiente: a comunicação.

Via

Um dos posts mais corajosos e reflexivos que eu já li. Do Leo Laporte.

Something happened tonight that made me question everything I’ve done with social media since I first joined Twitter in late 2006.

You know me – I’m a complete web whore. I sign up for every site, try every web app, use every service I can find. It’s my job, but I also love doing it. I believe in the Internet as a communication tool. I love trying the myriad new ways people are using it to connect and I believed that social media specifically had some magic new potential to bring us together.

When Google announced Buzz last year I was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon. I welcomed a competitor to Twitter that had the community features I loved in Friendfeed and Jaiku, and I thought Google had the best chance to create a second generation social network. I defended Google for its initial privacy stumbles and I began to use Buzz exclusively, replacing Twitter, Friendfeed, and Facebook. I built a following of over 17,000 people. I was happy.

Then last night I noticed that my Buzzes were no longer showing up on Twitter (I use a service called Buzz Can Tweet that has been pretty reliably rebroadcasting my Buzz posts to Twitter.) I looked more closely at my Buzz feed and noticed that there had been considerably less engagement over the past few weeks. Then I noticed that I wasn’t seeing my posts in my Buzz timeline at all. A little deeper investigation showed that nothing I had posted on Buzz had gone public since August 6. Nothing. Fifteen posts buried, including show notes from a week’s worth of TWiT podcasts.

Maybe I did something wrong to my Google settings. Maybe I flipped some obscure switch. I am completely willing to take the blame here. But I am also taking away a hugely important lesson.

No one noticed.

Not even me.

It makes me feel like everything I’ve posted over the past four years on Twitter, Jaiku, Friendfeed, Plurk, Pownce, and, yes, Google Buzz, has been an immense waste of time. I was shouting into a vast echo chamber where no one could hear me because they were too busy shouting themselves. All this time I’ve been pumping content into the void like some chatterbox Onan. How humiliating. How demoralizing.

Thank God the content I deem most important, my Internet and broadcast radio shows, still stand. I believe in what I’m doing there, and have been very fortunate to have found an audience. I’m pretty sure I would have heard from people if there had been 16 days of dead silence there. Hell, if we miss one show I get hundreds of emails. But I feel like I’ve woken up to a bad social media dream in terms of the content I’ve put in others’ hands. It’s been lost, and apparently no one was even paying attention to it in the first place.

I should have been posting it here all along. Had I been doing so I’d have something to show for it. A record of my life for the last few years at the very least. But I ignored my blog and ran off with the sexy, shiny microblogs. Well no more. I’m sorry for having neglected you Leoville. From now on when I post a picture of a particularly delicious sandwich I’m posting it here. When I complain that Sookie is back with Bill, you’ll hear it here first. And the show notes for my shows will go here, too.

Social media, I gave you the best years of my life, but never again. I know where I am wanted. Screw you Google Buzz. You broke my heart.

De quebra ainda tem esse link, que começa com uma citação mais que apropriada:

A poor life this if, full of care / We have no time to stand and stare

A Mentez é a empresa mais bem sucedida em jogos online na AL, em especial no Brasil, e o Orkut é a principal plataforma. Em uma entrevista, o CEO da Mentez falou coisas interessantes sobre o mercado brasileiro. Comecemos com uma provocação. Ao falar das características dos jogos brasileiros, o cara diz que é muito importante injetar a cultura nacional no jogo:

“Another example is that in farming games in Brazil, users could steal from other users. That wouldn’t work in the US or Europe, but for Brazilian users it was a key functionality, and it’s a reason our farming game is number one in Brazil.”

A Mentez tem uma espécie de paypal bem peculiar:

[At Mentez] we have a strong monetization platform that’s a combination of online and offline. In Brazil, about 40 percent of people don’t have a credit card, so there’s a payment gateway to process cards, and 120,000 points of sale on the street, so users can go and buy the credits. Also, 35 percent of the population accesses the internet through cafes.

Orkut ou facebook?

Right now Orkut is huge, I believe the number one site in Brazil. My estimation is that it has over 50 million users. So for Orkut to keep growing is difficult. I don’t believe they’re growing because they have 80 percent penetration of internet users, and from what I’ve seen Google is investing in Orkut and they want to keep their leadership.

But Facebook is investing as well. The way that Facebook is growing in Brazil is with high-income users, people that speak English or have friends in the US. They’re very strong with the high-income users. However, the Brazilian market is a massive market, so if you want to be a player in Brazil, you need the rest, where Orkut has its leadership.

Para fechar, mais monetização:

The good news is that the Brazilian user’s monetization behavior is similar to the United States. Four to six percent of the user base does transactions, versus what I hear is about six to eight percent in the US.

For our only game that has been on the market for more than a year, we’ve seen users spend $10 per year. The life-cycle of our games, from what we’ve seen, is 8-12 months, but like in any other market they eventually get flat and start to decline.