Observations in Advertising: Ecotricity's "Collapsing Cooling Towers" YouTube Video

Ecotricity (a UK renewable energy company) recently launched a "Dump the Big 6" ad campaign to get electricity consumers to switch over to Ecotricity's renewable energy services.

Part of their ad campaign is this YouTube video:

While I think the creative component of the ad is great, there's a few peculiarities that are both self-evident to "energy buffs" and the average YouTube viewer.

#1: Nuclear power as a fossil fuel?

Ecotricity's caption below the video reads:

"It's time to move on. Our country, and all of us, need to move from a fossil fuel past to a renewable energy future."

However, the cooling towers being demolished in Ecotricity's video happen to belong to nuclear power plants...

Nuclear power is not a fossil fuel.

So there's one thing.

As for a few other peculiarities, I'll leave that to actual YouTube comments:

#2: Deceptive advertising? Censorship?

As you can see from the YouTube comment with 48 "thumbs up," Ecotricity is being called out on deceptive advertising.

True, three wind turbines will not produce more power than a nuclear power plant.

As far as the censorship is concerned, I don't know what was originally posted by this particular YouTube user, if their comment was even removed, or why it was removed...but I won't bother to find out because it's not that big of a deal.

Nonetheless, while governments do pass laws against deceptive advertising, I don't think Ecotricity will need to worry about legal issues.

#3: Conflicting messages?

As you can see with the last two YouTube comments, some viewers of Ecotricity's video feel "sorry" for the cooling towers being demolished and in turn gain sympathy for the symbolic energy sources Ecotricity is campaigning against.

BACKFIRE....Ouch.

Even though cooling towers are intimate objects, I'll have to take the advice of Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird...

"If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." - Atticus Finch

With that, I'll try to think about if I was the first cooling tower in the beginning of the video:

How would I feel if I was waking up in the morning to some classical music and a "spot o tea" with my hunny bunny when suddenly...

I'm being destroyed by the forces of high powered, primary explosives.

NOT GOOD.

But, if you ask me, I think #3 might also be due to the video's music.

With that, in the words of Missy Elliot:

"REEEEEEEMIIIIIIIXXX"

Here's my "Wind Frontiers" remix:

Proper recognition to:

Drowning Pool's "Bodies" as the best candidate for a remix song

Honorable mentions go to:

Head East's "Never Been Any Reason" and their catchy yet fitting lyric:

"Save my life I'm going down for the last time..."

Colbie Caillat's "Fallin' For You" for the applicable lyrics, song title, and even near-perfect timing to fit the duration of Ecotricity's video.

Fall Out Boy's "Sugar, We're going down" for their aptly fitting lyrics:

"We're going down down......down down......down down..."

AND their band name that fits well with the nuclear power theme.

So that's that.

"Advertising....hell of a business huh?"

-Unknown

What's next...

Since I recently graduated from Texas A&M I should try to be more proactive about updates and new posts here.

However, I recently came to the conclusion that blogging is NOT the best method to disseminate ideas and information.

Very much related to my last series, I believe that Facebook "Like" pages are a better online medium to discuss and share ideas with others.

While I won't be taking this down entirely, I'd like to share a little insight into this blog's "exposure" level and compare that to the benefits of my recently created Facebook page.

Below is the traffic data for the entire duration of this blog's existence.

Sometime fairly recently I hit the 1000 views marker.

While not that great of an exposure level, an advantage of Facebook "Like" pages is that you have greater control over who views your content and how they come across it.

But first, I don't mean that in the privacy sense.

Here's what I mean...

Below are the top search keywords used to get to my blog since its inception:

As you can see, a considerable amount of my all-time blog traffic has come from individuals interested in getting a particular image.

(i.e. facebook logo, classic google logo, antisec car decals, etc)


Below you'll see the top search keywords for this past month:

Same story.


Unfortunately, you can't break it down by specific months.

Nonetheless, a good deal of my blog traffic has been from the standard image search query.

If I were to break it down month-by-month, one would see bar charts that essentially look like the above chart except with different image queries.

While I don't mind this at all, some bloggers might be disappointed that a decent amount of their traffic comes from people simply looking for related images and not related, written content.

With that, it's evident that blogging does not allow bloggers total control over who comes across their content AND how they come across it.

This is not the case for Facebook "Like" pages, however.


Recently, I created a Facebook page called "Wind Frontiers" to share information, innovations, and intelligence on wind energy.

Below is the cover image I thought of (but did not entirely create).

Did you know: The above cover image is actually made of 3 separate photos.

The top photo is a barren Dust Bowl farm found via the Library of Congress' Prints and Photographs Catalog

The bottom photo is a rural Missouri wind farm also found via the Library of Congress' Prints and Photographs Catalog

The third photo is the dust bowl farmer below, except size reduced and integrated into the dust bowl farm's landscape.

^Big thanks to Marcy for making the cover image happen^


(She has better graphic design skills than me)

In any case, with Wind Frontiers I'll be able to directly reach participants within the energy industry to share ideas, innovations, and general wind energy intelligence.

Had I created another blog or simply blogged on the subject here, it would be entirely up to the very audience I'm interested in reaching to find my page (unlikely).

Without a doubt, Facebook pages are much more "in your face" in the marketing and communication sense.

With your own Facebook page, you can directly post your content to established, related Facebook pages that already have a considerable user-base of individuals interested in the particular topic your page covers.

For example: Since wind energy is my topic of choice, I can directly post and share my content with the American Wind Energy Association

With almost 40,000 Facebook users that "like" the AWEA Facebook page, I know that by posting my content on the AWEA wall I am reaching the exact audience I want to reach.

Here's how that works:

If you can't see it too well in the above image, the larger image below shows how I can directly advertise my Facebook page on the Facebook wall of a much larger, related institution.

Even better, I can also share videos

Wind Frontiers Introduction Video:

Wind Frontiers Video Series 1/1: Sustainable natural gas







So that's that.


I'll be dedicating most of my free time to developing the Wind Frontiers page but I'll be sure not to let this old thing wither away.

Here's the link to Wind Frontiers on Facebook

From Zuckerberg to Zealberg - Final Update

It's been a while since my last post regarding Google+ & Facebook developments.

With school and other projects, I haven't had much time for updates. Nonetheless, I'll finish my "From Zuckerberg to Zealberg" series with this final post.

In part 2, I brought up the idea of a "Likes" tab for Facebook's news feed and a "Just Me" function that could allow Facebook users to privately like Facebook pages and receive relevant updates without making their "Just Me" pages public (thereby mimicking Google+'s "Sparks" function).

While I still think that a "Just Me" function would be a valuable, well-received, and potentially revenue enhancing update for the site, I have to make one thing known regarding my proposed "Likes" tab.

While not exactly a "Likes" tab as discussed and illustrated in part 2 (shown below), the former Facebook news feed did in fact have a function that enabled one to only view updates from page likes.












While my proposed "Likes" tab would have made this function more visible and accessible, the OLD Facebook news feed allowed viewing of only page updates via the following process:

1) Clicking on the "Top News" button shown in the above image.

2) Selecting "pages" or "likes" (not sure which one it was called) from a drop down menu that listed various options to select and subsequently view in the news feed.

Sure enough, following through with step 2 could enable users to instantly view updates only specific to page likes.

However, with Facebook's recent updates and revamped news feed interface, the aforementioned function no longer exists
(or I can't figure out how to do it).

In any case, Facebook's current news feed interface does enable users to somewhat view updates specific to page likes.

Here's how that works:


















^What the current news feed looks like^


By selecting the various options in the "APPS" menu, users can adjust updates shown in the news feed (photos, music, notes, questions, and links).


If you click on the "Notes" button, you'll see the following drop down list:


















As shown, users can select "Pages' Notes" and subsequently view all notes published by their page likes.



Here's what mine looks like at the moment:





























Coincidentally, a note published by Facebook regarding their news feed update is shown along with Steve Winwood's note about travel troubles brought on by the Quantas Airlines strike.

(I liked Steve Winwood's page since I couldn't find an official Spencer Davis Group Facebook page)

Steve Winwood retro "throwback" jam:






While this function enables viewing of page notes, it does not show status updates or links specific to pages like the old news feed could.


Since that function was my favorite part of the Facebook experience, I'm hoping they'll bring it back.



Lastly, to remark on Google+ developments, I can't really say much considering that I haven't been on it lately.


Regarding Google+, a friend of mine made the funny observation that joining the Google+ network during it's initial unveiling felt like showing up to a big party LONG before everyone else arrived.

...I guess I'm still at that party (anxiously standing by the refreshments).



To be fair, I will say that Google has significant opportunities to promote Google+ via their proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility.



Currently, I'm unaware of a Google+ button on mobile phones like the Facebook button shown below:



























Which is surprising considering that the above phone has the following specs:

An Android phone, with a 2.6-inch touchscreen and 5-megapixel camera, has these Facebook-oriented features that take advantage of the button dedicated to connecting with the social networking site, HTC says:

• One touch to share: Press the Facebook share button from your home screen to instantly post on your wall.
• Snap, shoot, share: Take a picture or shoot a video and share it instantly with a press of the Facebook share button. You can even post pictures automatically as you’re taking them.
• Quick-on-the-draw check-in: Just long press the Facebook share button to check in your location with Facebook Places.
• Be first with the news: See something cool on the Web? Share your latest find with a quick press of the Facebook share button.
• Post to your wall —or a friend’s wall: From the home screen, a quick tap of the Facebook HTC share button makes sharing anything on your mind quick and easy.
• Share what you’re listening to: The Facebook share button glows when you’re listening to music, to let you know you can share. Let your friends in on the music you love with the push of a button.
  
  
  See this article for the full specs and story behind the HTC Status phone
  
  
  
  While only a mobile operating system, the Android OS is nonetheless Google's mobile OS.
  
  With that, Google is somewhat implicit in the marketing of HTC's "Facebook enabled" smart phones.
  
  
  I'd like to see Google make good use of their Motorola Mobility acquisition and create a similar button for Google+ on Android smartphones.
  
  So with that, here's one idea:
  
  
  Google could develop a Google+ "e-card" that can be quickly exchanged with other mobile phones via bluetooth connectivity or another transmission method.
  
  Google+ "e-cards" could even be self-designed however users want or simply altered from pre-developed "e-card" templates.
  
  Google could even take this "e-card" concept further and figure out how to expedite the general contact sharing process.
  
  That would really be something.
  
  It would be both convenient and fun to simply press a button (like the Facebook button on the above HTC phone), wait for your new contact to press theirs, sync up, and be done with it.
  
  To me, that beats the whole:
  
  "Yea sure, my number is AREA CODE yada yada...Yea, yea, my name is spelled S-E-A... Ohhhh you meant my last name..."
  
  Or the whole:
  
  "Yea, add me on Facebook or Google+..whichever. Oh you already brought it up. Yeah sure I'll look myself up. Wait, how do you...I don't have a smartphone...I've never seen this model...is this new? Oh man what did I just do??"
  
  Such technology might already exist. Who knows?
  
  
  
  So that's that.
  
  
  Sometime soon I'll be discussing ideas for wind energy investments on my finance blog
  
  Until then, check out my video on W. Texas' wind energy industry.
  
  I made it during a field trip to the region:
  
  
  
  
  

From Zuckerberg to Zealberg Part 2 Update

A simple but clever update to Google+ can better organize notifications and activity across the entire Google product spectrum and even the "Google color spectrum."

In part two I described how Facebook could compete with Google+ via an optional new feature for Facebook's NewsFeed and a "Just Me" feature that allows Facebook users to privately "Like" Facebook pages.


Roughly the same day I posted and promoted my Part 2 post, Facebook came out with a new commenting feature best described by Facebook:














Here's Facebook's photo example displaying the new feature:





















That's pretty interesting.

While the new feature isn't "fully democratized" (allowing users to selectively disable the feature entirely), I'd say that Facebook's new commenting feature is "semi-democratized" in the sense that users can remove the preview if they want.



Since I'm a pretty fair and balanced guy, here's an update idea for Google+ : A color coordinated Google+ notification counter.



Here's how the Google+ notification counter currently looks:










The number "2" represents the sum of Google+ notifications.


Here's the "simple version" of my proposed update:


First, keep the current notification count as is but change the color scheme to black and white, which would look like this:











(a white background / black number would work too)


Why black and white? You'll see in a second...


Now 2 is a rather low number for the purposes of my update idea, so let's change it to 14 notifications:












Here's how a color coordinated Google+ notification counter could help in sorting 14 Google+ notifications:


When you click on the counter/number, a drop down menu would organize each of the 14 notifications in the following manner:















Hopefully Google fans immediately recognize why I changed the main notification counter's color scheme to the black and white color scheme.


Now when you click the main notification count, you COULD receive notifications on being added to circles and updates specific to three of your top circles.


This is not the main idea behind my proposed update, however.

The main point behind my idea is a color coded notification system that organizes notifications using the "Google colors" as shown in the classic Google logo:












^ blue, red, yellow, and green = "Google colors" ^


Now while the Google+ team could take the basic premise of my update and apply it to Google+, here is how I would do it...


First, if you refer back to my Part 2 post, you'll see that Scott Locklin criticizes Google for its "knockoff competitor" products and what he believes is Google's basic business model.

While Locklin may be correct in his claim that Google has failed to monetize any of its products on the level of the revenue it generates from search term advertising, that is not to say that Google's various products aren't widely used.

Given that, I would design my color coded notification counter to be entirely customizable to the Google product user (not just the Google+ user).


Here's how I would customize my color coded Google notification counter, which would be displayed each time I logged on to Google+:


















Now I'm not sure if there is a Chrome (Google's browser) add-on that can do the same thing as this idea. In fact, I would be surprised if there isn't.


However, I'm a Firefox user and not a big fan of any Firefox add-ons other than Collusion which is worth a look


All in all, each time I log on to Google+ and see notifications only specific to Google+, I always wish I didn't have to separately check my Gmail/YouTube/Blogger account to see if there is any new activity associated with each of my other accounts for Google products.

An update on the likes of my idea would certainly be convenient and time saving for me.

However, in my personal customization example, I envision this Google notification counter update as a way to make Google+ more than just a social networking service but a "starting block" portal for users of Google's various products.

So that's that.

Lastly, one concern I have about Google+ is the potential awkwardness of the acquaintances circle for "millennial" users and the preteen/young teenager demographic.














I can understand the utility of any user generated, custom circle (using the "whatever floats your boat" reasoning).

However, for millennial Google+ users and preteens/young teenagers, I envision a definite level of potential awkwardness in adding any number of one's peers to the acquaintances circle.

Millennial users have largely known:

Myspace, with its "top friends" feature.

Facebook, with its friend requests, "mutual friends," and applications like "Friend matrix" that are a constant element of one's News Feed.

I'd say that things have largely been pretty "friendly" when it comes to social networking services (aside from Twitter).

BUT: Now there's Google+ with it's default "acquaintances circle."

While the idea of acquaintances is realistic and comfortable in REAL LIFE interpersonal relationships, the past and present nature of digital interpersonal relationships makes the idea of an acquaintances circle seem sort of old fashioned, socially awkward, and generally "I-don't-know-or-want-to-go-there-like" for the millennial, preteen, and early teenage Google+ user.


Google loves data analysis, algorithms, and everything in between.

It would be interesting for Google to analyze Google+ users who add people to their acquaintances circle with respect to their given age.

I'd envision older Google+ users as users more likely to use the acquaintances circle.

Who knows, I could be wrong.


Part 3 about Facebook vs LinkedIn coming soon.

From Zuckerberg to Zealberg - Part 2

Part 2: Facebook vs Google Plus

The recent but relatively exclusive launch of Google's social media service (Google +) warrants both Google and Facebook to seriously consider strategies that could keep Facebook competitive and innovative in response to the launch of Google+.


Part 1 of "From Zuckerberg to Zealberg" was largely a recap, tie-in, and update of my older posts in relation to Facebook along with some heavy stuff including intelligence agencies, espionage, Recorded Future's predictive analytics software, cyber warfare, and more.

Part 2 will be about what I would really do if Facebook went public and Zuckerberg handed me the keys to the CEO office.


Now I know that Facebook and Google employees get paid to ponder, consider, and give PowerPoints on the topics I'm about to discuss in this post.


That being said, Zuckerberg or anyone else is free to take my ideas and run with them.

I'm okay with that.

Don't worry. I'm not going to sue anyone who takes/modifies/improves my ideas.

I'm not like these guys:


































The following ideas are on the house:




Some might say that Google is Facebook's most formidable competition.











When comparing Facebook to Google, it is important to consider that Google currently has a greater economic magnitude than Facebook.

Here are the numbers:

MARKET CAPITALIZATION

Google: $194.17 billion
Facebook: $65-100 billion (estimated)

While an exact figure on Facebook's market cap is not available, talk about Facebook having a $100 billion dollar valuation has been circulating and causing considerable excitement about Facebook's future IPO.

Despite Google's greater present day market cap, I am skeptical about the ability of Google + to beat out Facebook in terms of being the most popular and widely used social networking service.

Additionally, I have concerns about how much future revenue Google + will bring Google.

Before I elaborate, let me give proper recognition to the writer and online magazine that brought about my skepticism:














Scott Locklin, a contributor for Taki's Magazine, wrote an article describing Google as "Fat Elvis"



While Locklin's article may seem offensive and not too "politically correct" on certain issues, Locklin nonetheless has an interesting perspective on Google.

Here are some poignant excerpts from the article:

"Google has a simple approach to business development. If there is an online business somewhere which looks promising, interesting, or nifty, Google will either buy it outright or create a lousy knockoff product, often effectively destroying the competition."























"What’s weird is that Google doesn’t make any money from these “other businesses” 12 years after their incorporation and six years after their IPO, they still make all their money from selling ads associated with search terms."


"Sure, they have email, Google Docs, Google Shopping, Blogger, their own programming language, YouTube, mapping software, a coming ripoff of pandora.com’s music service, a photo-sharing service, Orwellian Panopticon and medical-data services, a browser, an ersatz PayPal which nobody uses, a clone of Yahoo!‘s financial service, a cell-phone OS, Orkut (their version of Friendster/Facebook), and lately a Groupon ripoff, but they can’t figure out how to make money from any of these products."

"They only make money selling ads, same as they always did."

"Sure, Google has to grow, and it’s hard for them to grow much more in selling ads: They already own a substantial share of the world’s advertising market. For the last 12 years, they have certainly taken over some new markets, but they have failed to monetize any of them."

-END-

While Locklin's claims require greater scrutiny, I nonetheless think his assessment of Google is worthy of consideration with respect to the launch of Google+

First, I don't think that Google + will "effectively destroy" Facebook.

However, I do think Locklin may be spot on about Google in the sense that Google could fail to sufficiently monetize Google+.

In addition to the other products Locklin claims Google has failed to monetize, perhaps Google+ may suffer a similar fate.

Now, what does all this mean for Facebook?

Locklin's assessment of Google may suggest that the emergence of Google + is not a big deal for Facebook given its relative "juggernaut" status and success as a social networking service.

This is not the case.

As soon as competitor services emerge, people will begin to ask questions like:

"I wonder if this will be better than Facebook..."

"I wonder what Facebook will do..."

And most importantly: "I wonder what's going to replace Facebook one day..."

Answers to these questions shouldn't be left up to web techies, technology forecasters, and other speculating parties.

The above questions would be best answered in the form of action from Facebook.

Innovations, site updates, new features, and the implementation of aggressive strategies to maintain active Facebook users will be key to settling such questions.

Now before I begin I will give credit where credit is due to Google.

Out of all the technology and internet companies out there, I believe Google has the greatest capability to cultivate a loyal fan base on the level of Apple's fan base (frequently dubbed the "Cult of Apple" due to the loyal adherence and fanfare Apple users give to Steve Jobs and $APPL).

While Facebook in my opinion does not currently have this capability, Facebook will nonetheless need to initiate a series of competitive answers in response to the launch of Google +.

Here are some ideas to consider:

Adaptation as an initial response

By making several adjustments to Facebook's interface, Facebook can easily provide similar features to those provided by Google+.

For example, the "Sparks" application in Google+ allows users to essentially "tag" their favorite interests and receive separated, organized updates on each of their specified interests.







While cycling, fashion, movies, and recipes are just some of Google's featured interests, Google+ users can be as specific or broad as they like in defining what personal interests they want to receive updates on when they log on to Google+.

In essence, Google Plus' "Sparks" feature is similar to Facebook's "Like" feature, where Facebook users can "Like" Facebook pages related to their personal interests and view recent posts by "Like" pages on their News Feed each time they log on.

While Facebook "Likes" are a popular and widely used feature, an update to Facebook's News Feed interface can better organize what posts are displayed when Facebook users log on.












The picture above is what Facebook's News Feed currently looks like.



The picture below illustrates a News Feed update that Facebook could develop and allow users to activate at their own discretion:











The "Likes" tab would be an optional News Feed function that separates posts by Facebook friends from posts by a user's "Like" pages.

Most important in the implementation of this function would be leaving it up to the user. Implementing the new function in this manner would arguably represent Facebook's first "democratized" interface update, allowing Facebook users the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use the new feature.

Consider the following example of why someone would activate this function:

Currently, many Facebook users get breaking news updates on their Facebook News Feed via mainstream media and alternative media page "Likes."














































Activating the above feature could allow Facebook users to separate posts by friends from news updates posted by mainstream media and alternative news page "Likes."


Alternatively, some may wish to opt out of this function and keep their Facebook News Feed the way it is.

Perhaps some users enjoy "digital coincidences" in Facebook's News Feed like a breaking CNN news article about President Obama posted right above a "political status rant" critical of Obama by one of the user's politically outspoken Facebook friends.

Who knows?

When it comes down to it, Facebook users may simply find this function useful by being able to separate diverse "Like content" (products, services, news sources, entertainment, celebrity fan pages, etc) from "friend content" (status updates, posted links, notes, videos, etc).

However, this update would not be enough to fully compete with Google Plus' "Sparks" feature.

What makes Google Plus' "Sparks" unique from Facebook's "Likes" feature is not the fact that personal interests in "Sparks" are entirely user defined and customizable.

Facebook "Likes" are also "user defined" in the sense that Facebook users are free to "Like" whatever pages they want. Furthermore, Facebook users can also generate custom "interests" even if a Facebook page does not exist via the "Share Your Interests" section of their profile:











What makes "Sparks" unique in comparison to Facebook "Likes" is the fact that "Sparks" has the ability to constantly generate new and updated content specific to an individual's personal interests from outside of the Google+ network.

If Facebook aims to somehow compete with this feature, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's development team will need to be very tactful in implementing a feature similar to "Sparks" to avoid looking like a complete copycat.

Nobody likes a copycat.

However, the worst thing that usually happens to copycats is that they get called copycats.


BUT:

What's worse than being a copycat or being called a copycat is being accused of infringing on another company's intellectual property and dealing with the legal issues and expenses that come with that.

For these obvious reasons, I doubt Facebook will explicitly copy Google Plus' "Sparks" feature.

Nonetheless, here's how Facebook can avoid these issues and still compete with Google+ and its "Sparks" function:


In my opinion, what really makes Google Plus' "Sparks" feature unique from Facebook's "Likes" feature is NOT that "Sparks" has the ability to generate updated content specific to the user's interests.

On a basic level, Google News preforms a similar function and you don't need to register with Gmail or Google+ to use Google News.

What makes "Sparks" unique is that user defined, customizable interests are PRIVATE and can only be viewed by the Google+ user.

To be fair, Facebook users have the ability to make page "Likes" private:








As you can see below, my page "Likes" can only be viewed by my friends.

If someone wanted to make their "Likes" truly private, they could change the privacy settings for their "Likes" via this three step process.

1) Click the down arrow on the "Friends Only" button or the button that displays your current privacy settings for Facebook "Likes."




















2. Select "Customize"




3. Select the "Only Me" option on the Custom Privacy screen

















In reality, this could be a one step process by adding an "Only Me" option in the box seen in Step 1.


However, Facebook describes "Likes, Connections, and Other Activities" as a function that:


"Lets you express your interests and experiences, and connect with people who like the same things you do."


Doing all that isn't as easy when your "Likes" are completely private and only visible to you.

Given that, you can see why Facebook doesn't make this a 1 Step process.

A "fat finger mistake" could shut a user's "Likes" and interests off from the rest of the Facebook community and online world.

That's a user error that can cost a company money.




Technicalities aside, here's my idea:

Facebook creates a "Just Me" function.

Here's what it could look like:









Essentially, the "Just Me" function would be a private version of Facebook's "Like" function.


Facebook "Likes" are the virtual equivalent of car decals and bumper stickers (classic icons of American individualism) in the sense they showcase to others one's interests, affiliations, alma mater, etc.


However, there are some things that I WOULD "Like" on Facebook but WILL NOT "Like" on Facebook.

Having a private, "Just Me" function might change that, however.


Furthermore, this function could increase Facebook's advertising revenue and enhance existing opportunities for companies to market their product(s) on Facebook.


I am serious when I say this:

Facebook is missing out by not having this function.


More importantly:

Companies looking to market legitimate, widely used products are missing out too.



There is no doubt in my mind that there are products people use everyday but hesitate to publicly "Like" on Facebook.


I don't care if it's adult diapers, feminine hygiene products, contraceptives, dog food, kitty litter, or that TV show you love but are afraid to "Like" on Facebook because you're afraid people might judge you...

My stance is:

If it sells, it needs an official Facebook page.

Having a "Just Me" function would allow people to privately "like" pages they choose not to for whatever reason (desire to maintain a more professional profile, embarrassment, awkwardness, etc).

In fact, I would go so far as to say that competition for the highest number of "Just Me Likes" would be just as intense as current competition for public "Likes."

By publicly "Liking" a page, users are essentially engaging in free advertising considering that page "Likes" are visible to friends and other Facebook users.

If someone asked me what I thought about the future of marketing and advertising, I would quote Jon Bond, cofounder of Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal + Partners, who said:

"Marketing in the future is like sex. Only the losers will have to pay for it."



Now while I think Bond's prediction is worthy of consideration, I know that we aren't there yet and there's still money to be made for both ends when it comes to advertising and marketing on Facebook.

Nonetheless, maybe Facebook & Co. would shun the "Just Me" idea despite the potential for increased revenue and the ability to better compete with Google +.

For now, those calls might be okay.

But once Facebook goes public and people (shareholders) begin to worry about stagnation, lack of innovation, and missed opportunities to increase profits the game changes completely.


In part 3 I'll be discussing Facebook vs LinkedIn.

Stay tuned.