Social Media Landscape Redux

A new version of this landscape has been published here: Social Media Lanscape 2011.

Following last year’s first version of my Social Media Landscape, I am induced to publish a new version to sync with the market’s latest evolutions. And I a not the only one: The Conversation Prism v2.0.

This new landscape is now spitted into four main usages (expressing, sharing, networking, playing) and is structured around social platforms which ambition is to cover each user’s needs.

3425152106_4237e3c705_b

The large size version is here : Social Media Landscape (redux).

Four Main Usages

The various tools and services displayed on this landscape are listed bellow.

1. Expressing tools allow users to express themselves, discuss and aggregate their social life:

2. Sharing tools allow users to publish and share content:

3. Networking tools allow users to search, connect and interact with each other’s:

4. Playing services that now integrate strong social features:

From Social Networks to social Platform

At the center of this landscape we will find former social networks, which have evolved to progressively integrate more and more functionalities and morphed themselves into social platforms. The notion of ‘platform‘ is particularly relevant since those network have the ability to host applications (mostly the one you find on the four main usages).

We can split social platforms into two groups: The First Generation which have been existing since more then 5 years and gather between 50 and 200 millions of users (Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, Bebo, Orkut, Skyrock, Hi5, Windows Live…) and The New Wave of social players which have a similar offering and a fast growing audience (between 20 and 50 millions users – Netlog, Imeem, Piczo, Lexode, Hyves, Buzznet, Xanga, Zorpia…).

I won’t enter in the debate to foresight which platform will grow faster or which will appeal the most to youth audience but I anticipate a rough competition for Facebook which is stile experiencing cash flow problem by sticking to the advertising model while those new social players have integrated micro-transactions and premium membership in their business model.

Google and Yahoo! are still absent from the social scene (wait, maybe not…)

You will also notice in this landscape the discretion of Google and Yahoo! which are ‘only’ represented by services that did not managed to break through the social scene (while being strong references, Blogger, YouTube, FlickR cannot be considered has dominant social platforms). Let’s be honest: MySpace and Facebook decently steal the spotlight from Google and Yahoo!.

Wait… maybe not if you consider Google as a being in a much more favorable situation with lower-level services like Gmail (one needs an email to register Facebook, right?) or Google Maps (can you count the number of social services relying on Google mapping tool?). Add to this there current cash situation and it leaves them plenty of time to sharpen their social strategy (Maybe by buying Twitter or FriendFeed, or booth!).

The same is true for Yahoo! which can rely on a massive user base (still outnumbering Facebook’s one) and essential social bricks like Delicious, Yahoo! Pipes, MyBlogLog and the promising Fire Eagle.

Did I mention Microsoft? Yes, Microsoft, those guys behind Hotmail, MSN and Windows Live. Ignoring them would be a big mistake and Mark Z. was more than happy to welcome them in FB’s capital.

From this pint of view, I expect a very thought battle around authentication services (Facebook Connect, Google Accounts…) allowing social platforms to exist outside of their boundaries and to export their members’ social graph. Big players like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have to emphasis their legitimacy as historical web players to keep control over their users.

I strongly recommend you to pay attention to those different services (yes, there is a life outside Facebook) and I shall meet you next year for a third version!

De l’art de soigner vos tableaux comparatifs

Lorsque vous vendez du service (ou même des produits avec beaucoup de caractéristiques techniques), il est essentiel de bien présenter les différentes offres et surtout de ne pas générer de la confusion chez le prospect. Plus facile à dire qu’à faire car vous pouvez avoir des offres très similaires ou complexes à présenter. Idéalement il faut un tableau comparatif qui donne envie et où chacun va trouver facilement l’offre qui lui correspond et se persuader qu’elle est mieux que les autres.

Pour attayer votre réflexion je vous propose donc deux très bons articles : Pricing Tables: Examples And Best Practices et Design Decisions: The new Highrise signup chart.

Dans le premier article, il est question des meilleures pratiques :

  • Faire ressortir les différences et non les similitudes ;
  • Mettre en avant un choix pour faciliter la prise de décision des indécis ;
  • Ne pas surcharger le tableau pour pouvoir utiliser une typo plus grande ;
  • Clôturer le tableau avec des appels à l’action simples.

Pour illustrer ceci, voici un exemple avec le très bon tableau des offres de CrazyEgg :

Le tableau de comparaison des offres de CrazyEgg
Le tableau de comparaison des offres de CrazyEgg

Dans le deuxième article, il est question de la refonte du tableau de présentation des offres de Highrise dont voici la version initiale :

highrise_before
Avant la refonte

Vous noterez le côté brouillon de ce tableau avec beaucoup de bruit et du contenu difficile à décrypter (trop de tailles de typo différentes, de couleurs et stimuli visuels). Voici la version finale :

Après la refonte
Après la refonte

Nous avons ici une page bien plus incitative avec une belle promesse au-dessus du tableau, moins de bruit, une meilleure segmentation (« For big groups, For small teams…« ) et des appels à l’action bien plus visibles. Vous noterez également qu’il existe une offre gratuite mais qu’elle est complètement mise en retrait (en bas à gauche du tableau).

Pour prolonger cette réflexion je vous engage à visiter les sites des constructeurs automobile US qui proposent  des Car Comparator très intéressants.