DeadSpace: 7 Reasons Why MySpace is as Good as Dead

The first behemoth of social networking, MySpace—now owned by Fox Interactive Media—is on its way to its grave, with no one to blame but itself. MySpace’s popularity hit its apex in March 2008. In the following month, it was overtaken by its first real competitor, Facebook. But the writing was on the wall long before that. Web developers and architects all over knew that MySpace was doing it wrong. Surely at least a few of its own developers knew this and pushed for change. Still, MySpace was the slowest to adapt. For a site of that magnitude—including all of its systems, engineering and hacks to make it function—change does not come easy or cheap. The site was not built to do or handle what it attempts to do today, and its poor framework and conventions of interaction are a reflection of that. This is where the ever-important step of planning and laying a site’s foundation is so important. MySpace architects did not effectively build the system to be much more than a novelty. And while MySpace is not your average website, it serves as a lesson in utility for anyone charged with planning, building and running a website on any scale. If a better alternative in Facebook had never come along, MySpace would not be in this position nor would it have pushed to try to make any changes, even in the eleventh hour. People still want to connect to other people, share things they care about and display certain aspects of their life. Whether you agree with those aspects of our culture or not, they do exist, and MySpace fulfilled those motivations for a time. All you need is one competitor, however, one other option entering the marketplace, and the incumbent developers will be challenged to fight to the death. MySpace’s architects and developers simply could not live up to that challenge. In 2008, MySpace did begin to introduce features, tweak aspects of its foundation and attempt to crack down on the juggernauts of spam bots plaguing the site—but by then people didn’t care. Facebook came along, presented a better option, and people moved with little doubt that they would ever return to MySpace. Thus, in the same way it virally grew, MySpace will die by the same domino effect that catapulted its popularity. Let’s examine seven key elements of MySpace that rushed MySpace to its grave. (It should be noted that the following screenshots were purely at random and were very, very easy to find.)

1: Out-of-control design framework

Of the people you know, how many could lay plans for their own house, paint a beautiful portrait worthy of hanging in your living room or perform cosmetic surgery? Chances are, few. There are just certain things that some people have no business doing, either lawfully or for the sake of the rest of us. Designing websites is one of those things. Designers are in a unique class of professionals, and good web design is an exact art and science. MySpace disagrees, however, and allows their users to hack everything in the page until nothing is usable, legible or tolerable. Pages are riddled with high-res backgrounds, text isn’t protected, and colors, styles and sizes are fully unlocked—just to name a few. All of this creates a design playground which breeds annoying layouts that distract from the page's content. In contrast, Facebook has chosen to restrict at least the foundational framework of the site. While customization is an important aspect, it shouldn’t be allowed at the risk of the functional system—the very heart of a social networking site’s brand and reputation.

2: Auto-play music

People love music. It’s one of the few ubiquitous facets of life. In fact, Apple’s famed comeback as a technological and cultural superpower was all a carefully conceived plan to tap into our common love for music—and they rode that all the way to billion-dollar profits. In contrast, MySpace taps into music to annoy the living hell out of most of us. In fact, it should be noted that all non-prompted audio anywhere, on any page, is a widely unacceptable and an unwanted "feature."” This goes for ads, auto-play videos, and most important, unexpected, blaring music overlaid on what you might be listening to already.

3: Identities

The days of Internet handles are coming to a close. Yes, there was a time when one would be known as “Biker5445,” as systems continued to use usernames as main identifiers. Of course, Internet e-mail systems will still use some form of handles for some time. Most of today’s websites, however, no longer need to do this—particularly social networking sites. This is even more important due to recent news and events concerning privacy and security. The use of a handle is only good for concealing identity, and that doesn’t mix well in a site intended to connect people. What good can come from that policy in a social networking site? MySpace did eventually get clued into this basic, fundamental issue and started asking its users for their real name as an option: Again, too little too late.

4: Little focus on content with a horrible user interface

There’s actually too much of this subject matter to fit within this article’s short space. One could write volumes about the sheer usability and UI issues that plague MySpace. One thing is for sure, this aspect is a website killer, no matter if you are local deli or a major social networking site. In the case of MySpace, most interactions and conversations occur within a never-ending, scrolling guestbook. These “comments” also have very little restrictions and are filled with a cacophony of text, pictures, videos and animated gifs—all without any context in the conversation. Ultimately, the interface leaves everyone reading essentially one-half of an e-mail conversation between two people and no one else. That’s just the beginning. Features that are, at best, a one-time read about a person’s interests, life story, and favorite music, movies, books, television shows, heroes and foods are typically placed near the top of the page in one long column. Whether you have an interest in any of this stuff or not, you’re treated to it every time. The list goes on, but we just can’t stomach any more.

5: MySpace has cultivated a raunchy, immature base

MySpace’s culture—formed by the foundation created by its architects—has without a doubt developed an immaturity and a raunchiness that is unique to MySpace. It’s widely known that MySpace has sold-out to become a platform built around dating, which doesn’t help its state in terms of the quality of content. You can easily find all the "vital" statistics that you want from a date on most pages—everything from sexual orientation, build types, even income takes headline status. The archetypical “MySpace photo” is often mocked and mimicked today by a photo with the person in a sexually suggestive pose, with bright light and the camera aiming down from above. It’s not just about sexually suggestive material, but about the framework of how MySpace works. The site can’t be responsible for user’s content, or perhaps lack of content, but what MySpace’s architects have built promotes an underlying immaturity that is not present in Facebook—at least not yet. Coupled with all the other out-of-control elements, a light click-through of MySpace easily resembles a walk down a tattered, defaced red light district. And why is Facebook not facing this degree of the problem? Its architects have planned better. Perhaps it’s embracing the common sense of restricting anonymity. Perhaps it’s because Facebook doesn’t allow layouts and its interface to go nuts. Either way, it’s well-known that Facebook has attracted a more mature presence and left MySpace with the rest. If you have never experienced this cultural difference, click around random pages in MySpace—if you dare. Chances are, you don't need to and you're just nodding along with the rest of us.

6: Inordinate number of ads

News Corp is definitely profit-centric. Whatever soul MySpace ever had, it was sold to the highest bidder ages ago. The number of large, animated, irritating, irrelevant and sometimes offensive ads compared to what matters—content and utility—is terribly imbalanced. While Facebook has yet to turn a profit at the date of this article, it will eventually need to solve this problem and will most certainly shift its balance as well. Until the day comes when Facebook burns through its cash faster than investors can pour it in, this difference makes it an easy switch from MySpace to Facebook.

7: Spam

If there’s one thing that’s notorious on MySpace, it’s spam. The site’s spam comes in many forms, but the most prevalent are the spam bots for sex and dating sites. They pose as skanky figures, companies, scam artists, music groups and interest groups, which scour friend lists in public profiles and send out friend requests to drive traffic to their MySpace page or other shady website. MySpace came to its senses in recent times, figuring that this was annoying people beyond limits and started to ruthlessly crackdown. Again, too late. The brand of MySpace, “A Place for Friends,” became “MySpace—A Place For Sleazy Marketers.”

The Future

While MySpace's reputation is dead, Facebook isn’t perfect either. In fact, more and more people are becoming annoyed with its limitations and methods as well. It is still plagued with its own problems, some of them similar to MySpace in terms of its core usage. Simply put, there are things that “social networking” sites should be doing and they are not, along with things that they are doing and shouldn’t be. Facebook is—for the moment—simply a better option. But it’s got a thin line to walk as well, not the least of which is to actually turn a profit. With MySpace as good as buried, look to Facebook to begin making changes to address the pressures of creating more revenue. The balance between utility and profits will be tilted. The question is how much will it tilt and how much will be sacrificed when the next social networking site comes along and ups the ante?

More...

MySpace Helps News Corp Lose $363 Million [Mashable]

---

The Ultimate Business Growth Resolution for 2017: Make the Most of Marketing Attribution

As we enter into a new year filled with limitless opportunities and prospects, why not resolve to build a smarter, more profitable business? But in a world where there are so many outlets through which you interact with your customers – from radio and TV to direct mail and email to your website and social media and beyond, how can you know for sure which of your efforts are really working and which are not? That’s where marketing attribution comes in. Marketing attribution is the practice of determining which channels are most effective in attracting and converting customers – both online and off – in order to:

• Measure how many marketing dollars should be allocated to each channel.
• Optimize content to drive more traffic and conversions.
• Attract new customers and win back former customers.
• Sync up offline programs with online campaigns.
• Accurately forecast your marketing budget.

Marketing attribution goes beyond simply counting clicks or following customers’ paths to making their purchases; it uses complex algorithms to determine which channels are driving the most revenue. Naturally, you’ll want to invest more dollars in higher-performing channels. If marketing attribution is such a powerful business growth tool, isn’t everyone taking advantage of it? Actually, no. According to Forrester, only 24 percent of marketers currently measure campaigns across multiple channels, which means that there is a huge opportunity for you to gain a competitive edge by taking the plunge into marketing attribution this year. Here are eight steps you should take right now to get started:

1. Clarify your objectives.

With information coming at us from all directions and devices, it can seem next to impossible to measure the ROI on any given campaign. So what’s the best way to narrow down all the possible factors to determine what’s actually influencing your customers’ behavior? Before embarking down the attribution road, you must establish clear direction. To get the results you seek, start by making a list of questions to help you clarify your objectives: Which channels produce visible results, and which can’t be seen?

• Which metrics will you track in order to gain the insight you seek? Revenue, lead volume, etc.?
• How many conversion points will the attribution system track?
• How do you currently capture and report on metrics? What are some areas where you’d like to see improvement? How do stakeholders receive data reports? Is there a better way to keep them informed?
• What mechanisms will be used to collect the data, such as specialized software or online forms?
• Does your company have in-house expertise on implementing an attribution model, or do you need to leverage an external resource?

Take the time to determine clear objectives before embarking down the marketing attribution path, so you can choose a solution that provides the end results you desire.

2. Start small.

In the digital age, there’s almost no limit to the amount of data you can collect and analyze about your customers and your marketing efforts. However, if you’re new to attribution, keep it simple in the beginning by focusing higher-level data, such as revenue and marketing spend, to avoid becoming overwhelmed with numbers. Save the more granular customer data for future iterations when you’ve got more experience under your belt.

3. Leverage technology.

If interpreting data feels like trying to read foreign language, the first step is to acknowledge what you don’t know and seek external resources to make the job easier. It’s not necessary to hire an expensive in-house expert; there are plenty of effective and affordable solutions available to help you analyze complex data and generate actionable insights. Whatever tool you choose, just be sure that you’re getting clean, accurate and trustworthy results.

4. Match up your metrics.

You probably already have discrete metrics and measurement tools in place for each marketing channel that you currently employ, from email to pay-per-click to social media campaigns. In order to make effective use of marketing attribution, however, you’ll need to establish a set of common metrics that you can use across all channels in your attribution analysis.

5. Work together.

Building a successful marketing attribution program depends on getting buy-in across your organization. Involve all of your key players – from managers to marketers to developers – when choosing a platform and planning its implementation. Collaborate to ensure the right questions are being asked and the relevant data is being collected.

6. Don’t expect perfection.

Rarely is any data set 100 percent clear and comprehensive. There will inevitably be some data that can’t be captured, leaving blind spots in your analysis. Without a crystal ball, there will always be invisible factors – both online and off – that influence your customers’ purchasing decisions. Despite these inherent limitations, even a partial set of attribution data will create a strong foundation for planning successful campaigns across multiple channels. As long as you’re looking at reliable sources, that information can be used to optimize your existing marketing campaigns and plan for future testing and analysis.

7. Compare attribution models.

Under the broad umbrella of marketing attribution, there are a number of models to consider, each with its own strengths and limitations: First and/or Last Interaction: Either the first or last point of contact is given full credit for the conversion.

• Pro: Interaction-based attribution uses previous purchasing behaviors to assign different levels of importance to various touch points.
• Con: This type of attribution can sometimes be subjective.

Last Non-Direct Click: All credit for the sale is attributed to the last indirect point of contact, such as an email link.

• Pro: This model enables marketers to gauge the effectiveness of their external marketing campaigns.
• Con: The Last Non-Direct Click method runs the risk of discounting a myriad of factors that come into play after the customer has clicked through the email.

Last Adwords Click: In this model, the most recent paid search click gets full credit for the conversion.

• Pro: This model enables marketers to gauge the effectiveness of their search spend.
• Con: The Last AdWords method runs the risk of discounting any influences that came after the click.

Linear: In this balanced attribution model, the credit is equally weighted among all points of contact in the path to conversion.

• Pro: This model is simple and straightforward, making it a great entry point for getting starting with attribution.
• Con: The linear method could attribute more credit to a touch point than it actually merits.

Time Decay: Whichever touch point occurred in the closest time proximity to the conversion receives the most credit.

• Pro: It seems logical that the later touch points ultimately prompted the conversion.
• Con: This model disregards initial points of contact, which may have helped to build brand loyalty.

Position-Based: In this type of attribution model, the first and last touch point each receive 40 percent credit, while the other 20 percent is distributed equally across all other interactions.

• Pro: The Position-Based model is a good choice for marketers who want to highlight how leads are generated and then how they ultimately convert while still accounting for the points of contact in between.
• Con: This model runs the risk of giving mid-funnel touch points less credit than they deserve.

8. Consider building your own model.

Every company’s attribution needs are unique. To ensure that everyone in your organization gets the relevant, accurate information they need to make informed marketing decisions, consider building your own attribution model. By partnering with a firm experienced in developing customized, cloud-based business management software, you can work together to design a solution that is tailored to your specific needs and objectives. Here’s to helping you build a more effective marketing and business growth engine in 2017!

---