Posts Tagged ‘internet’

Moneyball - Courtesy of Sony Pictures

Filed under: opinion

Earlier this week, I wrote about what Moneyball‘s Peter Brand called the “epidemic failure to understand what is going on” plaguing the business, marketing and advertising worlds – when it comes to understanding that social media and social business are not just extensions of traditional “digital” strategies. Yesterday, I was reminded by both Christopher Barger and Justin Whitaker that the same type of off-target thinking is also plaguing other aspects of the world of business, particularly when it comes to the ever hot world of the dot-com.

If you read that post, you’re already 80% of the way there. What follows will fill in the remaining blanks for you. Here is basically how this plays out:

Christopher Barger (on Facebook): And the bubble burst countdown is officially on in 3…2… 1. The “logic” behind this claim is utterly insipid. And we’ve seen this movie before, folks. It came out in 1999 and was called the Dotcom boom. Dear social media business: Stop it. Just. Stinking. Stop it.

Here is the story he is referring to: Forbes – Pinterest is a $7.7 Billion Company. Below are a few clips from that Forbes piece.

Facebook values Instagram at $1 billion and LinkedIn (LNKD) has a market cap of $10 billion. Twitter claims it is worth $8 billion. So where does that leave the new kid on the block Pinterest? Well, it looks like you can pin $7.7 billion on your Pinterest board.

Pinterest is important because the traffic is growing and statistics are impressive. It is known for its magazine quality images. Pinterest is to artful images what Twitter is to artful words. What’s more, Pinterest appeals to college-educated females between the ages of 25 to 44. A sweet demographic known for its spending decisions and habits.

According to the scoreboard from Experian Hitwise data from March 2012, Pinterest is the third most popular social media platform in the United States. It is running close behind Twitter in the number of total visits. Facebook is the big beast at seven billion total visits, Twitter while very far behind, is logging 182 million visits. Pinterest is next with 104 million and gaining quickly.


Pinterest scored 21.5 million visits for one week at the end of January which was an increase of 30x from six months prior. So we can try to place a value on Pinterest by visits alone. If LinkedIn has 86 million visits and a market cap of $10 billion that values the visits at $116. By that method, you could pencil in a value of say $12 billion for Pinterest.

I am not making this up. It gets better.

Worth of Web, a website value calculator places Pinterest’s value at $267 million. It says the company has 10.8 million daily visits and 324 million monthly visits. It claims daily revenue is $74,520 with annual earnings of $26 million. Unfortunately Worth of Web seems to be way off on its valuations. For example, Worth of Web only values Yelp! (YELP) at $115 million, while it currently has a market capitalization of $1.5 billion. It also grossly underestimated Instagram at $2.6 million. But if we take the Yelp undervaluation and apply that to Pinterest, you get roughly $3.4 billion. Not so far-fetched these days. 

[…] Thus, grabbing an envelope and scribbling on the back, I split the difference between the two previous valuations and come up with $7.7 billion.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Pinterest, and I think there’s big potential for the platform, but I’m also not stupid. I can put its potential value in perspective. And I know how easily bad metrics, bad measurement schemes, bad assumptions can put us all in the weeds. Forbes evidently… not so much.

Look at that ridiculous valuation model. This is how a young company with $75,000 in daily revenue (according to that piece), by being compared to other overvalued companies, can magically find itself valued at $7.7 billion. Even if its revenue grew 30x in the next year, (and that is a very big “if”), you would be looking at $780 million/year. Can we say now that Pinterest has a 10-year shelf life? Where is that $7.7 billion coming from? Or that even more fascinating $12 billion figure? This? Nope. Pinterest, like every other social platform won’t be disrupting the market that long. Something else will come along to take over and kill its momentum, and it won’t take ten years.

So thanks, Forbes, for that enchanting little ride on the magic math train. Welcome to the fairy-dust world of equivalency equations – the same equations that lead agencies and brands to mistake the cost of acquiring an impression to the market value of a follower, to the notion that a Facebook fan is worth $372.99 without ever taking into account that fan’s purchasing behaviors, to the notion that a random start-up with no revenue model might simultaneously be $70M in the red and worth more than Luxembourg and the Isle of Man combined.

As Chris points out, we’ve been here before. But this is just the layup. There’s more:

Justin Whitaker (on Facebook): Olivier, did you see Calacanis’ newsletter on recent valuations? Gives you some insight into what is going on. His end result is that we have competition for good teams, and that’s pushing valuations up. To my mind, that’s exactly what’s wrong with what’s happening . We’re valuing teams, not revenue models.

That last sentence. Sound familiar? Remember Peter Brand’s conversation with Billy Beane from yesterday’s post? Hold that thought. Here is what Jason Calcanis had to say on Launch:

 Is the internet industry experiencing a bubble? Yes there are bubbles, but those bubbles make up the froth on top of the massive rising tide of value being startups are creating today.

The $210M sale of OMGPOP and the $1B Instagram purchase feel like a bubble, but you have to step back for a moment and realize that OMGPOP was purchased for 2% of the value of Zynga and Instagram for 1% of the value of Facebook.

Now, are Zynga and Facebook overvalued? Well, that’s a separate email of 2k words. The short version is they are aggressively valued based on their massive growth. I’ve heard folks say that $10B for Zynga and $100B for Facebook are anywhere from 0 to 30% rich. Most folks believe we are seeing a premium for growth — not a bubble — in these stocks.


What we’re seeing now is founders doing their jobs: getting the best price for their teams. Angels are willing to pay under these terms, so they are essentially saying they’ll give up the first 2x to 3x of a deal’s return in the hopes of getting YC’s next Airbnb or Dropbox. (Those two investments are up 50x to 300x since their YC days.)

Most angel investors have their activity covered by one big hit. Bottom line: It feels like a bubble, but it’s really just a hot market.


We’re not in a bubble. We’re in a revenue tsunami like nothing any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.

In a market like this, founders shouldn’t optimize for valuation. They should optimize for getting the involvement and attention of the best investors who provide the best long-term value.

And there you have it: “We’re not in a bubble. We’re in a revenue tsunami like nothing any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.” Us  meaning founders and A-round investors, industry insiders who invest in, buy and sell companies early, based on “potential growth,” rather than real world, sustainable revenue models (that’s a very different game). Every time one of these “we don’t know how to make money yet” companies gets slapped with an inflated value before being sold off to a Facebook or a Google, what do you think the real game is? That’s right: maximizing profit for the team of early investors who got them all prettied up for their big market day. There’s nothing wrong with it, mind you. Calcanis isn’t a bad guy. His business model works for him, his team and the people who spent a couple of years building really cool technology. But because most of the game is being played pre-IPO, the further down the river you are in the investment chain, and the higher the “valuation,” the further away you are from the reality of what dividends that company can actually produce for its late investors. At least Zynga has a revenue model. It’s being run and managed like a real business. But most of these young companies either don’t, or what meager revenue model they have is not nearly on par with their market cap. That’s a problem.

$7.7 billion for Pinterest. I want you to think about that. I want you to think of the gap between that $26 million in actual annual revenue mentioned in the Forbes piece and its subsequent $7.7 billion valuation fantasy. Why not $300 billion? Why not a zillion dollars? Could happen, right? And maybe if you follow the same thinking, maybe if VCs keep telling us all day that this isn’t another dot-com bubble, we’ll all stop asking.

So one more time, in case you missed it earlier, from Moneyball:

Peter Brand: There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams. I apologize.

Billy Beane: Go on.

Peter Brand: Okay. People who run ball clubs, they think in terms of buying players. Your goal shouldn’t be to buy players, your goal should be to buy wins. And in order to buy wins, you need to buy runs. You’re trying to replace Johnny Damon. The Boston Red Sox see Johnny Damon and they see a star who’s worth seven and half million dollars a year. When I see Johnny Damon, what I see is… is… an imperfect understanding of where runs come from. The guy’s got a great glove. He’s a decent leadoff hitter. He can steal bases. But is he worth the seven and half million dollars a year that the Boston Red Sox are paying him? No. No. Baseball thinking is medieval. They are asking all the wrong questions.

Now here’s Justin again:

“To my mind, that’s exactly what’s wrong with what’s happening . We’re valuing teams, not revenue models.”

Let the wheels turn.

But because I am neither a VC nor a startup founder, maybe I have this all wrong. But then again, maybe all it is is just a big game of hot potato whose object is to keep all of the potatoes in the air while investors like me and you and our banks get sucked into collectively investing billions of dollars into fledgling companies that have yet to generate as much as 1% of their market cap in revenue.

The VC game might just be this: get in with a million bucks, get out with a billion, pass the hot potato on down to the suckers who see a score but haven’t figured out that unless these companies find a way to actually make money and pay investors back, it’s all basically a big fat ponzi scheme. What’s the secret? Everyone needs to stay focused on the imaginary bag of money at the end of the road, the Google dollars, the Facebook pesos. If the value of these startups keeps growing exponentially (like a Pinterest or an Instagram going from $5M to $1B+ in 18 months) we can all believe that we’ll become internet millionaires if we only invest in them when we get a chance. It’s that simple. The bigger the valuation, the more attention it attracts. $8B? Wow. Let’s all buy that dot-com lottery ticket!

Have you ever chatted with a VC or an angel investor? Nine times out of ten, here’s what you’ll hear: “We’re not investing in the company. We’re investing in the people. Because we know that even if this company doesn’t make it, eventually, these people will build something big. That’s what we’re really investing in. That’s how it works.”

We’re not really investing in the Brooklyn bridge. We’re investing in the architects. Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get people to back up your investment by buying the bridge from you, preferably for a lot more than what you paid for it. If 5x is good, 30x is better. How do you do that? By convincing them that your bridge is worth 100x of its actual value. The process behind that isn’t all that hard. The pieces are already on the board. All you really need to get things started is for someone with an imperfect understanding of where value actually comes from to write a piece about you in a publication like Forbes, Mashable or the WSJ. Five years ago, it was hard to get that done. Today, most big circulation publications also have online versions whose editorial standards are… well, lax. Their contributors aren’t always journalists or even analysts. Many are little more than glorified copywriters, underpaid to create content whose only purpose is to drive page views. A simple phone call from a senior exec promising an exclusive, or a friendly beer and a little attention can score you the story you want them to write.

Here’s another dose of reality: Companies like Google and Facebook are businesses, just like Nike and Apple. They have to be able to run in the black at some point. That means that there comes a time when buying $7B companies that don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves eventually comes to an end. That acquisition game only makes sense in the very short term on when it comes to sacrificing black ink for a strategic move that hopefully isn’t entirely Pyrrhic in nature. Growth through the acquisition of upside down companies just isn’t sustainable. Look at it this way: If you’re eagerly buying stock in a company valued at $15B that only generates $200M per year in revenue from, say, advertising, and inflates its market value by buying $1B startups with no significant revenue stream every six months to make it look like they’re growing and making big moves, it doesn’t take a genius to see where the value of that stock is really going. What’s the company’s plan, then? To keep borrowing money from investors? To get banks in so deep that they can’t pull out without taking  a huge hit? To keep acquiring overvalued companies with Monopoly money and hope no one ever decides to cash-in their chips?

This is part of the mechanism that creates bubbles.

No matter how many companies with zero revenue you acquire, math is math. Profits are profits. You can’t keep promising “next year” forever. And when company valuations start hitting the stratosphere and the gap between price and value starts to look like the Grand Canyon, people finally stop being stupid. That’s when things get dicey.

Think of it as a game of hot potato. What’s the objective? To keep the potato in the air as long as possible.  The way it works is nobody stops to look at the potato. Nobody wants to get burned or miss the next toss because then it’s game over. How do you keep people playing? You convince them that the longer the potato stays in play, the more value they will get out of it. And as long as no one flinches, as long as no one asks questions, as long as all the potatoes stay in play, the game goes on; people who know how to get in and get out at the right time make money and the rest keep on paying and playing, not realizing that what happens when the music stops is they find themselves holding a old wrinkled-up overpriced potato. They were so focused on playing the game that they never stopped to look at what they were really buying. It’s what happened with the first dot-com bubble, it’s what happened with mortgages in 2008, and it’s what is brewing here too.

We’re valuating teams, not revenue models.

Here’s some perspective: Apple sells iPhones and iPads and media all over the world. It’s the biggest tech company on the planet. It’s so big it generates profits on the same scale as the world’s biggest energy companies. Starbucks sells zillions of gallons of coffee in little cardboard cups at an insane premium, and every day, millions of people eagerly pay for the privilege of walking around the office with their logo in their hand. McDonald’s sells burgers and fries and soda in almost every country in the world. Every morning, there’s a line of people getting their McCoffee and Egg McMuffins at virtually every McD’s on the planet. Ford sells cars. Lots of cars. Cool cars, even. Levi’s, RayBan, Coca Cola, Amazon, they all sell something a lot of people want. They generate insane amounts of revenue. What’s Pinterest selling? What is its revenue model, to be worth $7.7B?

Oh yeah… it gets web traffic. 104 million visits in March. My bad. $7.7B it is then.

Based on that equation – or more to the point, that kind of thinking – this blog should be worth $2.7M.

Tell you what: here’s a bargain. If you’re willing to pay cash, I’ll sell it to you right now for $2M even. Any buyers? No? I didn’t think so.

There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams.

That. And this: there is a disconnect between the message and what is actually happening.

Do yourselves a favor: think. Ask the hard questions. Don’t just read Forbes or some industry white paper and take what’s being sold to you as gospel. Don’t surrender to marketing religions or measurement cults or self-serving sales pitches disguised as business philosophies. Challenge whatever conventions that make you raise an eyebrow or gasp in surprise. If you don’t understand something someone just presented to you, don’t delegate. Don’t leave that room until you understand every aspect of it. Don’t make a decision until you have left no stone unturned.

Why should we invest in a company with no revenue model?

Why is a Twitter follower valued the same whether she is a transacting customer or not?

Why are these qualifications even relevant to this role?

Why is content king?

What do you mean, “we’re investing in people, not the company?”

What’s your angle in this deal?

Question whatever business thinking that keeps you stuck in the same cycle of “why aren’t we doing better?” Bad insights lead to bad decisions. It’s painfully simple. The way you run your business, the way you hire people, the way you invest your resources, even the things you believe are real because you read about them in a magazine, it’s all the same thing. Mistakes all come from the same place. You want to know what the hottest product is in 2012?  It’s bullshit. The stuff gets sold by the ton. It’s hotter than gold, oil and cocaine combined. It’s even bigger than internet porn. My advice: Buy something better.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. You tell me.

*          *          *

Here it is. A whole book on how to make social media work from a business standpoint. ROI is covered, along with a lot of process elements that tie back to it. If your favorite social business “expert” doesn’t seem to get this stuff yet, don’t feel bad about sending them a copy. Knowledge is never a bad gift.

CEO-Read  –  Amazon.com  –  www.smroi.net  –  Barnes & Noble  –  Que

Read Full Post »

If, like me, you are watching Google+ fever spread across the twitternets with a mixture of bemused fascination and eye-rolling annoyance, read on.

If, however, you have jumped heart and soul onto the Google+ bandwagon, gorged yourself on its koolaid with such gusto that your sweat now tastes Googlicious, and think Google+ would make a fine spouse were you able to marry a digital platform… read on.

Based on some of the questions I have been asked repeatedly these last few weeks, here are 8+ things you probably should know about Google+:

1. Will Google+ change the world or the internet?

No. Google+ will not change the world. Or the internet. But if it scales, it might help Google buy a lot of really big yachts, really fast private jets, small countries whose names end with “-Stan,” and install a few hundred thousand solid gold toilets in its offices and server farms around the world.

2. Will Google+ kill Facebook?

No one really knows. I suppose it could, but the odds are not in Google+ killing anything anytime soon. If it does, it will be to some degree related to Facebook’s inability to compete both as a social network and as viable revenue model and not because Google+ is particularly awesome or groundbreaking.


_ Facebook needs to stop antagonizing people (privacy concerns are still a major Achilles’ heel for Facebook, for starters). Love = loyalty. No love = well, you know.

_ Facebook’s functionality is still very limited. It doesn’t really plug into productivity and collaboration tools, and this is a problem as users (consumers) increasingly look for seamless integration of word processors, email, video conferencing, VOIP, calendars, mobility, spreadsheets with their social platforms.  The simplicity of Facebook’s design and the limited amount of customizability that helped it compete against MySpace (and win) may also bring about its own undoing now that digital platforms have matured.

_ Facebook lives in a fairly closed and limited search ecosystem. What this means is that its advertising revenue model is also rather limited compared to what Google is trying to build. Facebook has kind of backed itself in a corner with its model while Google has a lot of breathing room. That gives Google an enormous strategic advantage. (It does not, however, mean it will succeed in doing anything with it.)

_ Speaking of search, it is a lot easier for Google to build and scale a social network than it is for Facebook to build and scale a search engine. And moving forward, you kind of need both to win. (Or at least a model that incorporates rich, real-time consumer data and massive reach.)

_ Facebook is the biggest fish in the pond because it is pretty much the only fish in the pond. It’s the default winner. That isn’t a good long term survival strategy. After all, what is the cost of jumping ship? $0. These platforms are free. Social equity can be both moved and rebuilt pretty easily. Can Facebook stand up to a better, cooler alternative?

So basically, Facebook needs to adapt very quickly in order to stay relevant. Size alone won’t carry its dominance forever.


_ Facebook is huge. HUGE. As a social platform, Google+ has an enormous challenge in scaling to size. It has to do it, and it has to do it fast unless it wants to become the Yahoo of social networks. Without scale, Google+ is just a nice little productivity interface, and the only company it will be competing against is Microsoft, not Facebook.

_ Google+ isn’t sexy. Sorry Google+, but you kind of look like crap. Remember that you aren’t just after middle-aged computer nerds, bloggers, social media “gurus” and… well, yeah, what I said: computer nerds. The rest of the world has to want to use you too.

_ Google+ isn’t compelling enough for most people outside of the nerdy middle to want to bother with it yet. Facebook may be annoying, but it’s familiar, everyone is already there, and the effort of having to leave it and start over isn’t being driven by excitement or necessity. (It has to be one or the other in order to enjoy any kind of velocity.) What’s missing in Google+ right now is a compelling reason for people to want to make the effort (and take the risk) of making the switch. For most people around the world, it is missing the compelling “why.” (“It’s new” won’t ever be enough. After 5 months, when the tech bloggers get bored of talking about it and move on to the next Quora or Empire Avenue or Spotify, what will drive an accelerated adoption?)

_ Google Wave and Google Buzz were going to revolutionize the interwebs too. Ooops. Sure, Google does search VERY well, but that doesn’t mean it will do anything else well, even in the pursuit of taking search to the next level.

_ Google and Plus will have to deal with the same privacy concerns Facebook did. Perhaps more so. You don’t have to be the most trustworthy company to win. You just need to be less shady and risky than everyone else. If Google finds itself at the center of enough privacy concern discussions, Facebook might come out the lesser of the two evils. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” is a pretty important element when dealing with an adoption campaign. If Facebook begins to feel threatened, expect this topic to magically surface at regular intervals.

In other words, it could go either way. Facebook and Google+ have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses.

3. Is Google+ really the “Blue Ocean” product some tech writers claim it is?

No. Google+ is simply Google building a better data acquisition mousetrap and advertising delivery pipeline. It is Google’s natural evolution. Let’s quickly look at that in more detail.

Data acquisition: Seeing the majority of search queries isn’t enough. Google also wants to be able to see what Facebook sees, what Twitter sees, what Foursquare sees. Not only that, but it wants to own that data. It wants to be able to understand and profile consumers better based not only on their searches and the content of their emails, but also on the types of conversations they have, on the content they share, who they share it with, where they hang out, etc. This paints a far more granular (see “complete”) model for consumer tastes and behaviors, which allows Google to better target them with ads.

And yes, selling ads is how Google makes a chunk of its money.

Advertising pipeline: In the same light, Google has looked at how much time people spend on Facebook and did the math. If they can build a platform that will attract as many eyeballs as Facebook and for as many minutes (even hours) per day, it will be able to sell a lot more ads.

This isn’t “Blue Ocean.” It’s just the evolution of an existing model.

And yes, if it pulls it off, Google will pretty much own the web.


Everything else you hear about how awesome and cool and functional Google+ is, is basically window dressing. If you want to get to the heart of what Google+ is really about, this is it: Data, eyeballs, behavioral modeling, better targeting, ownership of advertising revenue on the web.

4. What about Microsoft?

Google+ seems to me a bigger threat to Microsoft than to Facebook right now. Think about how Google has gone after Microsoft Office and Outlook. Think about what Chrome is doing to Explorer. Now bring the Google+ interface into the mix and see how Google’s productivity tools offer a compelling, very well integrated alternative to Microsoft’s aging core products. If you have been paying attention these last few years, you have probably watched as Google has been systematically working to erode Microsoft’s market share, one product at a time. Now Google+ promises to give collaboration and productivity a forward boost. What is Microsoft’s answer?

Here’s the irony though: Microsoft’s R&D people are 5-10 years ahead of everyone else in their ideation and prototyping, but the company still refuses to bring its coolest product ideas to market. Google and Apple are where they are today in great part because Microsoft chose to pass on projects it figured it could always get back to someday. Its weakness has never been technical. It also hasn’t been due to a lack of imagination or access to talent. It is purely cultural. If Microsoft is going to be a contender in anything except gaming (XBox) five years from now, the aging giant needs to change its approach to product development, product diversification, and it needs to work faster. And for that, it has to step away from itself and realize that not fully understanding who you are as a brand, as a company – in other words, having a static vision of yourself – kind of gets in the way of being a market leader. I am rooting for Microsoft, but something has to change. Microsoft simply has to start thinking bigger. In a way, Microsoft has to unMicrosoft itself in order to move forward.

5. What about Twitter?

What about Twitter? It is still evolving and growing. Unless Google builds a solid substitute for Twitter that plugs into its little universe and it all scales really well, Twitter will be fine for a little while longer.

6. What about Amazon?

Amazon has a history of partnering with Google (1)(2)(3) and it makes a lot of cash. Amazon is fine with or without Google+, but yeah, if Google+ scales, Amazon won’t be hurting for chewing gum money.

7. What about LinkedIn?

If Facebook didn’t kill LinkedIn, chances are that Google+ won’t either, even if it becomes the Goliath of the interwebs.

8. What else should we know?

For starters, you should know how to get started with Google+. Whether Google+ is the next big thing or the next big flop, these handy videos by Chris Brogan will help you get started with the new platform and find out for yourself what the big deal is about. And if that isn’t enough, check out Mashable’s complete (and very handy) guide. If you love Google+, great. If you don’t like it, great. The world spins on either way.

Beyond that, I caution you against drinking anyone’s koolaid. Shiny object syndrome is a major source of noise on the web these days. Tech bloggers make a good living creating content on their blogs with the purpose of attracting as much traffic as possible in order to make as much advertising revenue as possible (and catch the eye of larger media outlets like Mashable, CNN, etc.) So every tech story they can get their hands on has the potential of earning them stacks of cash. The incentive then isn’t to truly analyze or report (or even wait and see), but to sensationalize every new platform release, from Quora to Google Buzz. There is nothing wrong with it, but just be aware of how the web “thought leadership” and content curation bubbles work. A lot of noise doesn’t mean a whole lot except a feeding frenzy of web traffic and incremental revenue. Right now, Google+ is the big story. A while ago, Google Wave was too. Don’t fall for the link-bait.

No one can predict the success of a digital platform. No one. Google+ could be the coolest thing in the world and yet never go anywhere.

Apps moving the the cloud is nothing new. SaaS (Software as a Service) is nothing new. Digital social networking platforms are nothing new. Integration of productivity and collaboration tools is nothing new. Will Google+ do it better? Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll see. maybe all Google+ will manage to do is inspire another company to build something that blows everyone out of the water and truly revolutionizes the web and computing. Google+ may simply be a milestone in a fast and long technical evolution. A footnote. A catalyst. No matter what happens, Google+ will be replaced by something else eventually. Maybe in 6 months, maybe in 6 years, but this is inevitable. So stay adaptable and flexible, and don’t get too attached.

If you want to leave Facebook and put all of your eggs in the Google+ basket, that’s fine. No one says you can’t try out Google+ and stay on Facebook as well. There is no need to take sides. You can own a Mac and a PC too without tearing a hole into the space-time continuum. You can like tea and coffee, paper and plastic, surf and turf, Lady Gaga and Mozart. Don’t make Google+ (or any social or digital platform) into a religion. Do you think the first people who tasted Pizza stopped eating spaghetti? Did headlines in the newspapers read “Pizza: The Spaghetti killer?” Did people wear buttons on their lapels at social events reading “I’ve switched to Pizza?” A little perspective goes a long way.

If you want to wait 3 or 6 or 12 months before jumping into the Google+ universe, nothing says you can’t. There’s no rush. Ease into it at your own pace. In the meantime, people will still be able to reach you by email, through Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn, or even by sending you good old hand-written postcards – you know, with stamps.

I hope this helped. Cheers.

*          *          *

And if you haven’t picked it up yet, “Social Media ROI: Managing and Measuring Social Media Programs in your Organization” (the quintessential social media operational guide for executives and business managers) is now available worldwide in both print and e-format at fine book sellers everywhere. Read some reviews, sample a free chapter at smroi.net, or if you just want to order it from Amazon, click here.

Read Full Post »