This move is being widely reported as making Facebook more like Twitter.  I think those who are reporting that are missing something — this new feature makes Facebook more like Google+.  On Google’s new social media service, you can add anyone to a circle, which adds their public updates to your news stream regardless of whether you’re in their circles.  Sound familiar?

The question here is whether Facebook is a little concerned about the new competition from Google.  We may never know, as this could be a feature they’ve worked on since before Google+ launched this summer.

Once nice new feature that’s included in the “subscribe” addition is that Facebook is finally allowing us more control over what is shown in our news feed.  Do you have a friend who blathers on about her ex-boyfriend too much?  What about one who is addicted to FarmVille and thus is flooding your wall with updates on her radishes (or some such thing .. I’ve never played the game).  With this new feature, you’ll be able to go to their profile page, click on the subscribe button, and select which type of updates you’d like to receive from that person.  Nifty.

One thing you WILL have to note with this new feature is indicating who you want to see your own status updates.  By default, it’s set to “friends only”, but if there’s something you want the whole world (including non-friend subscribers) to see, you can select “public”.  Broadcast to the world!

The new “subscribe” button is being rolled out gradually across the Facebook universe.  If you don’t see it yet, you will soon.

Previous to the last handful of days, when I discovered something and then submitted it to StumbleUpon with a review, it would receive anywhere from 50 to 200 “views” by StumbleUpon users.  My network was growing on the site, and I was starting to stumble more and more content, including (of course) content that I didn’t write or own.  Essentially, I was doing what I suggested in my previous blog post.  In fact, I was sure that I wasn’t using the site improperly because I received this review of my previous StumbleUpon post from a community manager at the site:

A truthful and well-thought article from someone who understands StumbleUpon and how to properly use it.

Then … the bottom fell out.  I discovered a client article last weekend, and it received only one view.  I figured it was a fluke, because that’s happened before.  Then, I discovered and reviewed a client news release from PRWeb.  It received 12 views, which is well below average.  I still wasn’t worried, though.  The next three articles I discovered, stumbled, and reviewed received only one view each.  This included the post I wrote here about the new Facebook Weekly Page Updates, which was well received elsewhere.  Now I knew something was up.

These five stumbles I mentioned came from four different domains and covered four very different topics.  So, it’s obvious that StumbleUpon isn’t including my articles in their list of sites that can be stumbled, regardless of what they are or where they come from.  I posted a question about it on the StumbleUpon help forums, which received this answer:

Monica, Official Rep

StumbleUpon’s recommendation engine is built on complex algorithms that monitor user activity and connections to determine what users see while Stumbling. StumbleUpon does not disclose specifics about our recommendation engine, but you can see an overview of how it works here: http://www.stumbleupon.com/technology/.

StumbleUpon users may occasionally add their own content to StumbleUpon without running into system restrictions. Ultimately though, StumbleUpon’s Terms of Service prohibit use of user accounts to promote specific domains.

If you wish to promote your content on StumbleUpon (if most of your discoveries come from the same domain or a limited number of domains), you may do so with StumbleUpon Advertising: www.stumbleupon.com/ads. StumbleUpon Advertiser accounts allow you to actively and legitimately promote a site to a targeted audience within our community.

Hope this helped.

This is pretty much the answer I expected, because this is the answer they give anyone who questions why their service isn’t working for them.  I understand StumbleUpon’s desire to keep their site from being spammed, but it appears they’re willing to shut out users who are submitting quality content from different domains that isn’t selling anything or even showing advertisements.  Meanwhile, if you go to their site or use your StumbleUpon toolbar to stumble randomly, you’ll find a lot of useless junk. Yes, I was promoting my content and my client’s content.  Imagine how quiet and boring other social media sites would be if they shut out people for doing that.

So … what now?  I’ll probably stumble and review this post, and that will be it.  If you have a one-off blog post that you want to submit there, you’ll likely receive some views, but woe onto you if you submit the same domain to StumbleUpon more than their undisclosed limit.  They’re sticklers over there, I tell ya.

Here is this week’s summary for the Facebook Page: Sheltering Arms Physical Rehabilitation

+8 Fans this week (188 total Fans)

6 Wall Posts, Comments, and Likes this week (5 last week)

130 Visits to your page this week (101 Visits last week)

It gave similar stats for the fan pages for SleepBetter, EndGame PR, FightSMA, and all of the others I administer or co-administer.

I get a LOT of junk emails from social networking sites.  It’s nice to get one that, while unsolicited, is extremely useful to me!

The article, Baby Boomers and Seniors Are Flocking to Facebook, has some great stats about the growth of the number of Americans 44+ on Facebook.

According to Deloitte data, 2009 was the year that social media bloomed for Baby Boomers, with nearly 47% of them actively maintaining a profile on the social web, which is up 15% from 2008. Further driving home that 2009 was the year of the social BB is the fact that from 2007 to 2008 there was barely a measurable change — just 1% — in that demographic’s adoption of social media.

For another quirky finding, take a look at the percentage of “Matures” — individuals between the ages of 63 and 75 — who use Twitter regularly. Seventeen percent is actually quite high when you compare it with the percentages of the other demographic groups. Also of note is that nearly all the Senior social media users (90%) have picked up Facebook as a new hobby.

Fact is, Facebook is actually BETTER for people who are older than those who are 21 or 22-years-old.  Why?  Let’s take a look…

• Facebook is fantastic for sharing pictures of kids and grandkids.  What do people love to do more than show off pictures of kids and grandkids?  I say “not much”.  People 44+ are more likely to have kids and grandkids than 20-somethings.  The 21 and 22-year-olds only have pictures of parties to show off, and sometimes it’s best to keep those to yourself until you’re 44.
• People who are 44+ have had plenty of time to get over grudges with people from high school, and are interested in reconnecting.  In fact, by that age they’re probably interested in connecting with anyone from their hometown, particularly if they don’t live there anymore.  The 21 and 22-year-olds still have fresh wounds and grudges are are still very much active.
• People who are 44+ simply have more time on their hands.  If you’re 21 or 22, you’re still going out at night, perhaps dating or hanging out with friends.  Most people who are older than 44 are pretty much done with that.
• There are more adults in the U.S. who are older than 44+ than any other age group.  And, that age group has more of the wealth.  What they want … they take.

I’m not quite to the 44+ age group, but I can see it from where I am.  I us “old folks” should just declare that we own Facebook.  Those kids can keep texting.  We don’t want it.

Cliche’?

Sure.

True?

Absolutely.

Back in February, users argued with Facebook so much over who owns the material they post on the social networking site, the site was forced to amend the privacy settings it had just changed.  That change in privacy settings probably didn’t slow down Facebook’s exponential growth, but it left a lot of users with a bad taste in their mouths.

Now, it sounds like we’re having another round of issues with Facebook over privacy.  Recently, the site changed its privacy settings again, and asked all users to review them.  The site made recommendations on what settings users should utilize, and some are suggesting that if users take those recommendations, their personal information (pictures, videos, status updates, etc.) will be LESS private than before.  For an example of some of the reactions from the web, we go to Jason Calacanis, who suggests the company has turned evil:

Facebook proved again this week that they are either the most unethical or clueless internet company in the world. An amazing accomplishment since Facebook is also one of the most promising, and certainly fastest growing, internet companies of all time. Perhaps I’m being hyperbolic (who me?), or maybe they are a little of both, but the fact remains they screw up on important issues almost as if it’s a “best practice” to do so.

More negative reaction, this time from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Although sold as a “privacy” revamp, Facebook’s new changes are obviously intended to get people to open up even more of their Facebook data to the public. The privacy “transition tool” that guides users through the configuration will “recommend” — preselect by default — the setting to share the content they post to Facebook, such as status messages and wall posts, with everyone on the Internet

One suggestion is that Facebook wants more of this material indexed by its own search engine, as well as by Google, which will draw even more users to the already massively colossal social networking site.

I’m not going to begin to guess at Facebook’s motives for this change.  I will, however, speak to their execution.  It was done very, very poorly.  I walked myself the other day through the changes, and made sure everything stayed the way I originally had it set, because I knew that pictures of my kids, vacations, etc. were protected from viewing by everyone except my friends.  What Facebook should have done was give a clear explanation of what each user’s current settings meant, and what Facebook’s recommendations would change.  They didn’t really do this, or if they did you had to go digging a little for it.

Truly, it seems more people are losing trust in Facebook.  The minute that happens, you can expect to see more people doing what Dan Gilmor did.  He deleted his account.

Hat tip to Ragan’s PR Daily Newsfeed, which helped me with the research for this post.

Regardless of whether the product makes sense or anyone will buy it, I think it’s an interesting statement on how much Twitter is weaving itself into our lives.  Have you ever seen a Facebook-only device?  Yeah … me neither.

The first thing you’ll notice (click the image for a larger view) is that the look and layout are now much more in line with Fan Pages and individual profiles.  One obvious unique addition is organization information in the left sidebar, above information about group members.

So, the first question I asked myself after hearing of this redesign is, “Are groups now better than Fan Pages for businesses?”  For the answer, lets look at the pros and cons of each…

Groups have always had one huge benefit over pages: You can send a message through Facebook to every member of the group at once.  You’ve never been able to do this with a Fan Page.  If you are using Facebook to promote a business or other organization, it’s a great way to contact people and perhaps offer a coupon or other special benefit to members of your group.  It can help you create something along the lines of a “special customers” club.

The benefit that Fan Pages have had over groups is that when you post something on your Fan Page, it shows up in your fans’ news feed.  This is great for promoting your company, as the posts show up in the feed alongside status updates, pictures, and videos posted by friends of your fans.  This obviously makes your news more likely to be seen.   The problem with groups has been the lack of this feature, which made your news invisible to anyone who didn’t actually visit the group page.  This has changed somewhat with the new group redesign, as Facebook has introduced a somewhat neutered version of this feature.  Facebook explained how it works in their blog on Monday…

To ensure that you get the most interesting and relevant content from groups you’ve joined, you only will see stories [in your news feed] when one of your friends posts within a group rather than when all members post. For example, you now will see a story when your friend uploads photos from a recent party at your high school alumni group or when one of your friends posts a message on the Wall of your pick-up soccer group saying that there is a special game this week.

So what does this all mean?  If you already have a Fan Page or a group and have a decent number of fans or group members … keep the status quo.  I know from experience that it’s VERY hard to get people to move from a Fan Page to a group, or vice versa.  There’s no way to pick them up and move them all at once.  They have to do it themselves, and it’s like herding ferrets.  Until this redesign I would have recommended that any organization move from a group to a Fan Page, but it’s no longer a clear cut decision.

If you don’t currently have a group or a Fan Page, or are thinking of making a change, you have a decision to make about how you plan to use Facebook.  If you’ll be primarily posting news about your company and perhaps having discussions with your customers, then a Fan Page is the way to go.  If you’re close with your customers (i.e. you’re Facebook friends with many of them) and need a way to message all of them at once (perhaps to send a coupon) then consider starting a group.

One more note: Become a “fan” of EndGame PR on Facebook!

Somewhere in June [...] Twitter stopped growing, at least according to Compete. The same thing happened to Facebook (Facebook) at the exact same time; at first we’ve attributed the traffic numbers to the summer slumber, but now that Compete’s numbers for September are out, there’s no doubt that both Facebook and Twitter are no longer growing, at least in the eyes of the (admittedly US-centric) Compete.

Be sure to click over to the article, and check out the charts.  They paint the picture pretty well.

So, what does this mean exactly?  That’s unknown at this point, but there are several possibilities.  One is that it’s a blip on the growth chart.  That’s unlikely, as it’s a three month slowdown.  Another possibility is that it’s due to summer and vacations.  Unlikely also, since the slowdown (or even reversal) extends into September.

The final (and I think most likely) possible explanation is that we’re reaching the saturation point (at least in the U.S.) for social networking.  Most of the people who were going to join … have joined.

When you think about it, the saturation theory makes sense.  I frequently teach classes and lead workshops on how business owners can use social media and social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter.  I always ask how many in the room use each site, to get an idea of how much explanation will be needed.  Generally, about 75-95% in the room use Facebook.  How many more are really going to sign up?  No product is ever going to have 100% penetration, even within its target demographic.  For example, there are plenty of people who don’t use email much or at all, even though it’s been an accepted business tool for more than 10 years.

My informal polls usually show 25-50% of the room using Twitter.  There’s obviously a lot of room for expansion, but will Twitter ever get significantly larger?  The site concept isn’t as easy to “get” as Facebook, and many people don’t like condensing their thoughts into 140 characters or less.  Many people will never be comfortable on Twitter.

So, if the saturation theory is correct … what’s next for these sites?  For Facebook, there aren’t many worries.  The company is profitable and 300-million users is nothing to scoff at.  For Twitter, the news isn’t as good.  The company is not making a single dime of its own money, despite their recent move to start posting ads on the site and recent infusions of venture funding.

While Twitter’s user base (estimated at 13 to 15-million) is quite healthy, if it stops growing, bad things could happen.  The most damaging scenario could be that a new competitor seeps in, starts growing, and becomes the “next big thing”.  Remember FriendFeed?  It was a big dog on the block once upon a time.  Then, Facebook came along.  Now, Facebook owns FriendFeed.

If you want to do it the easy way, Neville Hobson created a list on TweepML.  You can follow each of the 100 on Valeria’s list by clicking one button!  Follow this link: http://tweepml.org/PR-100/

Or, if you’re a fan of charts like I am (statistics is the only type of math I’ve ever understood), you’ll find this one interesting.  Which country do you suppose has the largest percentage of its population on Facebook?  Hint: It’s not the United States.

Techcrunch has made these images and others available here.  Take a look and find the answer to the question, “What country has the third highest number of Facebook users, after the U.S. and U.K.?”  I’m not ashamed to admit it … I was surprised when I found out.

I must admit that while I’m a Twitterjunkie, I didn’t notice it too much.  I was producing a podcast and working on a client website, so I wouldn’t have been Tweeting anyhow.  I do know at least one colleague (jokingly) said that without Twitter, she’d lost her will to live.

More on the outage from the Associated Press:
Hackers attack Twitter, Facebook also slows down

How did you handle your lack of Twitter?  Were you more productive?  Were you less productive due to the cold sweats and nausea?

The goal with this project was to create a WordPress blog that matched the look and feel of their existing website as much as possible.  This sounds easy, but it usually isn’t.  A small screen shot of the blog is to the left.  Check out the actual Sheltering Arms Blog here.

Be sure to check back and/or subscribe, as we’ll be posting news about advancements in physical rehabilitation, success stories from Sheltering Arms, and news about the 120-year-old organization itself.

This is just the latest move in the social media strategy that EndGame PR has helped create for Sheltering Arms.  We’ve already launched a Facebook page that is nearing the 100 “fan” mark.  Future tactics may include a podcast series and a presence on Twitter.  Stay tuned!

The class will cover how REALTORS® can use Facebook and Twitter to find new clients, specifically those first time home buyers.  Social networking is showing immense growth among users who are more than 30 years old, but a large percentage of the users are still 20-somethings, an age group that is most likely to fall into that “first time home buyer” category.

Click here to download a PDF flyer about the class!

I’m very excited about this seminar, as REALTORS® are a natural fit for social networking. They’re salespeople, which means the successful ones have a lot of personality and know how to talk with people, which, after all, is what social networking is all about!

The seminar is on Wednesday, June 24 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at RAR’s Three Chopt Road location, and is open to everyone.  The cost is $25, or $10 for RAR members.  If you’re able to attend, please stop me afterward to say “hi!”

Registration and directions can be found on the TRES website (which I built) by clicking here!

Blatantly promotional note: If you’re interested in setting up a seminar for your employees or organization, please contact me! I’ve presented to numerous associations and other audiences on how businesses (non-profit and for profit) can utilize media relations, social media, and social networking.  I’d love to talk with you about what I can teach your group!

Here’s a portion of the announcement:

We’ve recently been targeted by spammers who are using our tool solely as a means to affect their Google rank, which is simply not in the best interest of our users, especially our paid subscribers. While it’s been a great asset for our users, it’s simply not going to work if this content goes unregulated. We’re also going to step up our SMR and brand authentication efforts to maintain the validity of content hitting our feeds – even for paid subscribers.

Releases from those who subscribe, and pay $35 per month, will continue to have releases streamed to Google News.

I realize that nothing stays free on the Interwebs for long these days, but PitchEngine was an outstanding free way to create and make available attractive social media releases.  Now, because the management of the site wasn’t able to police submissions properly, no one gets to take full advantage unless they pay.

I’ve already seen on Twitter a bit of a backlash to the decision, and some support of it.  The response from one of PitchEngine’s site builders to the critics has been to say the spammers are to blame, and that the move adds to the value of the paid service.

Spammers are not going away and they don’t care what you think, so if you blame them for anything, you’re wasting your breath.  They’re like the common cold in that way.  And, as with the common cold, taking a few precautions will help reduce the chance of  “infection”.  Changing the way you do everything seems a bit extreme.

Note: I’ve updated my ongoing Review of Online News Release Sites to reflect this change in policy.

The SMCRVA held its inaugural event earlier this evening.  The event sold out, to the tune of 130 or so people, as you can see from the (admittedly blurry) cell phone picture I took of the sea of humanity.  The room was absolutely buzzing.  Early indications are that this is going to be a successful and long-lasting group, and I thank the organizers for their hard work in piecing it together.

If you’re interested in reading some of the fun and at times weird Tweets that came out of Morton’s tonight, search #SMCRVA on Twitter.  It’s worth it … I promise you!