A ghostly voice:

Consumer privacy issues are a “red herring.” — “‘You have zero privacy anyway,’ Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company’s new Jini technology. Get over it.’”

That was in 1999.

Subsquently…. resultingly….. These privacy conversations kill me. If one wishes for privacy, one shouldn’t leave the house, nor ever go online.

It is completely within the best interests of a hotel to protect a guest’s privacy… we go to significant lengths to do so. To suggest otherwise is misinformed and ignorant.  It is the hallmark of our success, among other things.

This issue isn’t about a hotel’s sensitivity to privacy. The issue is our current preoccupation with the concept of privacy. No one has any idea what “privacy” means. We have relative freedom, and our lives are relatively unobstructed and we are able to do as we please. But leaving the house – you are subjected to the largest shift in communication history, coupled with modern technological achievements that have, together, completely negated the concept of privacy. It doesn’t exist anymore. In fact… younger generations shed it as a by-product of the lifestyle they seek… a reminder that, shortly, it simply isn’t going to be an issue for people that will be controlling the world soon. How can we really expect any privacy, anyway?

It’s a fun conversation about a word few people really understand…. but whether or not we need to be sensitive (hotels, in fact, are sensitive) is moot. The point is that privacy is ending, and to some extent we are willfully giving it up as a biproduct of being able to access these amazing tools of the internet age.

Think about apps…. how much did you think about all the permissions you granted those people to access your app for free? Sorry to say, that app isn’t free:  you are releasing your privacy as payment. It’s happening at an increasing rate, and it’s soon going to be an arcane conversation for future pondering. It really makes me laugh that these people are on Facebook, posting constant information, and worried about privacy. They worry some professional acquaintance will see something off color, when they have completely given their entire lives worth of information to facebook…. talk about a crisis of perception.

Hello Nero, your fiddle is lovely. I think it’s a lyre, but history is vague. Also, Rome is burning.

Facebook isn’t free. Privacy doesn’t exist there… there’s equity in your information. Why else would it be valued at 50B? So we give up privacy constantly. In exchange for ESP like connection to friends and supercomputer like access to facts and answers…. I give up much, happily.

When the concept of privacy was far more quaint.

But if I can go to a website and spend $30 and know someone’s address, info, etc… I just can’t imagine anyone really taking privacy seriously. Mcnealy was right in 1999. It’s the nature of our culture cannibalizing itself. It’s not a hotel that people have to worry about.

It’s not big brother. It’s us. We are what we fear. Big Brother is every single one of us with a camera and being in the right place at the right time. What reasonable expectation of privacy would one have when everyone is connected to a camera that immediately uploads online? Our police cameras can’t compete with the aggregate real world social net that is taking down people, and corporations, and governments and nations.

Hotels, arguably, are among the most sensitive organizations in the world when it comes to respecting all levels of it’s guest’s / patron’s privacy. It’s not our responsibility, however, to be blamed for the growing pains involved with the greatest shift in human communication’s history.  Unfortunately, until we resolve these issues…. everyone will grimly fantasize about being important enough to be stalked. It’s not that I am that cynical, it’s just that I know we may not be *that* interesting.

It's not big brother, it's us - the sea of anonymous watchers.

Until we realize this, we impede the advancement of a more ethical, and humane, human population.  I am sorry your petty, arrogant privacies feel threatened.  I already mentioned, unfortunately, that in the grand scheme of things… none of us really matter. In light of that, let’s celebrate our connections and stop babbling about meaningless issues of ego.  Let’s advance….  see you there.  Until then, you are stuck arguing about lost concepts from vestiges past.  Evolve.

Depending on how this one goes, I think this is my second to last or last post *ever* haranguing on, or thinking this deeply about, Facebook.  Blue in the Face makes one look crazy, especially if no one is listening… and beyond the simple fact that I may be wrong, and happily eat humble crow as I become more aware….. I do see some meaningful interaction on Facebook.  It takes some time, and for me it took *opening* my network.  This concept of a “closed” network seems bizarre to me, and it limited real, meaningful interaction, the likes of which I remember from IRC or topical boards.

You have seen me talk about this in regards to Hospitality Brand’s respective Facebook Pages, and the lack of real interaction… even when they are done well. When it comes down to it, there are some problems with the way Facebook Pages work.  This post is, to some degree, a slapdash missive of a rebuttal to this post about the Top Ten Facebook Brand Pages.  There are 100′s of those “top 10″ posts, but it’s a good post with some interesting thoughts… and they are the perfect pages to “pick apart”, so to speak.  I want to ask some questions (that I don’t have any answers to) that result from crunching interaction numbers, informally, as well as gauge what it means to have a “fan”.  Hopefully it sparks conversation?  I also want to delve into why there are real challenges for creating that meaningful interaction Facebook Pages.

Before we start looking at the nature of these brand page interactions, we need a little background on what Facebook is. First, Facebook’s narcissism problem is duly noted, and it means that Facebook users will wear a brand Page like a pair of Chanel glasses or Dolce purse.  In the Facebook universe, where interaction is “me” first, the network later, much (not all) of brand interaction is selfish, opportunistic, and all for show.  It isn’t at the brand’s convenience (nor should we expect consumers to act like that), so much as being an emblem for the consumer, and not something they expect to have a real relationship with.  In fact, I talk passionately about how bizarre “hiding streams” is within Facebook, and how that effects the way we post, the attention we lost, and the importance of curating it.  For example, the above “top brand pages”, while researching this article, had this post, right by the brand name:

I think it might suggest, based off the “Top Ten Brand Pages” article, that we need to look at how we interact with our communities.  It’s only one example, but at least they said something.  If stats are right, 70-90% of other people didn’t say a word and just hid their wall posts from view, forevermore. Another reason I won’t be posting much more about this Facebook nonsense: I sound like a broken record, stuck in a rare groove.  But as I have said before…. People are just understanding the crisis of perception in social media: it’s not about the “me”. It is about everyone else. In general, no one gives a hoot about your photos of dinner, your baby, your vacation (not to be dour; just grumpy hyperbole to pilot an idea into the harbor).  It makes people look arrogant and self absorbed – back to the narcissism study.  Of course, there are *many* *many* Facebook users that are *not* like that, and you are probably one of them.

Those who spend time on the meta level of social tech (IE not the ones who respond, when you are looking for a conversation, with “internetz iz serious bidness”) are definitely not the ones passively or flippantly interacting, nor the 70% who are simply “lurkers” or people that do not actually interact.  That data is from Forrester’s Groundswell, a book I suggest you pick up.  This recent article talks about 90% non participants who exist to consume information, and links to this article has data on the idea that 90% lurk. As I mentioned in a previous post, “lurkers – we know you are out there eating our posts” Social media works best when it is about EVERYONE else… real communication, real collaboration.  For example, you should be able to view this thread from my profile.  Instead of talking about me, I asked what they did. There wasn’t just *more* interaction, but it was personal, meaningful, and more robust than one off comments on viral videos like “lol” or “That’s great”.

The “Like” button is an activity and concept that I can wrap my head around, but it becomes incredibly frustrating when you realize Facebook’s attempt to hook itself into the framework of the internet leads to the single most passive social interaction that has ever existed, and that’s going to be an issue for brands and pages.  At least, it might make us take stock about what we really know about Page usage, and if it’s better to sit silently, curate attention, and post only when vital.  Allow people the pleasure of brand advocacy, and comment and follow up when necessary…. but it may be that our forced excitement and expectation in using these tools is putting off our consumers. If everyone focused on the network, instead of, naturally, being more self interested… think of the level of real interaction that would create between people, brands, and one another?

Herein lies an obvious problem, of whether it is my place to even suggest that people should change their underlying instincts or natural patterns in how they interact.  In fact, I could be trying to yoke a powerfully ingrained genetic compulsion.

One person is simply a node… and nothing else. If Oprah or Ashton dropped from Twitter, all that would happen is that the network map would fill itself. People do not matter… it’s the network that matters. It’s about the multiple nodes, weak ties, and flow of ideas and communication…. and one node could disappear without a blip. Cancel your facebook account and see how much it actually effects your network.  An important issue is that, if you start hiding streams in Facebook, in my opinion, it may make the network unstable, or at least, less meaningful.  Weak ties are less obvious to the network, and this PDF (following link autodownloads) of Granovetter’s “Strength of Weak Ties” article has some pretty amazing conjecture about them being markedly important in regards to Network Science. It’s a big problem even judging how many eyes on your page.

As soon as people realize this, we will start using social tools in a more intelligent and organized way.  To defer potential conceit on my part, I want to remind anyone reading this that you are likely ahead of the curve as well, and I am unabashed in suggesting that users need to mature somewhat before these tools can reach their potential.  The Read Write Web login debacle might be proffered forth, yet again, as evidence of Facebook, or Google, users’ relative dimness as to how to use the internet.  Of course, the point can be said is that it’s Google and/or Facebook’s fault because they need to be able to explain this stuff to users.

These social conversation tools are the single biggest shift in human communication in history, and people are taking photos of amuse bouche or retouching a vacation shot to make other people jealous…. the same other people who aren’t actually looking at another person’s page because they are quite busy acting like a star on their own page, hoping people notice *them*.  Facebook’s potential competitor from Google is tentatively named “ME” – well played Google. Is that deliberate, guys?

I wouldn’t spend my time on this, but I am somewhat irked that everyone has shrugged their shoulders and said, “I guess Facebook is as good as this will get,” and are, again, allowing FB to hook itself into the framework of the internet.  It’s a difficult proposition for me.  It’s quickly becoming bigger than a monopoly (a linked article that comments on the fact that the internet is *incredibly* well linked, interactive, and stable *outside* of Facebook).  If Facebook becomes the internet, some form of public utility that is not removable from the architecture of the internet, that is a big problem. It stifles creativity, and competition cannot exist in an uneven market like this.  Even with a smattering of bungled launches or app experiments that have gone viral (like Wave), Google needs to knock it out of the park with the competitor.  I am not so sure someone is in the position to really compete.

I have some ideas for Google Me… maybe it’s simply my own network I am talking about.  Could you imagine a social network based off of proximite geo-community, hyperlocality, and topical interests…. rather than some wholly arbitrary closed network that allows you to conntect to 20 year dead contacts that are as arbitrary as having a locker near them in grammar school?  If anyone wants to help build it, inquire within.  I sure as hell can imagine it. =) But the real point isn’t this complex new science of networking, nor is it the immediate issues with the existence of Facebook. It’s the existing interaction and community that is really happening around these brands.

Let’s look at Jones Sodas first, since we unfairly took a one in a million negative comment that I barely caught upon their profile.

So in this one snapshot (which is hardly enough to make this a proper study) – the first post has .0001003 / .01003%  likes, and .0000522 / .00522% comments.  What is a normal impression, or what is expected of 90% non contributors?  The second post has .0003772 / .03772% likes, and .0001164 / .01164% comments. I only include the percentages, because there is a HUGE difference between .037% interaction vs how people sometimes look at a number that small..contes. 3.72%.  It’s the former, and that’s tiny.

At the time of my post, Redbull has 7,957,179 fans. Pardon me for not having it in this picture.  That’s about the population of London or Chicago.  The two interactions showing have interaction rates (this is not even a standardized metric, by any means.. but it illustrates a strong point) as follows:  #1 = .0003777 / .03777% “likes” and .0000269 / .00269% commented.  #2 (sex sells) =  .0005072 ‘likes” and .0000387 / .00387% commented.

I was going to go through this for the entire list of 10, but you may understand my point (that I am, sloppily, beating into the ground).  I will do one more, as I already did Burt Bee’s interaction info on Twitter, as well.

At the time of posting 9,084,488 people “liked” the Oreo fanpage.  In the above, .0005586 / .05586% liked (a little more than one twentieth of one percent or 1/20%) and .0003344 / .03344% commented, the second posting was .0001671 / .01671% liked and .0000216 / .00216% commented.

I think you get the point…. even the most successful brand pages are creating interaction and real community involvement that is such a small percentage of their supposed community, we have to ask how this actually works?

I understand it’s a distribution channel, and you need to be available to guests and consumers that wish to interact with you on their own terms in their own comfort zones…. but numbers this small are almost impossible to fathom.  The way people are prostelytized by brands, I, personally, would imagine interaction levels much higher… at least into whole percentage points.  Is this Facebook’s fault?  Is this something greater involving the crisis of perception in social media?

More questions: Is having a contest that garners fans on your page a good measure of a potential consumer?  Are you attracting consumers that like contests, or consumers focused on the quality of your brand?  Is gaining a fan more important than interaction and community?  When you discount on a Facebook page, are you giving back money to a branded consumer that was already prepared to pay full price? These numbers are similar across the board, and I see endless smaller brand or hotel pages that don’t have a powerhouse of a community to energize.  Should we spend our time on this?  Should we spend our time on this …. *yet*?

Henry Harteveldt’s sage wisdom was so simple and zen:  ”Give it time.”

The Twilight Fan Page on Facebook has over 12 million fans… that’s the population of Calcutta or Los Angeles.  But, interaction levels are about the same, as they are for all major brands.  Crunch the numbers yourself, it’s fairly easy.

I am not claiming this to be a bona fide metric, but it begs some very important conversation.  Is this simply a wiki page for your brand advocate’s to show off their incessant narcissism – more about how you make them look & feel, rather than wanting a connection to a community?  If that’s the case, how much energy and time (and labor dollars) does a hotel invest on this brand advocacy versus legitimate conversation?

My main question is this: (as I sit and panic, and quandry, and furrow my brow):

Are numbers this small to be expected?

In the world of hard to track impressions and marketing measurements that dp provided a modicum of data and guidance (however skeptical I always am) – some people have said, “so what, who cares, it’s to be expected”.  But numbers *THAT* small?  Is that part of the Pareto Efficiency, or does the principle come into play (if you believe in that)? I am not saying you shouldn’t be on Facebook with a page, but what are we trying to do? This isn’t meant to be about misery or confusion, but I would quite like to see a conversation struck up about this.

What do you think?  I would love to know!

ED Note: A couple new articles in the past few days.

70% of FB users that have “liked” your page do *not* consider that permission to market to them.  Hey… I am on your side. That’s just idiotic.

And there are other “virtual crumedgeons” out there… fairly intelligent ones. In that link, the Economist reviews Jarod Lanier’s new book “You are not a Gadget”.

It’s nice to know that the 100% solar, 100% off grid Wilbur Hot Springs has seen this market opening up for some time… the unplugging escapists.  They highlight a number of fascinating New York Times articles here, and make a case for backing off a bit. Your brain on computers, indeed. See you at Wilbur.  (Full disclosure – I put that piece together for them).

Ed Note (7th Sept 2010):

Chris Brogan’s “The Coming Social Crash” article is interesting… about the impending mass step back from all these overwhelming tools.

But I stumbled on this today, and thought it was far too relevant to not attach.  I love the analogy of the story of social networking… but “Have we lost the plot in social networking?”  Some of the questions raised in that article are profound.  Can you really be #1 simply because you *are* #1?  How long is that model going to work for them?

It isn’t right not to have access to free phone tech for a product, but it is the way modern business is happening. Telephony has altered greatly (understatement) in the last two decades…and property level we are still calling them “PBX”. What’s more is that the IT guys at hotels are well versed enough to know just to ignore it.  I have seen one or two try to explain.. “Well the PBX doesn’t really exist anymore”, the GM will point to the operator, and then the IT guy capitulates with a shrug.

We hotels used to gouge consumers for phone calls because they had no choice, and it was a BRILLIANT revenue stream. Then came calling cards, and hotels started losing lots of revenue… and per our typical furrowed brow, it took us a couple years to figure out why. Even dial-up modems for AOL and prodigy services were a complexity to us… which is why we started charging people to call out to 800 numbers. Of course this garnered more distrust from guests about our call accounting, but it also got the enraged guest at the desk who had left AOL connected for 3 days and owed the hotel $5545 for a 2910 minute phone call to an 800 number.  I had at least 3 of those that I can remember… and those people were all completely, and totally, hysterical.  Not the funny kind, either.

By the time we admitted to ourselves that the revenue stream was lost and started charging enough simply to cover costs… hotel guests had already decided to never trust in-room phones ever again. Calling cards were used almost exclusively, and guests now have cell phones that simply makes in room telephones, for all extensive purposes… obsolete. This has been patently obvious in the last 5 years…. in-room phones are nothing more than an intercom now, which is why telephony solution providers are trying to make them into a marketing gimmick with big LCD colour touch screens, etc. What’s more is that anyone silly enough to install payphones on property has them regularly taken back out within 3-5 months because it simply isn’t profitable for the companies to maintain them.

By the way – that might be my only professional advice in this post, along side the historical ramble…. stay away from that “slick” nonsense.  LCD screen phones are nothing more than an annoyingly bright & pricey business card for in house outlets where guests are already likely to contribute incremental revenue. These phones are a gimmick, and they are part of the technological in-between period of telephony companies trying to generate need and create a new niche for them while everything swirls up in the air.  These “hubs” will become something incredibly powerful, and useful… but the new tech coupled with cost and lack of dynamic functionality (beyond being flashy) makes them a poor investment for the time being.  For now, think of in-room guest phones as IP “intercoms” for your next project, and you will save a lot of money. Heck… you may start having guests order room service online before calling on the room phone…or they may plan travel without even considering a voice call – like GPS enabled hotel booking apps, or basically just making an app to make every department available by PDA as seen at the Malibu Beach Inn. Even Choice Hotels has an incredible mobile app that not only sells their brand, but it enables an entire community of brand endorsers.

So in this panic of the phone industry changing, everyone has been hit… robots handle call volumes of humans, 800 numbers are incredibly expensive, and customer service has tanked in general because of it. In 20 years we went from fully staffed calling centers with live operators to a computer voice that handles the volume of 20 employees’ worth of labour. With cell phones all but destroying traditional landlines, they have also made the 800 number obsolete. When it is used, it is strictly for high end marketing, because no one else can afford it. It usually only goes to the departments that generate revenue (SALES) and the guys doing all the real work have the fun of not having one, then fielding complaints from already unhappy consumers that have just been further inconvenienced.

As we continue forward, I think the traditional phone will die, but rise a bit like a Pheonix – the same thing existing in a different form.  It will not only take on the traditional rolls, but also a hotel intercom, then soon to be an internet hub… and slowly integrating with other guest room controls and being not unlike the new Verizon Hub, which demonstrates that you can have a phone that is highly adaptable and functional.  Think of it as the Looney Tune cartoon “House of the Future” where panels & buttons on the wall call outside, surf the web, program the house settings, washes, cools, power management, etc.  The only thing is that we are a long way off from that kind of functionality…. and for now spend as little as possible on both ends.  As for 800 numbers, if the department’s revenue can’t cover it without impacting business, it simply isn’t a wise choice.

In the future, however, someone in your hotel will also have grown up playing around with making apps, and you will have your first person on staff managing the 2.0 of your hotel.  I like to think this would be a salaried position from a truly innovative management company, but I am aware this starts with property level people engaged with the brand that have extra time and know how.  As for the salaried position, we shall see.  I know we are all looking down the road at Concierge 2.o, and few of us might have thought that could be possible. Now with IP, Google Voice, and even browser enabled chat sessions… there is an exciting future of unending real time communication with brand advocates (returning guests) and potential clients.

These conversations about archaic forms of communication will fall to the wayside during the tremendous fervour for hotels’ future comm abilities, where we will have to adopt a more pro-active and less wary view of technology, so the hospitality industry can be carried forward by technology and the advent of 2.0 – at the intersection of commerce and the community that is selling your brand.

As for Ryan Air… they not only wouldn’t care… I doubt they would find this anything but funny. This isn’t about a PR machine… Ryan Air’s PR is a train wreck whether this account existed or not. It’s there style, and it is to be expected. The majority of research I unearthed from the past 48 hours suggested this was a brilliant PR stunt by Ryan Air. That, even to me, is hard to swallow.

It is comforting to know, for some, that if it wasn’t this specific spoof account, it would have been something else. The new marketing model allows much more consumer control than expected, to the point of potentially (momentarily) derailing a brand with one spoof account…

There are very few brands that are self aware or playful enough to calmly approach this situation. Think about how *any* other brand would have reacted to this? It would have been in grand fashion, and this would have splashed across the world’s papers in regards to PR, etc. This didn’t show up anywhere because, frankly, Ryan Air knows not to take itself, or social media, or life… too seriously.

That being said, I am sure the faux account holder was likely aware that the immediate to long term ramifications to the brand were slight if anything at all. That person, however, might not have realized how much a funny idea would unexpectedly take off.

This is simply satire that has crossed into the business realm. Not all comedy has a point, but much of it works on different levels than one might first notice.

Performance art takes many forms…. and *this* conversation on this page might be exactly where the “lunatic blogger” was going.. eh?

In the future some poor, innocent brand (possibly not having the same reflection as Ryan Air) will be hijacked (no pun intended) by a disgruntled client that intelligently lures people into thinking a blog, account, etc with social media is real. When it happens, it will be nowhere near as overt or obvious. But it will be a disaster.

As of now, Twitter has no real verification process, nor do “user generate review” sites. If you take a quick peek at TripAdvisor, any single human being can reply as management on behalf of an entire property, let alone slander hotels at casual whim. Almost any social site has this conundrum: “How to create verification or confirm validity of an account or review.” Some don’t care yet, but when the integrity and ethics of a site is constantly brought to attention (look at yelp in the past few weeks) they will soon take notice.

There is a transparency and accountability problem in social media. A huge one. Whether it is a fake celebrity account founded by a bored blogger, or a false review written by an angry merchant…. social media might have to reflect past it’s hipster social clubs and office fridges full of beer, and start thinking about how their product effects the world of brands, and how to start making headway with repairing the relationship that is starting to make brands weary.

I for one am thrilled to see the previous marketing paradigm shifting… with consumers having ultimate control instead of corporations splashing money at marketing campaigns or for PR spinning on damage. The message is no longer in control, and the brand is only as valid as the ethos and intent behind it. If you aren’t an ethical brand that someone identifies with and endorses, you are completely and totally irrelevant.

I assume the original dork that started this was simply having fun, but like much of social media…. what started as a fun idea turned into real business.

Hopefully something like this will start more conversations in regards to the lack of accountability in social media, and the dangerous way it might erode the trust of both users and brands.

That’s it. I wouldn’t mind ending with something witty or with some flare, but I am still sad to see @ryanaironline get booted so quick! whatever the case sorry to be some random interloper! I just found it all so interesting!

@uncleFishbits aka @hhotelconsult (yeah a personal and business account… everyone does it.  I worry about transparency so often I feel it might be necessary to mention forthrightly so you don’t think I am duplicitious)

Yelp definitely effects us… but how?  Are any of you innkeepers, B&B owners, operators, managers, managing groups using yelp, or a paying advertiser on the site??  I would love to hear all your stories… good and bad.

I will start with mine:

You know I am highly skeptical of social media, and I am markedly perturbed at the style of leadership and business management from the people in charge.  But what you don’t know is this:

I am a 1100+ reviewer on yelp.  I had been using it since it’s earlier startup days, and it just sort of became a food blog for me.  There was a momentary ethical crisis when I started working for businesses that exist on yelp, so I pulled back all hotel related reviews or any reviews that may have had a conflict of interest.  I comport myself of the highest ethics on the site.  I am also one of their biggest critics, and have not endeared myself to the site as a content generator.  But I love it, and think it is a fun way for me to relive experiences, and help me remember where I have been.

As for business side of things I can’t say much.  I think it is an invaluable tool to get real time feedback and ideas for improvements on service and the like.  It really has helped the properties I am involved with grow, and I think the bad reviews are better than the good ones.  It is just a new level of comment cards.  Nothing as quantified and rigorous as Market Metrix, but a very good pulse as to the state of the business, and what direction it is heading.

That being said, I think it is odd that I have had pleasant experiences both as a user, as well as a business person (my experiences with the sales agents are PHENOMENAL.  Period.  I like the people and they are solid.  Never one problem)….

But I still don’t trust the concept.  And that is the rub…. why wouldn’t we?  Is that we know too many of the bad reviews?  Is it the way they handle themselves in the public eye?  Do I have some bitter attitude towards them and bone to pick?  I honestly don’t know… as for the latter I highly doubt it.

I think it is that I love the site so much for personal reasons, and it is useful on so many levels for professional reasons, that I get panicked by the management practices (or lack there of).  I just want to see it succeed, and I don’t see any reason to believe it will.

I would love Yelp to look forward and stop focusing on damage control and PR.  They made it so you can’t manage your brand or control the message the same way you used to…. And it is important they become a transparent, openly ethical social media company.  Like the ethicist said, “Whether someone is lying or it is just confusion, yelp has a problem”.

So I want to hear your stories… problems, great stories, etc?  Let us have it!