In fact, it's so unimpressed that the Wall Street Journal's sources say that the once-troubled automaker "plans to stop advertising on Facebook after the company's marketing executives determined their paid ads had little impact on consumers". Ouch.The timing is intriguing, and many believe it isn't coincidental. But the news isn't all bad for the world's largest social network: the Wall Street Journal's sources say that GM will continue to invest in its Facebook Pages, which Facebook doesn't charge for -- yet. at least. That investment, pegged at some $30m, is triple the amount GM is said to have been paying to Facebook directly for advertising ($10m).While GM's move is a blow to Facebook on the eve of its IPO, and it highlights some of the risks Facebook investors will have to grapple with as the company seeks to live up to its exorbitant $100bn-plus valuation, the real lesson here is that companies need to be vigilant about all of their digital spending, particularly as it relates to new channels like social.In an effort to be more innovative and catch new trends early on, Madison Avenue is arguably more willing than ever to try new things and get involved with young services developing new ad models. That's certainly a good thing. But at the same time, there's an argument to be made that exuberance (and perhaps fear) has pushed some marketers to treat what should be experimental campaigns as standard digital media buys.That might work if those campaigns produce an ROI, but as GM apparently discovered, the latest and greatest doesn't always deliver. In the case of Facebook, Forrester analyst Nate Elliott writes, "Companies in industries from consumer electronics to financial services tell us they're no longer sure Facebook is the best place to dedicate their social marketing budget—a shocking fact given the site's dominance among users."In reality, the shocker isn't that advertisers are questioning their Facebook investments despite its dominance, but rather that they haven't questioned some of their social spend sooner. There have been plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the efficacy of many social ad offerings, and the fact that most users are ignoring often well-targeted but still-annoying social ads is not front-page news.While GM will continue to invest in Facebook even though it won't be paying the social network directly, it's likely that brands will eventually start to review their 'free' social media efforts too given that the costs of building, growing and managing Facebook Pages, Twitter accounts, and the like isn't cheap either, as evidenced by the fact that GM spends 8-figures doing just this.So where does this leave Facebook and other social giants as they look to prove their worth as advertising platforms?Obviously, it's easy to accept that the consumer internet's hottest services are too big to ignore, but when the ROI they deliver is too small to move the needle, throwing good money after bad doesn't a great marketing strategy make.

As reported by The Guardian, 10m of those users are in the UK. That's good enough to make the UK Twitter's fourth largest audience behind the US, Brazil and Japan, and explains why the company has a 30 person strong office in London. Although Twitter's userbase can't compete with Facebook's, the service's impact on society has arguably been nearly as significant, and in some areas, perhaps even more significant. As The Guardian's Charles Arthur notes, "over the past year [Twitter] has been blamed for inciting riots – a charge that was disproved – and of undermining superinjunctions involving, among others, Ryan Giggs and Jeremy Clarkson." And, as Arthur points out, Twitter has become a key platform for prominent figures, celebrities and brands to interact with the public. Like Facebook, Twitter has a front-row seat to the mobile revolution. According to the company, some 80% of British users who used Twitter in the past month did so using a mobile phone. Obviously, Twitter's service, which was inspired in part by SMS, is more easily adapted to a mobile experience than, say, Facebook's, but in terms of monetization, which Twitter has taken slowly, the dramatic rise of mobile usage is clearly going to present challenges for Twitter too. One challenge Twitter is facing that Facebook isn't (yet) is user attrition. The Guardian's Arthur observes that one research firm had pegged the number of Twitter profiles created at around 383m at the beginning of the year, so the 140m figure Twitter is touting hints that the company's service isn't for everybody. Even with all the question marks, Twitter's growth, coupled with its age and the amount of funding it has received, raises the question: will we see a Twitter IPO in the next year or two? If Facebook's IPO is a success and its share price doesn't sink dramatically in its first six months, it wouldn't be all that surprising to see some of Twitter's investors pushing for a TWIT listing.

When Facebook goes public on Friday, it will be selling 50.6m shares more than it originally planned to, and at $34 to $38 per share, the company's stock will debut in a higher-than-anticipated price range. All told, Facebook could raise nearly $15bn in its offering and hit the much-talked-about $100bn IPO valuation it looked as if it might not achieve. So much for a lack of demand for the company's shares, which will trade under the ticker symbol FB. Facebook's IPO will be the richest ever, and it could even be the most interesting ever. Why? Because for all of the apparent investor demand Facebook and its army of bankers have been able to drum up, there's a general skepticism about the company's future. Take Bloomberg's investor poll last week, which asked more than 1,200 investors, analysts and traders who subscribe to Bloomberg what they thought of Facebook's valuation. 79% of them thought the company would be overvalued at $96bn. Just 7% believed it was valued correctly at that figure, and a paltry 3% suggested it was undervalued. An AP-CNBC poll found similar numbers, with half of respondents, which include Facebook users and investors, saying the company would be overvalued at $100bn. Active investors were even more skeptical, with 62% believing the $100bn figure to represent an excessive valuation. As in the Bloomberg poll, just 3% of those surveyed thought Facebook would be undervalued at $100bn. There may be good reason for this. Over half of the Facebook users in the AP-CNBC poll indicated that they never click on ads or sponsored stories, and another 26% said they "hardly ever" do so. As for the company's potential to turn its vast social network into a commerce juggernaut, over half of those surveyed said they wouldn't trust Facebook for financial transactions (as compared to some 8% who would). Facebook's future, of course, may rely on mobile, and area it admittedly hasn't yet cracked but where it is focusing a lot of attention. Given the demand for Facebook's stock, it would appear that investors and speculators who have ponied up for shares in the IPO aren't too concerned about mobile being a drag on the company, at least in the short-term. But the company's mobile problems may not just be related to monetization. Facebook has a reputation as being home to some of Silicon Valley's top engineers, but a post looking at how Facebook's iOS app has been built raises questions about the social network's mobile chops. Interestingly, it's not the first time techies have criticized the social networking giant on technical grounds. Put all this together and you have what could be better-than-television drama. Right now, there are enough investors are willing to hand Facebook and shareholders billions at a $100bn valuation, but their apparent exuberance is tempered by the fact that so many people are also skeptical about the company's valuation and prospects. Which group is right? It's worth noting that those putting their money into the IPO may have a wide range of motivations, from short-term speculation to a desire to be involved in one of the most historic IPOs ever, and some of these motivations won't necessarily lend themselves to long-term shareholder loyalty. At the same time, Facebook has -- thus far at least -- managed to overcome its greatest obstacles, which include more than a few high-profile user backlashes. Which hints at why the Facebook IPO may be so compelling even to those who aren't buying shares: for all of Facebook's undeniable, astonishing success, it appears remarkably -- perhaps almost unbelievably -- vulnerable.

While it remains to be seen whether those brands that joined the Google+ bandwagon early will be rewarded with ROI, there is some promising news according to social media analytics provider Simply Measured. It looked at the Interbrand Top 100 brands that are present on Google+ and found that, six months in, 22% of the brands circler counts exceeding 100,000. Nike, which joined just two months ago, is one of them. All told, the total number of circlers counted has grown 138% since Simply Measured's first report three months ago, and circler engagement is up 112%. Engagement with content, which Simply Measured says is driven primarily by photos and videos, is up too, although not as much (65%). As one might expect, not all brands and verticals are treated equally on Google+. Four luxury brands -- Ferrari, Gucci, H&M and Burberry -- are tops in terms of the number of circlers they have. Combined, they have more than 2.5m circlers. In terms of verticals, brands in the automotive, electronics and luxury categories are by far the most popular. According to Simply Measured CEO Adam Schoenfeld, "With a user base surpassing 100 million and growing fast, Google+ is becoming an attractive channel for brands to engage with consumers." For brands like Ferrari and Gucci, that does appear to be the case. But there's a wide chasm outside of the top-tiers of the Google+ brand page leaders. Armani, which ranks twenty-second in circlers with 111,000, is followed by Adidas, which has just 26,000 followers. A lot of this has to with how great an effort different brands are making on Google+, which raises the question: just how much time and money should brands invest in Google's social network to get results? Ferarri's 730,000 circler count is impressive, but the iconic automobile manufacturer has more than 8.1m likes on Facebook. Adidas, which has a far less impressive circler count, has an equally impressive 7.6m likes on Facebook. Obviously, Google+ isn't yet a year old, so comparing circlers to likes isn't entirely fair. But at the end of the day, savvy brands will begin to make comparisons. What's the cost of acquiring a new circler compared to a like? At what point does fan acquisition hit a plateau on both networks? What's the value of circler versus a Facebook fan? Right now, Google can't offer a Facebook-sized audience, so it should probably focus on doing what it can to ensure the answers to these questions cast Google+ in a favorable light.

Such apps, which take advantage of Facebook's "frictionless" sharing functionality, quickly became a hit with news organizations like the Guardian. And for good reason: with some 900m users and counting, Facebook is a potentially lucrative source of traffic. But just as Facebook recently reminded brands that their fans aren't really their fans, Facebook has apparently made some changes that are reminding the Guardians of the world that Facebook can turn the traffic spigot at any time, and not always for the better. As first reported by Forbes' Jeff Bercovici, the Washington Post's 'social reader' app on Facebook has seen its monthly active users drop from 17.4m to 9.2m in just the past 30 days. That's bad news for the WaPo, which just turned in disappointing quarterly earnings. Like the Guardian, the Washington Post had been very bullish on social, and Facebook in particular, as Bercovici details: It would be hard to overstate the importance and centrality of the Social Reader to the Post’s strategy. When I interviewed the Post Co.’s chief digital officer, Vijay Ravindran, earlier this year he pointed to the app as one of the company’s most promising new products, a way of bringing precious new younger readers to a franchise that has been otherwise challenged to reach them. Unfortunately for other newspapers, the Washington Post isn't an anomaly. As BuzzFeed's John Herman points out, the Guardian has seen its daily active users drop from just under 600,000 to under 100,000 in the past month. According to a tweet from the Washinton Post's Ryan Kellett, the culprit for these declines is "evolving [Facebook] modules." Put simply, Facebook made a change that reduced the prominence of stories from social reader apps and this is the result. But that's not the entire story. As BuzzFeed's Herman notes, there seems to be plenty of celebration for the "demise" of these social reader apps. That isn't entirely surprising. After all, these apps created a privacy stir when Facebook unveiled its "frictionless" sharing functionality. Obviously, Facebook could make changes tomorrow and probably halt (if not reverse) the downward spiral of these apps. But for publishers like the Guardian and Washington Post, which had such high hopes for social traffic, the rapid decline of their Facebook apps is a reminder that Facebook isn't a panacea, and Facebook will do what's best for Facebook, not the publishers it occassionally plays nice with. This, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't a role for social in their strategies going forward, but it should be clear now that betting the farm on Facebook probably isn't a good idea.

It is the web’s version of the Pareto principle, which is also known as the 80:20 rule. However new research by the BBC suggests that the 1% rule is now outdated. The Beeb surveyed 7,500 UK adults to find out how they participate in digital media “from sharing links, to writing blogs and uploading photos”. The results indicate that the number of people participating online is significantly higher than 10%, with the increase driven by the rise of "easy participation". Activities which may have once required great effort but now are relatively easy, expected and every day. 60% of the UK online population now participates in this way, from sharing photos to starting a discussion. But despite participation becoming easier, almost a quarter of people (23%) remain passive and do not participate at all. Interestingly, the level of participation is not necessarily dictated by digital literacy, as 11% of the passive group are also early adopters. Digital participation now is best characterised through the lens of choice. These are the decisions we take about whether, when, with whom and around what, we will participate. Because participation is now much more about who we are, than what we have, or our digital skill. As a result, the BBC has come up with a new model for digital participation it calls ‘The Participation Choice”: But does this necessarily mean we need to rethink how we view online engagement? As GigaOm points out, the 1% rule does not refer to the number of people participating with content across the web as a whole, instead it refers to the number of users creating content within a particular online community. Social media plugins and apps mean it is easier than ever to share or post comments, so it’s no real surprise that 77% of us participate in some way. But this ignores the fact that we behave differently in different places. For example, I have friends who are extremely active on Facebook but only use Twitter to follow celebrities. So while the way we participate online will undoubtedly evolve over time, is the BBC right to claim that the 1% rule is dead? In my view it seems far-fetched to suggest that on any given blog you can expect more than three-quarters of users to participate.

Ford In recent years, Ford has been looked at as a lead player in the social space. Since Scott Monty, Ford's head of social media, joined in 2008, Ford have pushed forward with a unified social strategy that been used to build strong communities of customers, advocates, and more recently, software developers, engineers, designers and scientists.  Not only is Monty building this social strand for Ford but he is looked to as an expert in the field as he writes about the intersection of advertising, marketing and PR. In fact, he has almost 74,000 followers on Twitter, which surpasses the number of followers GM has. Not that numbers matter, but as Monty is putting what he writes about in practice at Ford, it is no wonder he is a go to in the social sphere. Looking at Twitter, Ford splits its Twitter efforts into two main channels: @Ford focuses on the corporate side of the company focusing on product, innovation and social. It's run by Scott Monty himself as well as the Ford Social Media Manager, Craig Daitch. For the most part, they link back to Ford's social hub. This site allows you to become a member and you can keep track of your blog comments and any ideas or stories you've submitted. If you do want to take part but don't want to sign up, you can still comment using Facebook sign in.  If you mention @Ford but you have a customer service query, @FordService now responds. The handle is managed by a customer service social media team of eight, who are all listed and pictured under the Twitter bio. Ford assists 2000 people per week via social media with the agents assigned issues that remain their responsibility until it is resolved. On average the team tweets responses every 3-6 minutes between the hours of 9-5 ET. They also post their hours of operation and where you can get help when they are not online. As for sentiment, it's generally neutral to positive. This could be due to the majority of users going offline for customer complaints, or going directly to the dealership. Either way, people seem to like Ford online. Other Ford social presences Ford is active across most social platforms including Google Plus where it posts content fit for a socially savvy audience. Who doesn't love I haz Cheezburger style photos to highlight Ford's move to reduce the weight of its vehicles by creating carbon fiber composite-intensive materials  On Facebook, Ford takes advantage of the timeline feature and starts it's history with a picture of one of the most well know cars on the planet, the Model A. The cover highlights the Ford headquarters, and though it integrates with the profile picture well, it's not the most inspiring photo for a company that has enough car porn for everyone. Ford's Facebook account is highly followed with almost 1.5 million followers and over 19,000 people are talking about Ford though Facebook alone. The Ford online experience Everything is about integration here and Ford are continuing to build a community to share stories on its own social hub. This hub does highlight all the places you can follow Ford online but stresses over and over again that it wants you to "follow the story." Ford is also pushing into the co-creation territory that is still a distant future for other brands through its "Your Idea" tab. In an even bolder move toward community building, Ford has recently invested in TechShop, a space that houses high tech equipment for Detroit-area engineers, designers and scientists to innovate on their own time. This is a logical move following the success of its ongoing "Your ideas" section of the Ford social hub, which generated over 3600 submissions during its pilot, and its hundreds strong developer program for Ford SYNC, Ford's voice activated technology that syncs with your phone.  General Motors As this is a Twitter show down, let's start with that. General motors uses its Twitter account to, as it states in its bio, bring GM information to Twitter one Tweet at a time. It's run by Mary, Rebecca, Pete and Michael and not only do they use their initials in their tweets so you know who you are talking to, but you can see their pictures, names and personal twitter handles on the background of GM's twitter page. This is very much a corporate account in terms of the information presented but the tone is light and personal. Some of their tweeters even use a plethora of exclamation marks. The account highlights positive press, responds to its fans and most recently live tweeted GM's earnings, a tactic also used by companies like eBay in order to spread important corporate announcements into the social space.  As for sentiment, it's generally neutral to positive just as Ford is. When reading the @GM mentions, it's mostly praise and there are not a lot of complaints or customer service issues coming directly to them. Other GM social presences General Motors is also on YouTube (people love videos of cars), Flickr (people love pictures of cars) and Facebook. According to the frequency of posting, it appears GM have abandoned their Flickr accounts for the most part at the end of 2011. As a community, Flickr is no longer at the top of the photo chain with Instagram far surpassing it. That being said, GM has still kept in the widgets for Flickr on a lot of its blogs, so when you click through, it feels like an abandoned channel. If GM is no longer strategically using this platform, then it should remove it from its main pages. As for Facebook, GM have taken advantage of the new Facebook timeline feature (like Ford) to outline its history as a car manufacturer. Its focus in on the founder rather than its first vehicle and its cover highlights the main GM brand logos. As a community, its focus is not on customer service and it encourages people to go to its contact us page for assistance where they have options for email, phone or mail. Despite looking throughout its sites, blogs and social channels, there seems to be no way to have queries answered through any official social channels. With 375,773 likes and 4497 people talking about them, the bigger brand of GM seems to be the quieter of the two car manufacturers. The GM online experience This is where things become a little disjointed. The link from Twitter goes to the GM blogs page where there is a list of most of the official blogs GM runs. If you click on the first few more corporate blogs, some of the sections are out of date and it is hard to find links to its main social channels from there. The next few blogs are region specific and this is where you can really see the community taking shape. Each region has different initiatives and different blog layouts so it lacks consistency with the main brand. There are also links to separate Twitter/ Facebook accounts for either its regional community or a regional initiative.  This segmented approach makes it hard to find relevant information or to see the great care GM takes with its local communities. It could indicate a lack of strategy for the brand with each separate marketing departments taking it upon themselves to carve a niche in the social space without any regard or awareness of what other factions of the brand are also doing there. The numbers and the results Ford far surpasses GM in the land of Twitter according to the infographic by Visual.ly. It talks more, is mentioned more and is followed more. Ford look to be the more social of the two. Its social media strategy is cohesive and connected and you can easily find what you need, when you need it and Ford are also proactive in the social media space for customer service. So Ford wins today in the social media game but it's still GM who are winning in the battle of real dollars. Will Ford's social media strategy help them surpass GM in the financial game moving forward? With the release of today's Fortune 500 list, they haven't done it yet but Ford is definitely creeping up there.  

Econsultancy’s Internet Statistics Compendium is a collection of the most recent statistics and market data publicly available on online marketing, e-commerce, the internet and related digital media.  The compendium is available as eight main reports, split across different geographical regions: Asia Australia and New Zealand Europe  Global / International  Latin America  Middle East and North Africa  North America  United Kingdom Updated monthly, each document is a comprehensive compilation of internet, statistics and online market research with data, facts, charts and figures.The reports have been collated from information available to the public, which we have aggregated together in one place to help you quickly find the internet statistics you need, to help make your pitch or internal report up to date. There are all sorts of internet statistics which you can slot into your next presentation, report or client pitch. Those looking for B2B-specific data should consult our B2B Internet Statistics Compendium. Areas covered in the main compendium include: Affiliate Marketing  Customer Experience Demographics E-commerce Email Marketing Internet Advertising Mobile Search Marketing Social Media Technology Adoption Web Analytics

At the higher end of its price range, Facebook could raise more than $10bn, cementing its status as the richest tech IPO ever. That may be sweat music to the ears of Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, who plans to sell approximately $1bn of his stock in the offering, as well as other early Facebook employees and investors. But the valuation Facebook is seeking is less than the $100bn valuation numerous sources had claimed the company would ask for just weeks ago. That has some of the investors who bought shares of Facebook stock through secondary markets on edge. The Wall Street Journal quotes one such investor, Kevin Landis, who has been accumulating shares of Facebook stock for $31 to $32 per share over the past year, as saying "I've been surprised before, but I'll be surprised again if it ends up pricing at that low end of that range." His hope is that the lower-than-expected price range will spark more demand for Facebook shares, which could result in an early pop. Landis' comments highlight the fact that Facebook's IPO is really like none other before it. In reality, Facebook is already a publicly-traded company and its IPO is little more than a secondary offering for which members of the general public can get in on the action. The big question is whether they'll want to. On one hand, it's clear that Facebook still has plenty of potential. The most recent evidence of that: frustrated advertisers who want to give the social network more of their money. On the other hand, there are more than a few ominous signs of challenges ahead, such as the company's quarterly revenue decline and the fact that some social gaming companies are moving their focus to mobile. At the end of the day, one thing is for sure: Facebook's IPO will be one for the ages. Whether that means investors who buy in the coming weeks will be smiling six months, a year and five years from now is far less certain.

It's important to take a look at the choices we have, think about the problems we are facing and take this knowledge to direct the outcome that will help us succeed as a business. Often with social, we look to social media pundits for the answer but Tarkoff doesn't believe that's who we should be looking to.  It's not because they don't know what they are talking about but the social platforms that are being introduced are just too new and it's hard to predict what will happen in six months, let alone five years.  Unfortunately, most business behave around social media and innovation like 6 year olds do when playing soccer. No matter what you tell the kids to do, the kids go to the ball and as a unit, chase it around the field. It's great fun but doesn't lead to a successful game. Going around and following the shiny penny of new social platforms or the new innovation everyone is chasing, is not good for your business. You will have people constantly looking at the next new thing. They could be in support, marketing and all around the organization. But you need to step back and look at the impact of social media business and how it can drive your business objectives. Those in your organization who have the future vision of how community and social can be leveraged in your business are your flag planters. They are passionate about making change and seeing social as a way to transform, but that's not enough. Some people in your business, and often those at a senior level, aren't going to scale the mountain. They need a road. So how will you build the road to strategically transform your business and get the rest of your company there to be there with you?