You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Social Networking’ category.
Valentine’s Day reminds us that love is a many splendored thing – especially if you’re the CEO of Hallmark, 1-800-FLOWERS, or Godiva. This year Americans spent more than $17 billion on Valentine’s Day. To put it in perspective, that is more than the gross domestic product of half the world’s countries. Men spent an average of $163.37 per person whereas the fairer sex got away with a mere $84.72.
The majority of Valentine’s Day spending consists of the usual suspects: greeting cards (purchased by 59% of Valentines Day consumers), candy (48%), and flowers (36%). But like the rest of our lives, love is moving online and virtual goods, in all their forms, are taking the place of the old standbys.
E-cards are the original virtual good and they continue to be a staple of online admirers. According to the Greeting Card Association, an estimated 14 million e-cards were sent for Valentine’s Day in 2008, and Valentine’s Day is the largest e-card sending occasion of the year.
Virtual gifts are, to some extent, an evolution of the e-card. Facebook Gifts is probably the best example of virtual gifting in the context of social networking. For the price of $1, a Facebook member can send another Facebook member any one of over 400 different graphical icons. Many of these gifts are “virtual” versions of traditional Valentines Day gifts, such as flowers or chocolate, while others, such as “Love Duckie” or “Polka Dot Thong”, are more creative or risque takes on the theme.
In How Real Is Your Love?, Susan Wu from Charles River Ventures explains, “Sending a virtual flower is a way of showing lightweight attention and affection to someone online.” Since virtual gifts are used lightheartedly and flirtatiously, they often make sense where a physical gift would be seen as too serious or too forward.
If you can’t bear the exorbitant prices of real flowers on Valentine’s Day, then virtual flowers might be the next best thing, and they can be had for an irresistibly price – free. They’re Beautiful is a free site where users can create a virtual flower bouquet and deliver those flowers to any e-mail address. Recipients can show off their flowers by embedding them into any other website. Brown thumbs need not apply since the flowers will wilt after a few days without a virtual watering.
If sending a free bouquet of virtual flowers just won’t make the cut, you can put down some hard earned cash at Bokay Me, a service from 1-800-FLOWERS where users can create a virtual bouquet and deliver it to an e-mail address, Facebook account, or mobile phone. Sending a basic bouquet is free but enhanced options can push the price of a bouquet up to $3.00 – not a bad deal for those times when real flowers a) won’t get there fast enough, b) won’t get there at all, or c) won’t make you look anything less than desperate.
Lets face it. A virtual rose doesn’t smell as sweet and a virtual box of chocolates certainly doesn’t taste as sweet. Our friends at Mars have solved this problem by enabling Facebook members to buy real candy for each other. The UK division of Mars recently announced a Facebook application called Celebration. Using Celebration, a member can purchase candy and have that candy delivered to a friend. Rather than actually delivering the candy via the postal service (which would be time consuming and would involve disclosing personal information), a redemption code is sent to the recipient’s mobile phone. The recipient can take that code to any one of 15,000 PayPoint locations in the UK and redeem the code for the actual candy bar. Now thats innovation.
Whether real or virtual, flowers and candy might tickle your valentine’s fancy, but they won’t do the world much good. If you are looking to send a Valetine’s Day gift with a little more social impact, try Changing the Present , an application that features over 1,000 $1 gifts from leading non-profits. Instead of a “Love Duckie”, Facebook members can send a gift that both decorates their friend’s profile and helps make a difference.
If all this has you shaking your head and thinking to yourself, “Sending my valentine virtual flowers instead real ones will get me a one-way ticket to the couch.”, then you might just be dinosaur of a dater. Sure, you may have e-mailed a love letter or even met someone online. But have you broken up with someone by changing your Facebook status, had a dinner date via webcam, or been tempted to cut-and-paste your personality?
As the rules of dating transform to keep pace with our networked lifestyles, so too will notions of what is and isn’t romantic. One day those overpriced, wilted “real” roses from 1-800-FLOWERS might just be the tackiest arrow in your quiver.
Exactly a year ago, Facebook started testing virtual gifts. Reaction to Facebook’s foray into virtual gifting was mostly negative, sometimes violently so. Consider what some people had to say on TechCrunch:
- “I don’t really see this idea taking off.”
- “The icons are a little too cute to be interesting, and really valueless.”
- “I think if any of my friends knew I paid $1 to post a puppy icon on a friend’s facebook profile, they would quit talking to me… that seems really creepy.”
The wisdom of the crowds would suggest that Facebook Gifts was a massive flop. But, that just hasn’t been the case. By some estimates, Facebook has earned $15 million in virtual gift revenue since the launch of Facebook Gifts. That is not an insignificant percentage of the $150 million in revenue that Facebook made in 2007.
So what’s going on here? How did Facebook make millions of dollars from “valueless icons”? Why are people around the world spending billions on stuff that isn’t “real”? The answer is simple, but it signifies one of the most profound shifts in the history of commerce.
Why people spend money on virtual goods
Why do people spend money on virtual goods? Its a case of straightforward economics. The marginal utility attributed to the virtual good by its consumer is higher than the marginal utility of an extra dollar, five dollars, or whatever the price of the good. In other words, the girl on Facebook who can’t be there for her best friend’s birthday would rather spend a $1 to send her friend a Birthday Cupcake Facebook Gift (that will arrive on the exact day and be seen by everyone who visits her friend’s profile) than spend a $1 (or more) on a greeting card (that will be seen only by her friend and likely go into the trash a few days later). Both Susan Wu and Jeremy Liew have excellent posts that describe, in more detail, the ways that virtual goods deliver value to their consumers.
Atoms vs. Bits
All of this is symptomatic of a profound shift from the economy of atoms to the economy of bits. In The Long Tail, Chris Anderson discusses how the economy of bits has, by eliminating inventory costs and reducing fulfillment costs to the pennies required to transmit digital content, transformed the hit-driven nature of the media industry and enabled a market where millions of niche consumers can be connected with millions of niche products. But the economy of bits is not a phenomenon limited to old forms of media, such as music and movies, which can be efficiently digitized — it extends the very definition of media to things that could not have existed before such as avatar apparel, virtual real estate, and interactive widgets.
To fully comprehend this transition, its important to realize that the fundamental forces of value behind the economy of bits and the economy of atoms are the same. We do not attribute value to a physical good based on the properties of the atoms that comprise that good. A great novel is worth far more than the few ounces of wood pulp that comprise it. A LIVESTRONG wristband means more than the silicon its made from. An exquisite, hand-painted replica of Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon may be indistinguishable to all but an expert’s eye, but it will neither hold the same value as the original or cause the original to depreciate.
The same is true for virtual goods. The value of a virtual good is not defined by the properties of the bits that comprise it. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon is made from easy to find, relatively inexpensive oils and canvas, but it would be a mistake to determine its value from those materials. In the same way, it is a mistake to devalue virtual goods because they consist of bits that are easy to replicate and nearly free to transmit. The value of virtual goods stands on the same pillars that lift the value of physical goods: functionality, social context, brand, scarcity, and aesthetics.
As more of our lives move online, we’ll gain more and more utility and entertainment from goods that exist only in digital form. Our notions of “real” and “virtual” will forever change, and a large chunk of our attention and money will forever shift into goods that we, once upon a time, could barely comprehend as valuable. That shift is what this blog is about.
Goodbye atoms, hello bits.