Sorry folks. But there just isn’t any discernible ROI for restaurants in social media. Does that mean that restaurants shouldn’t be using social media, or investing in their digital presence and strategy? Absolutely not, but let’s cut the crap and cease muddying the waters with terms like “return on investment”. Is that why you opened a restaurant? To get a healthy return on your friggin’ capital?

I think not, so let’s stop playing that game with one another and talk about what’s important.

What’s important is that your brand, your business be visible and in front of the most passionate and committed segment of your given cities dining community. You need to be where these people are, where they hang out: to chat, to gossip, to have fun, to gripe, to praise. These are the people who appreciate when restaurants engage with them and do so on the platforms they prefer.

What else do I mean?

• I mean conversing with customers and potential ones. I don’t mean tweeting out nothing but your daily specials once a day and peace-ing out back to the kitchen.
• I mean reading the blogs and tumblrs, testing out new apps and platforms. I don’t mean sticking your fingers in your hears and hoping it all goes away.
• I mean listening to your followers and friends and creating content that is relevant, humorous and helpful to them. I don’t mean soliciting or sucking up to people in hopes of getting a few more “likes”.
• I mean joining the community of other restaurants in your city and neighborhood and building them up as much as you should. That means get out of the kitchen, go meet the other chefs and restauranteurs, collaborate with them, work together to solve mutual problems or to create fun new opportunities. We are watching and we will reward those establishments that are proactive online and off.
• I mean involving yourself in the events, charities, opportunities, street fairs and markets where your customers hang, not just the ones that give you the promise of great press.
• I mean taking terms like strategy and analytics seriously.

Ultimately, I mean generating and executing a strategy that is line with those passionate principles you had when you started the business.

Just do me a favor, stop obfuscating, stop obstructing. There is a very healthy return to be had on Social Media. Stop looking for it in the wrong places and with the wrong terms.

A few months ago I wrote a tame little piece called “Why Groupon Sucks” about the utter insanity of the group buying segment. I love being right, and I am so often wrong, that today I had to grapple with that unfamiliar feeling of vindication. Today, The Week informs us that Groupon has revised their IPO filing, revealing hundreds of millions of dollars of losses MORE than the market had expected. Think about that one for a second.

Investors already expected Groupon to have lost lots and lots of money “acquiring its customer base,” but now its just a matter of just how much money they are losing. And this company is going public? WHY LORD!

To wit:

the company reported a $420 million loss for 2010 and a $117.1 million loss for the first quarter of 2011. In the second quarter of 2011, Groupon had a record $878 million in sales but still lost $102.7 million. Does this “startling turnabout” spell doom for Groupon’s IPO, which had been expected to raise $750 million and value the company at $30 billion?

Flash Sites and Group Buying Are Nothing New

Kevin Ryan, Gilt’s chief executive, said the company was simply repositioning as “a broader lifestyle brand, all high-end,” adding, “Whether it’s full-price or discount is a detail.” But others say the effort reveals that the much-heralded flash-sale business is hitting its limits.

The Times continues:

Mr. Ryan said that Gilt’s flash-sale sites continue to be successful. Gilt, three-and-a-half years old, brought in $500 million in gross revenue last year. “It’s impossible to say that this has not grown very quickly in a very short period of time,” he said. Inventory fluctuates, he said, but there is enough available for Gilt to host 30 sales a day.

$500 million in gross revenue! Awesome. Wait, how much are you spending? Cause if its more than that, you are NOT profitable. And then this:

Still, most of the flash-sale sites remain, like Gilt, unprofitable, analysts say, and many have also tried to grow by expanding into new areas, though not into full-price commerce. Rue La La and ideeli, for instance, have branched into children’s apparel, travel and local deals, but have rarely sold full-price items.

Emphasis mine.

I think I’ve figured out why there has been so much ink spilled in the service of sites like Groupon, Living Social, Gilt, Lot18, Fab and all the hundreds of others. These sites promised to exorcise the ghosts of the internet bubble.  Back when the internet was first learning to walk and crawl, the first thing that “it” (the internet) tried to do, was make money. Funny, that seems like the only thing American companies EVER try to do, whether they are ready to or not. But the internet couldn’t even crawl, let alone walk over to the bank and take out some money.

Now, however, the internet can walk, it can talk, it can sue your ass, it can go mobile, it can socialize, it is 100% verified and ready to party. This internet is all growns up and it wants to remake how you do almost everything. And ya know, I am down for the good majority of that. There is so much in our society that simply needs a good resurfacing, more even, remaking. So if the internet wants to invite itself in and remake vast swaths of our society, improving much of what it touches, I am fine with that.

But the idea that the internet is going to generate tremendous profits for the same old crap because of a slight tweak of existing retail models is preposterous and the failure of Groupon and the “pivots” of Flash sites like Gilt illustrate this as elegantly as anything.

Even an occasional reader of this blog knows that I fashion myself something of a critic of social media. And it should no longer strike you as odd that at the same time I critique social media, its practices, its people, its protocols and conventional wisdom as well as its institutions, I make my living in and with social media.

One of my biggest fears about social media is that it will become what so many other transformational technologies and cultural forces has become: an exemplar of the lowest common denominator in our society. And I fear this because I believe, to this day, and as I have for several years now, that social media is one of the most powerful “things” to happen to, and in, our society. I believe it is a democratizing force. And therein lies the rub, because as you democratize anything, a society, a company, the quality and character of whatever it is that is being democratized diminishes. At least initially. For instance, flatten a company and let the janitor have a voice in the strategic direction of the company is probably not the best idea.

Which brings me to the latest “MOMENT OF DUMB,” emerging from the muck and mire of social media. And no, its not that round of funding that Foursquare just secured. It’s this morsel, from The New York Times no less:

Food Brands Get Sociable on Facebook and Twitter

Now, two familiar brands of baked goods sold by Kraft Foods are stepping up their marketing efforts in social media.

One brand, Oreo cookies, is going to be giving its Facebook page a global look, effective on Monday. The other brand, Wheat Thins crackers, is starting a campaign to reward fans of the brand who discuss it on Twitter.

So far so bad. But it gets worse.

The interactive agency 360i is working on the revamping of the Oreo Facebook page. New features will include a “world’s fan of the week,” saluting a devoted Oreo consumer.

The contents will be a mix of global and local material, Mr. Clouse said, because, for example, “an American consumer is intrigued to see what’s going on in Venezuela with Oreo.”

I am sorry, but there is absolutely no evidence that a consumer in Michigan gives one fig about what an Oreo cookie lover is doing with their treats in Venezuela. So why would a company do this? In a word, the conventional wisdom of social media says so. So leave it to stupid fat lazy marketers to find the worst aspects of social media, dress it up a bit, slap some fancy graphics on it and then couch it in crap like this:

In creating the content, Mr. Clouse said, the goal will be to “make sure our language is coming across as human and not as lawyer- or corporate-speak,” so as not to turn off brand fans.

“We want to be smart and terse in what we are saying and doing,” he added.

See here is the kicker. They want the language to come across as authentic and not as corporatease. What never occurred to these brilliant minds is to ACTUALLY MAKE THE LANGUAGE AUTHENTIC!

They started from a place of what they didn’t want the language to sound like, rather than saying, hey, lets be honest. Of course, at the end of the day, they are still selling horrible junk food that makes you sick and fat and probably gives you cancer. You want authentic? Here is the ingredients of Oreo’s

Sugar, Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate {Vitamin B1}Riboflavin {Vitamin B2}Folic Acid)High Oleic Canola Oil and/or Palm Oil and/or Canola Oil, Cocoa (Processed with Alkali)High Fructose Corn Syrup, Baking Soda, Cornstarch, Salt, Soy Lecithin (Emulsifier)Vanillin - an Artificial Flavor, Chocolate.

And seriously, can someone please explain to me how seeing Facebook comments from a nice fellow down in Venezuela is going to get me to buy more Oreo cookies? But we don’t need proof, we’ve got social media.

And I’ve got a cold glass of milk that I’ve just spit up all over my screen.

Image courtesy of mihoda on Flickr

It’s coming.

The corruption, the compromises, the drama and infighting, the public and private squabbles, the cocktail parties turned fistfights. Whenever there is a great deal of treasure to be had, the only thing you can be sure of is malfeasance.

Companies and organizations that are gearing up to be the bulwarks of the social media ecosystem need to install Ombudsman.

What is an Ombudsman?

From Wikipedia:

An ombudsman (conventional English plural: ombudsmen) is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests.

Usually appointed by the organization, but sometimes elected by the constituency, the ombudsman may, for example, investigate constituent complaints relating to the organization and attempt to resolve them, usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation. Ombudsmen sometimes identify organizational roadblocks running counter to constituent interests.

Ombudsman have become familiar roles at news organizations in the past few years. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have prominent Ombudsman. But you may ask what kind of authority they have. It’s a good question and the answer is no one is really sure. Because after all Ombudsman work and are paid by the organization. Yet they are paid to self-correct the organization when actions are taken (in this case, the way articles are written). They are listened to by a certain section of the chattering class, and therefore they do have some authority. It’s far from a perfect situation but when have we ever let perfect be the enemy of good in social media?

So Why Does Social Media Need Ombudsman?

What I am suggesting is that firms, organizations and entities operating in social media look very seriously at retaining independent, yet internal, critics. Simply put, social media needs people to keep it honest. Right now we are at the cusp of a HUGE bubble, where social media’s impact on our culture, our economy, our work force, the very fabric of our connections to one another and the places we go and the products we consume, that we need to inculcate a programme of self-analysis, and of self-correction.

Self-correction is always more preferable than waiting for an outside critic to come along. Too much can slip through the cracks.

The overwhelming reason that social media firms including companies, blogs, charities, event firms, marketing agencies need ombudsman is because social media has at its very core principles that fit right in with self-analysis. Transparency and authenticity are constantly heralded, rightly so I might add, as hallmarks of successful social media interactions.

The problem is that honesty and authenticity, transparency and immediacy become the FIRST things to go right out the door. They are the compromises that are made. Compromises over privacy (Facebook), compromises over hiring, over branding, and eventually over government regulation or interference, which isn’t far from occurring.

In fact, all of these things are right around the corner. And the social media community needs to come to terms with its need for internal critics. It is the only thing that is going to hold our feet to the fire, ensuring that we, as a community, don’t stray too far from the very things that have animated the incredible rise to power, profits and cultural potability. Keep em honest!

Image courtesy of cdrummbks on Flickr

[fblike layout_style='standard' show_faces='true' verb='like' font='arial' color_scheme='light']

What color is your social media mood ring?

Mine is ocher, going on brown. Let me explain.

Social media is starting to get a bit on my nerves. Of course, its perfectly normal that every now and then we get a bit exhausted with our habits. And as I come upon nearly a year of being fully engaged with social media in an analytic way, I’ve got to confess to a bit of exhaustion with it all. And by “analytic” I simply mean that the way I engage and think about social media is different than most people because it is also my business. I make my living with social media. Of course, it could be my mood and sure enough, tomorrow morning I’ll wake up, check the 100 or so emails in my inbox, begin heavily caffeinating and doing it all over again. I’ve got work to do and clients to service. I take that very seriously and that isn’t going anywhere.

But as a user of social media, I am just a bit tired of it all. So I made a list:

• I am tired of checking in on Foursquare.
• I am tired of downloading Google Analytic spreadsheets.
• I am tired of checking follower counts on Twitter.
• I am tired of scanning Tweetdeck looking for the good conversations.
• I am tired of ignoring friend requests from Facebook friends I don’t know.
• I am tired of staring at my RSS feeds and wondering where all the good content is.
• I am done with stumbling, digging, bookmarking, scheduling and monitoring.
• I barely interact with Facebook at all.

What does all this mean?

Not sure yet, and actually the interesting thing for me is deciding if whether what I am feeling is something that the broader culture will begin to feel sometime soon. I am not saying social media is going away, or that its not useful or powerful, or that businesses and brands shouldn’t be engaging and experimenting with it. I believe they should and furthermore I plan for a time when we don’t even use the term social media anymore.

But what I do have to plan for is how my current and future clients need to roll my internal barometer about social media into their own plans. What does this mean for them? Not sure yet, but perhaps it will result in urging clients to move a bit more slowly or to pare down the number of networks and communities they join and engage. Maybe this is all about finding quality. We had to see it all before we could know, once again, what we had no interest in seeing ever again.

So a simple question to my readers. What color is your social media mood ring?

Image Courtest of Team Dalog on Flickr

My friend Jon Lazar over at Just Jon has posted a brave and important piece this morning on Mashable, the ubiquitous social media site. If you don’t know Mashable, then you probably don’t spend much time reading, thinking or interacting with the social web. This is because Mashable is simply everywhere. They’ve reached that point of critical mass that most bloggers only dream of. The last I heard they had suprassed 20 million page views a month, and that was some time ago, so I’ll assume that number is even higher now. For a blog, that is tremendous.

But the problem is that Mashable is more than a blog. They are a full-fledged leader in the social media world. And they aren’t acting like it. Prompted by a message that Mashable sent out declaring that they were looking for developers, Jon added these thoughts:

Mashable’s barebones form gives the prospective applicant no information about the position, no information about the company, and no information about anything beyond the words at the top of the page.  From the look of the page, it could be a fake, but I am dismissing that possibility because I saw the link to the page come from reputable sources, including Mashable employees.  The minimalist page takes without giving back to the applicant and even then takes minimal information from the potential employee.

When I read this I immediately thought back to when a few months ago Mashable made BIG NEWS by announcing they were going to be hiring real, actual journalists. It was assumed that this was some kind of direction shift for Mashable and that they were now interested in serious reportage and investigative journalism. Here is the link.

For Realz? Or A Ruse?

I was so excited to see this development and had high hopes at the time for the future of investigative journalism. Mashable was going to save journalism! OK, that might be a bit of hyperbole, but the fact remained that here was a site that was the absolute epitome of social and new media and they were looking back to traditional media to buttress their skills. I envisioned a world where the pioneers of new media would blend with the best talent of traditional media and build a model that would truly serve our democracy, which we all know, depends on a free and robust fourth estate.

Unfortunately, as soon as I took a closer look I soon realized those hopes were misplaced. The post directed applicants to a similar form from the one Jon critiqued in his post. It was the height of minimalism, and furthermore, it was insulting and in no way appropriate to the kind of jobs and talent they were supposedly looking for. (Full Disclosure: I did in fact refer a few journalists I know to Mashable and used my connections there, connections I suspect will no longer be nice to me, to try to expedite their applications. Nothing came of the effort) Furthermore, every journalist I referred the post to came back to me with an “Are you kidding me?” response. Apparently, Mashable’s serious lack of tone and professionalism reeked to high heaven.

Furthermore, since that time I haven’t heard or seen anything on Mashable’s site that could be construed as the fruit of this past effort.

But look, this piece isn’t a hatchet job on Mashable. In fact, that would be a pretty stupid thing to do because of how big and, therefore, important Mashable is. I am likely to lose a lot of friends over this post. I hope that is not the case and that people will respect my critique as coming from a place of love and not hate.

Because I want Mashable, as the unalloyed leader in the social media news space, to improve. I want it to improve its product. I want it to get away from its sensationalist and often pedantic blogging and get into serious reportage. Right now it is on track to be the People Magazine of social media. As social media as an industry matures, it will be highly important that the community police itself. And that -selfpolicing is going to require serious efforts by serious journalists: to uncover malfeasance (of which there is so much in social media), to serve the public interest by investigating and broadcasting stories that are important to the culture at large, and to increase transparency.

Social media is at a tipping point. It’s winning over our culture and remaking that culture in its own image at the very same time. But our culture has a tendency to go big, bold and brash. We have a tendency to take the easy road, to chase eyeballs and therefore profits over what should be chased down and hunted: the truth. Mashable, because of its leadership position, has an unique opportunity to do this. Unfortunately, it just seems like they aren’t interested in doing that. It seems in fact that they are interested more in acting like a tabloid.

To be fair, one recent development has once again given me hope for Mashable’s future direction. Vadim Lavrusik, a digital media journalist and theoretician, recently announced he is joining Mashable as a social media manager.

I am excited about what’s taking place at Mashable, which recently celebrated its new headquarters in NYC (come visit me in Union Square) and is also partnering with my soon-to-be alma mater Columbia University Journalism School on a paid online video fellowship for j-school students that will begin this summer.

I respect Vadim tremendously and think this is a great move for Mashable. I just hope that this latest plan turns out better than some of their earlier promises that seemed to have fallen flat.

Image Courtesy of HaPe_Gera on Flickr

The Ups and Downs

The twists and turns of independent consulting right now are dramatic and severe. One day we are absolutely essential and urgent RFP’s flow in. The next we are as unnecessary as can be. The hot and cold nature of clients can throw even the most stable consultant into a tizzy. I’ve had clients pepper me with questions until both they and I are blue in the face. And then come back for another round. I’ve had potential clients ask me for proposals only to tell me my services won’t be necessary and sitting back and watching them institute every single one of my ideas.

As more and more companies get familiar with social media and convince themselves they need to engage, the temperature and intensity of client interactions and pitches is heightening. And so much as independent strategists like myself desire this, there are some pitfalls to watch out for.

Most of all is the tendency to react to quickly to client overtures. Personally, I get way too excited by consults that go well. I even get excited by meetings that don’t go so well. This a form of arrogance that needs to be tempered. Because people on the bleeding edge of social media interaction, those that are well-informed of trends and developments in the social space, who know how to use the tools, who have programs worked out ahead of time for their clients, believe themselves to be more than necessary. And you know what, in a way we are. But just because we feel this way, doesn’t meant the rest of the world does, especially those that we are pitching.

Yes its true that many managers and those holding the purse strings are taking social media much more seriously than they were even a few short months ago. I spent most of the fall explaining to potential clients why they need to engage with social media. I no longer need to do that. Great! But with this added businesses comes another level of scrutiny that social media marketers need to adjust to. We are often faced with people who only have a tentative grasp of the issues and the tendency is for people to act like they know more then they do. It then requires time for us to parse through exactly what we are dealing with.

The Twists and Turns

The twists and turns that social media marketing can take are varied. I’ve had consultancies start with a specific set of goals in mind only to find two weeks in I am knee deep in issues that were never on the table. Often this is because clients don’t have the necessary infrastructure to carry out our pre-approved goals. This is one of the most fraught situations to face because everything gets pushed back, and then the client, often looking for reasons to believe you aren’t worth the trouble, time or money, can point to lack of progress. It’s not fair, but life never is! And we are the ones who have to shoulder the burden, because after all, we work for the client. It’s their dime.

The rapid nature of social media marketing, and the entire world online forces strategists to constantly be on their toes. Not only do we need to effectively service our current clients, we have to perform due diligence on future projects, pitch new clients. On top of all that we have to remain completely up to date with developments in the social space.

What new apps or applications or social networks are launching?

How will these effect my current or future clients? What about client’s that have already been serviced? Do we have to go back to those clients and ensure that they are up to date with these new developments.

For instance, right now I am watching the controversy over Facebook, which I wrote about yesterday, and how it may effect marketing on social networks. At the exact moment that many of the businesses I know are getting ready to finally engage Facebook in a serious way, it may be that Facebook is on its way out. Yes that is exactly how serious this controversy is. Facebook may be on its way out. And right now businesses are out there making plans to dominate what could very well be a defunct or at the least a highly compromised service.

In short, social media is a roller coaster ride of emotions and actions. The best we can hope for is to hold on tight, trust in the integrity of the system we have in place, and even try to have a little fun! Throw your hands up in the air! I know that after a tough couple of weeks here I am pledged to try , sit back, trust in the integrity of the system I have built over the past 9 months, and simply enjoy the ride.

Image Courtesy of flatluigi on Flickr

Last week I wrote a post somewhat sensationally titled, “What the hell is Foursquare doing?” In that piece I criticized the still-young company about what I perceived was a tin ear regarding certain complaints.

Which is why I am befuddled at some of the partnerships and directions the young company seems to be taking. I am not sure if it is due to their tremendous growth, both in users and internally, or the ridiculous expectations that everyone seems to have, but Foursquare doesn’t seem to know what its doing. I wish they would just tell us. Isn’t the hallmark of the social web supposed to be that everything is open and transparent, authentic and honest? Is that only for the users of these services but not for the companies that enable us?

In particular, I have been very critical of Foursquare’s customer service when it comes to helping business owners utilize their marketing offerings. I’ve worked with a bunch of firms trying to utilize this unique service who have been dissapointed with the functionality. The forms that Foursquare uses were counterintuitive and it was common for firms to get absolutely no feedback or contact from Foursquare. This was unacceptable.

I am interested because I think incentivizing both people and businesses is they to Foursquare’s growth and its success. But that’s not where they are directing their energy. I’ve worked with businesses who have tried multiple times to get their specials on Foursquare. The customer service is basically non-existent. One client got a message saying they were simply overwhelmed and were having technical issues uploading all the new specials and deals. The risk in this is that even if you can get venues interested enough to take the time to offer specials and deals to Foursquare’s own users, by making it extremely hard to do so, they are only alienating their future business partners.

Which is why I was so pleased to see that Foursquare was taking it seriously enough to make some minor changes. Every business venue has a unique ID on Foursquare’s platform, and what Foursquare has done is make it exceptionally easy for business owners (or their marketing or PR firms) to claim their business. They’ve done so by placing a little widget above the map of the venue that says “Are you the manager of this business.” Brilliant, simple, easy.

It’s what they needed to do, and its what they’ve done. I criticized them for not doing it sooner, and now that this has been corrected, I am only too happy to call attention to it.

One other thing caught my attention as well, and that is that beneath every venue they’ve also integrated the near-ubiquitous Facebook “like” button. Interesting that they are experimenting with Facebook’s new social graph plugins considering that Facebook is on the verge of launching a location-based service as well.

Although many believe that Facebook’s “Places” is going to nullify Foursquare I actually disagree and think there is plenty of room in the eco-system for location based applications and functionality. Based on some of the troubles that Foursquare has had lately (their service was done for hours just last week) I am not so sure Facebook is immediately going to leap-frog them. As of now, Foursquare has a great brand name and reputation in the space. And Facebook? We’ll let’s just say that some of their recent efforts are starting to rub even some of its oldest supports the wrong way.[fblike layout_style='button_count' show_faces='true' verb='recommend' font='lucide grande' color_scheme='light']

What’s the new buzzword? Reputation.

Apparently we are moving away from branding and customization and conversation and personalization. Those buzzwords are over, done. Or they aren’t. But right now you are hearing a lot about reputation. What is our reputation? How do we measure it? What effects it? Can we adjust it?

Check this story from the Nieman Journalism Lab:

In conversations with chief marketing officers at major financial institutions, like Bank of America, it became clear that many of these companies were dealing with a serious corporate image problem. Rogers said those conversations led to Forbes’ latest service: a reputation tracker, which gives a company an understanding of how its corporate image is perceived by both the general public and by Forbes readers. The idea is to help companies get a benchmark for their relative strength or weakness.

Well, Bank of America would have a reputation problem wouldn’t they, what with the whole Merrill Lynch thing, the whole government bailout thing as well as being one of the biggest corporations in a sector that no one trusts. Not the public, not the government. I am not even sure their clients trust them anymore. Or their employees. But that is not the point right now. Reputation is.

Why all of a sudden are businesses so concerned with reputation? Haven’t they always been?

OF COURSE!

But as businesses start to come around to the effectiveness and ubiquity of social media, they are applying their measurement and reporting skills to this new field. And it turns out, lo and behold, that this social media thing, this internet thing, actually is useful. You mean its not a waste of time after all?

See, businesses liked being duped by advertisers and marketers, by magazines and newspapers, by ANYONE or ANYTHING that would and did take their money in the 20th century. They liked not really ever knowing how effective their ad campaigns were. It was just the cost of doing business. Have to maintain the brand. Have to reboot every few business cycles. Have to get those fancy marketers in here with their cool graphics and their facial hair to tell us what the plebs are thinking and doing and how they’re spending the money that WE WANT. So we’ll pay you to tell us something, but whether its true or not doesn’t really matter. It’s just the cost of doing business. Right?

And now that businesses have come around to the fact that you can accurately measure things online, you better believe they are putting the squeeze on the very same people who have been squeezing them for going on….a hundred years.

So now the marketers and advertisers are fighting back. They’ve gone and invented some new term that they can use to rip off businesses with the most important thing there is: their reputation. See, by charging them fees to measure and monitor their reputation, they can cause a diversion. Instead of just telling them straight up that their business sucks, their model is broken and they need to scrap everything and start over, they can invent a new term, inflate it to Hindenburg-size proportions and shake it in front of their clients’ faces.

I wonder how many firms are going to fall for it. Not surprising that Bank of America is first up to get suckered. Good luck with that guys.

Image Source: Hans_van_Rijnberk on Flickr

Yeah look. I love Foursquare, I use it every single day. I love “checking-into” locations all over town, seeing who has been there, who the Mayor is, and especially the tips people leave around town. Whenever I hit a new restaurant, the tips are particularly helpful in successfully navigating a new menu. If enough people tell me the Truffle Mac and Cheese is a can’t miss, guess what? I’m getting the Mac and Cheese. I’ve even been known to leave some funny, snarky tips around town to let people know that I’m around having fun, with them and the service itself. Foursquare is getting the most press out of any social-internet company and, they’ve just celebrated both their 1-year anniversary and their 1 million user mark.

Which is why I am befuddled at some of the partnerships and directions the young company seems to be taking. I am not sure if it is due to their tremendous growth, both in users and internally, or the ridiculous expectations that everyone seems to have, but Foursquare doesn’t seem to know what its doing. I wish they would just tell us. Isn’t the hallmark of the social web supposed to be that everything is open and transparent, authentic and honest? Is that only for the users of these services but not for the companies that enable us?

One could look at Twitter’s own recent missteps and see them as either corporate incompetence or growth pangs. As startups progress from edgy outsiders with visionary and benevolent goals to corporate behemoths with investors who require a return, all companies must struggle with this tension. Simply witness Google’s own struggles to maintain their corporate ethos of “Don’t Be Evil,” with issues of security and privacy breaches. Of course, Google has seen the error of its previous actions and decided to end cooperating with the Chinese government over Google’s user information.

Foursquare needs a similar self-correction. And soon. I understand that user-growth is still the primary objective down at Foursquare HQ but I still think they are missing out in filling important holes. So many venues still have yet to hear about Foursquare let alone start implementing specials or utilizing the dashboard. And this is where their revenue, if there ever is to be any, is going to come from.

And yet, Foursquare has seemed more interested in high-profile partnerships with big media and luxury brands like The New York Times, Bravo, VH1, Marc Jacobs and now Jimmy Choo:

Using location-based social media tool Foursquare, Choo has created a real-time “treasure” hunt around London. The concept behind the promotion? Over the next few weeks, one pair of Jimmy Choo trainers will “use” Foursquare to check-in at points around London and send real-time updates so participants can locate them. The trainers can also be followed on Twitter and Facebook. Those who reach the venue in time to catch the Choos will be able to keep them.

What is the point of this garbage? Do they really think this is the way to go mainstream? Or are they simply interested in amassing a roster of $10k a month branding entanglements just because they can? I really don’t understand this, of course, I’m not that smart. But I am interested.

I am interested because I think incentivizing both people and businesses is they to Foursquare’s growth and its success. But that’s not where they are directing their energy. I’ve worked with businesses who have tried multiple times to get their specials on Foursquare. The customer service is basically non-existent. One client got a message saying they were simply overwhelmed and were having technical issues uploading all the new specials and deals. The risk in this is that even if you can get venues interested enough to take the time to offer specials and deals to Foursquare’s own users, by making it extremely hard to do so, they are only alienating their future business partners.

Eventually, Foursquare will want to share in the revenue streams they are directing towards local businesses. Not concentrating on those relationships now is going to cost them, mightily, later.

[fblike layout_style='standard' show_faces='true' verb='like' font='segoe ui' color_scheme='light']