What is your Foursquare Door policy?

Posted by Bhavishya Kanjhan on Jun 21, 2010 in Default | 0 comments

A lot has been said about privacy on the internet – both in terms of what we put and who share it with. With the omnipresent nature of Facebook, the social network has evolved far beyond the tool it used to be to connect with existing friends. Facebook, similar to Twitter, is being used to form new relationship and make new connections.

Foursquare and other Location based networks, on the other hand are meant to be for your existing friends only, especially given the sensitive nature of the information they are built around. And that is what Dennis Crowley, founder of Foursquare would want you to believe as well. He has said before that Facebook is a place where people may become friends but on Foursquare people connect with people who “they truly wouldn’t mind running into during a night out”

A glance through my Social Graph paints a picture where users (including me) connect with people they may be acquainted with – over Facebook, Twitter and other networks – but may not necessarily have met each other, let alone be friends.

This leaves me wondering, what is your door policy on Foursquare? Do you accept every request that comes your way? Or only the ones you interacted with on a different social network? Or do you strictly maintain it to real life connections?

The Ethics and Etiquette surrounding Foursquare checkins.

Posted by Bhavishya Kanjhan on Jun 1, 2010 in Default | 2 comments

With every passing day I see the rise in the number of users jumping on the Foursquare bandwagon, and with that rise comes an increase in connections and an increase in the activity. I’ve been observing the growth in Foursquare activity and have noticed a lot of things that have got me thinking on what the ethics and etiquette surrounding this location based network are.

Given the competitive nature of Foursquare, it is natural for users, including those in Dubai to clock as many check-ins as possible . But how far should an individual go in this endless quest for points, badges and mayorship.

The mundane everyday check in.

Most users, during weekdays, only really go from home to work and back. Does it make sense for them to check in at both those places then? There are those who bring a privacy element to this, but this isn’t about that. It’s the sheer inanity of these checkins. Although there are those who say checking into work helps ‘brand’ the place.

Couples: Checking in in pairs.

Much like offline (*gasp*) social networks, couples in which both partners are online have a huge set of connections that are common to both of them. If they spend all their time together, at the same places do they both check in? Sure, they’re both individuals with their own accounts right, I mean as long as they aren’t quarrelling for mayorship. Or is it similar to a situation where a couple gets, well, couply, on Facebook. We’ve all had those friends right?

The compulsive Geonetworker

Imagine you go into a mall for a shopping spree, do you just check in to the mall? Or do you check in to the mall and then check in to every single store you go to. Given the loyalty building objective of Foursquare for businesses, they would promote the latter. And the users gain their badges and mayorship. But this scenario does have an inexplicable sense of the ridiculous too. After all, walking less than 5 metres to the next store doesn’t really count for ‘Travel’ in ‘Travel Bonus’ right?

Exhibit B: if you scan for venues and you find the venue, only misspelt; do you check in to that anyway or do you add a new venue with the corrected spelling fully well knowing you’ll get the extra 5 points for adding a new venue (and a chance at mayorship)?

I’m not passing judgements here, nor am I saying what’s right or wrong. I myself have been  guilty of some of those actions listed above and continue to practice the others.

Given the competitive spirit underpinning the platform, where do you think the boundaries of fairplay end and those of cheating begin?

Geonetworking – the new Mantra in Social Media Marketing in Travel and Tourism

Posted by Bhavishya Kanjhan on May 30, 2010 in Default | 0 comments

I discuss the use of GeoNetworking by businesses and institutions in Travel and Tourism industry to promote tourism in the newest edition of Travel and Tourism news.

“Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have taken relationship marketing and permission marketing to a whole new level. But don’t blink yet, the next step in social networking and media is already here and it is telling you where to go and who to meet.”

Read the entire article here on the Travel and Tourism news website

Facebook wants Hyper-Like to be the new hyperlink, and other ways the social network is taking over the web.

Posted by Bhavishya Kanjhan on Apr 26, 2010 in Default | 4 comments

I wouldn’t be exaggerating if I said last night was the night the web -

as we know it – started its change into something drastically. f8, Facebook’s developer conference was held in San Francisco last night and Zuckerburg said what he had for us was the most ‘transformative’ thing they had ever done for the web. And the way they plan to do that is by empowering their developers. Although it was done in a better manner than the oh-so-elegant Steve Ballmer where he portrayed his ‘enthusiasm‘ for developers at a Microsoft Developer conference a couple of years ago.

The announcements made by Facebook had an underlying theme of ‘connections between people and things they care about’.

Hell freezes over. Etisalat gets onto Twitter and Facebook. We think. [Updated]

Posted by Bhavishya Kanjhan on Apr 12, 2010 in Default | 0 comments

Anyone who has spent time in the UAE knows its leading telco Etisalat isn’t the most forward or  consumer-centric type of company.
Infamous for overcharging and underdelivering, Etisalat hasn’t quite been the case study in Customer service either. That’s why when a company whose public ‘relations’ strategy to most crises is to stay silent gets on to Social Media platforms, one can’t help rub their eyes in disbelief. And then some more.