WIWT launches and networks of shared interest

So fashion social network WIWT has publicly launched today after a beta period, and I’ve been checking it out after agreeing to upload at least one image of myself.

Founder Poppy Dinsey has done a pretty impressive job of publicising both the original blog and the launch WIWT (What I Wore Today) as a social network, but in case you haven’t seen it, the original blog began with her uploaded what she wore every day, with the plan of doing it for a year (I can’t quite remember if it involved a bet or a dare), and is now an open social network which allows anyone to upload photos of their outfits, and browse/follow/rate everyone else.

I’ve been following the progress fairly closely because after crossing paths online and at Twestival amongst other places, Poppy had the great idea to put a call out online and spend a week meeting up with all kinds of people working in digital and business in London, and I was able to chat over coffee. I’m pretty sure I was just one of the many people that week who thought it would be a logical and great idea to open up posting outfits and connecting/sharing in a simple and easy way. And it’s been cool to see it all coming together from the outside and observe how it’s gone.

So is WIWT any good?

Simple answer is yes. It’s pretty easy to use, although I haven’t been able to take advantage of the WIWT iPhone app. Upload 1-3 pics per day of the outfit you’re wearing, tag it, add links to buy it, and you’re done. Assuming you don’t spend ages checking out other people, following friends, and building up a list of clothes you really should buy.

I’m not qualified to talk about the design aesthetically, but it certainly works smoothly and logically from a user perspective, and probably one of my favourite elements is that every piece of text on the site comes across with great tone and character e.g:

‘Can I post more than once a day? I’ve had six outfit changes just through dinner.

No, sorry. We’re pretty strict about only one post per user per day. If you want to be a smartarse then you can take advantage of the fact that we allow three photos per post and upload three different outfits. We won’t tell you off if you do that.

Networks of shared interest:

What makes WIWT really interesting is that it’s built from the ground up.  It came from a very simple blog, and has grown into a social network. The idea of snapping ‘ordinary’ people on the street and publishing their outfits started in magazines years ago (including titles I’ve worked with such as Heat), but building up a community around a blog and then expanding it to allow everyone to get involved gives it a very different feel and experience. It’s not a top down selection, and although there’s one filter for ‘Editor’s Choice’ on the site, it’s forgiveable because it’s mainly based on user ratings, and you feel like Poppy herself is picking out the user outfits she really likes, rather than an anonymous member of an editorial team somewhere.

It’s why niche networks of interest can continue to thrive despite the ubiquity of the big social network giants (Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc). Browsing through the site you can see almost everyone (myself excepted) has got a keen interest in fashion, and that includes a slightly surprising number of male uploaders.

Lessons for communities and brands:

  • Start small and build up – a small thriving village or online community feels like something you want to be a part of. A huge empy city or community feels like something you want to get out of straight away. Too many larger brands adopt a ‘build it and they will come’ approach, and don’t see any benefit in small numbers of highly engaged people involved.
  • Personality – Poppy’s blog didn’t particularly follow any SEO rules or marketing plan. And although she’s undoubtedly very attractive, there are lots and lots of pretty women on the internet. What worked was that her personality came across in every single post and message, and she’s genuinely personable and funny. That’s what made her posts about dressing down or having to visit a hospital as interesting as those featuring her in a glamourous and revealing dress.
  • Alignment – Many of her outfits are from the high street – that means anyone can aspire and achieve the same thing. Inspirational content is something magazines have done well for years, but personally I got incredibly fed up on men’s magazines with fashion features starting with the lowest prices for even a shirt in three figures. I’ll spend a large amount on clothes occasionally, but with a business, family and other commitments, I’m not going to want to do that every month.
  • Be clever about reaching out – Poppy made great use of a packed week in London meeting everyone she could. From a logical perspective, I’m sure she could have skipped quite a few to focus on the most ‘important’ people. And in the build-up to the beta and launch, she’s done a good job of using varius ways to keep in touch with everyone and encourage them to get involved. I certainly wouldn’t upload photos of myself to a fashion site, but felt fairly comfortable doing it on WIWT.

There’s some stuff I wonder about, and I’m sure the site will continue to evolve now it’s public. It’d be interesting to know how many people are actually including links to purchase their outfits at the moment, and whether sharing a percentage of affiliate revenue would improve that, or possibly detract from the community aspect for example.

But at the moment, I’m just thinking it might help me make more of a sartorial effort when working in the home office, and hoping that at some point, some of my favourite clothing brands in motorcycling and vintage denim etc might check it out and get involved.

And I’m reminded of this talk that I gave a shocking two years ago now…

 

Why size isn’t everything – at least for communities…

I made a note to respond to a recent post by David Cushman, in which he talks about the value formula applied to cities by a theoretical physicist, and applies it to social networks and particularly Google +.

The money quote is:

“…it can be understood by a single magic number: 1.15. Each time the population of a city increases by 100 per cent (in other words doubles) the social and economic factors scale up by 115 per cent.
“So, if you compare a city with a population of one million people to a city of two million, then instead of the larger city having twice as many restaurants, concert halls, libraries and schools, you find instead an extra 15 per cent on top of what you’d expect. Even salaries are affected by this curious ratio…”
And David then applies the same thinking to social networks, to prove that overall size is more important than growth rate in creating overall value. Which isn’t wrong exactly, but it did leave me feeling uneasy, and trying to work out why I felt the need to disagree.
And here’s why – it’s about personal perspective. If you’re a social network or community owner, then the application of the value theory makes sense, and from an overall perspective, then the rise tide lifts all your individual ships up.
But from the perspective of an individual member of that community, the value you get isn’t just tied to the economic levels of the overall group, or the overall utility of the network as laid out in Reed’s Law.

Why size doesn’t matter for the individual

So here’s why overall size isn’t the biggest factor in the value of a community or social network – a city may have an overall rise in economic growth and communal resources in line with the overall size, but there are still economic and status differences between individuals. And these tend to be centred around particular areas and neighbourhoods.

plus size skinny jeans

Photo by arimoore on Flickr (CC Licence)

And it’s the rise or fall of my neighbourhood which impacts me most – whether that’s house prices, new community services etc. Even then, my own standard of living may not rise or fall in line with everyone else .

So the value I get from an online community is normally made greater by an increase in connections, in terms of awareness of opportunities. And most social networks have allowed us to have huge numbers of loose connections beyond the magic Dunbar Number of the number of people we can generally manage to have stable social relationships with (between 100 and 230).

But I think that the size approach Dave has chosen is purely looking at the numbers of opportunities, the quantity of information, and the overall value.

It’s not taking into account depth of relationships, information and opportunities.

You what now?

Time for the plain English example to illustrate what my half-formed thoughts are getting at:

For the sake of argument, let’s peg Facebook at 640 million users, Twitter at 170 million and Google+ at 25 million (The first two figures are from Wikipedia and are being used by Dave – the final one is the latest report by Reuters on Google+).

I’ve got hundreds of connection on both Facebook and Google+ and thousands on Twitter.

And yet the highest value interactions I’m having in terms of in-depth knowledge sharing and information which provides direct results for me comes from a couple of small subgroups on each, and a couple of far, far smaller forums, dedicated to relevant topics such as SEO, or Blogging. Those are where I’m seeing really useful information being shared – normally on private and invite-only groups and forums.

It doesn’t matter if a city doubles in size and gains 1.15 times the total amount of restaurants. It matters if the city gains a couple of restaurants that specialise in the food I love, at a price that’s affordable, and most importantly, if those restaurants are places my trusted friends are recommending and visiting.

And that’s why I think his theory of communities and cities can only be applied in very specific ways – my experience of Google+ has been totally different, perhaps because I was fortunate to be invited and engaged by some very cool people straight away, which enabled me to set up and enjoy my own neighbourhood.

It’s why I always enjoy visiting London for work – I have some great clients and there’s a huge potential for more, plus the chance to go to a load of cool events, and meet up with lots of cool friends. But I also enjoy living outside of London and engaging with a great group of digital people locally.

 

Great journalism – impartial but not neutral?

It’s sad in some ways that a lot of great writing and journalism has been inspired by tragedy and loss, but at the same time, it often allows some good to come out of the events by providing insight and inspiration. Three articles I’ve read recently reinforced that, along with also highlighting an interesting point from a book I’m currently reading on media ethics which states that journalism should be impartial but not neutral.

The mainstream media has been full of coverage of both the tragic events in Oslo, and the death of singer Amy Winehouse at the age of 27, with the usual mix of straight news reports, opinion, and a particularly horrific example of someone trying to cash in on search traffic on the Huffington Post. I’m not going to dignify it with a link, but using the example of Amy Winehouse to supposedly illustrate lessons for small business owners is pretty bad, compounded by the fact it’s not a great article, and the author has claimed she wasn’t aware of the term ‘linkbait’ despite running a marketing and PR company for about 9 years.

Out of all of the mainstream media coverage regarding Amy Winehouse, it’s telling that the best article has been written by comedian and actor Russell Brand, who covered both his personal relationship with the singer, but also the treament of addiction and addicts by society. Published on The Guardian website, it’s received a lot of respect for the way he tackled the subject.

At the same time, I caught up on two posts by Christian Payne – sadly within the last month, two pilots he’d flown with, interviewed and got to know have both died. One heroically saved the life of his passengers, whilst the other worked for the Kenyan Wildlife Service to help prevent animal poaching amongst other duties. Christian’s articles are even more touching due to the fact that he’s also an accomplished photographer and interviewer, and his photos, videos and audio interviews with each pilot helps us to know them posthumously.

Journalism: Impartial not Neutral

Both authors knew the subjects of their articles to some extent, and that personal insight and knowledge of the subject (and in Brands case, his own experience with addition), gives an additional impact to stories which elsewhere would be a straight news report. I’ve also been involved with reporting on the deaths of people I knew via my work, including former colleagues, and to be completely neutral about it would be impossible.

But all three articles, and hopefully my own, do provide impartiality – Christian is not writing his posts for a news organisation, but for his personal blog, and doesn’t have the editorial restrictions he might have done for a media organisation, but as an experienced and talented media creator, he’s done a great job of sharing his reaction, the background of the people involved, and also leaves us feeling sad about the loss of the two men involved, but inspired by what they had achieved.

Neutrality is defined as refusing to take sides or make a judgement. Impartiality is defined as making decisions based on objective criteria rather than bias or prejudice. We can say that the loss of those in Oslo, Amy Winehouse and the two pilots is tragic for all of us for a number of reasons, and be thankful that there are those who can provide the context and insight into the reasons why.

On one hand I do worry that resource and time-stripped media outlets chasing page views via attention-grabbing breaking news and linkbait headlines mean that these types of article will be increasingly harder to find. On the other, I’m thankful that the availability and access to self-publishing, combined with the recommendation of social networks, mean that they’ve never been more accessible to us all online. The rise of content farms and the mishandling of increased knowledge of analytics, SEO and digital marketing means that far too many writers and journalists are pursuing the wrong things, and perhaps we should all try and do something as engaged readers to encourage others to be more active in highlighting and sharing writing which is really giving us something valuable, rather than simply regurgitating links almost mindlessly to increase our own audience on social networks?

 

What’s in a crowdsourcing….

I was going to write an eloquent and heartfelt post regarding everything that’s wrong about the attempt by Golley Slater to rebrand by a hamfisted attempt at ‘crowdsourcing’ – another example why really we should be stricter about how the term is used, and why co-collaboration should probably replace it.

But then I spotted the always interesting Andrea Phillips had beaten me to is on her blog, Deus Ex Machinatio. Worth reading the post if you’re interested in ever trying to actually achieve something productive using crowdsourcing mechanics, and also if you’re interested in transmedia and game design/mechanics etc.

So I’ll get back to working and trying not to lose myself in playing with Google +. Despite being touted initially as a ‘Facebook killer’, it actually seems more and more people are coming round to thinking of it as a potential rival to Twitter in the curation of streams of content. Similar to how Twitter might have evolved lists, or how Tweetdeck used them to create a more workable interface at scale.