Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Planet's 24 Largest Social Media Sites

The Planet's 24 Largest Social Media Sites, And Where Their Next Wave Of Growth Will Come From
BII top global social properties
Social media transcends geography, and the sheer scale and diversity of audiences on the sites makes them tremendously important.
It's no longer all about Facebook. Instead, users in some of the biggest countries are gravitating to regional sites. Others are heading en masse to U.S.-based networks, meaning that some of the largest social sites are global communities first and foremost.
Here are 10 of the most surprising facts from our first annual global media census: 
•&νβσπ;China's giant social media network, Qzone, is running in third place at 712 million total users. It's twice as large as global social messaging app WhatsApp, and nearly three times as large as Twitter.
•&νβσπ;IPO-bound Twitter is smaller than many of its less-known rivals, including Tumblr, WhatsApp, and LINE.
•&νβσπ;Facebook has 95 million users in China (despite the fact that it's officially blocked), 68 million in India, 42 million in Brazil. Taking these population together, they're twice as large as Facebook's U.S. population of 100 million.
•&νβσπ;Despite being blocked in China, the major social networks still have many millions of Chinese active users who use various stratagems to access these services. Google+ has 100 million users in China, Twitter has 80 million, and YouTube has 60 million.
•&νβσπ;Asia-Pacific overall has more active social media users than any region, and Southeast Asian markets are off the charts when it comes to mobile social media usage. Eighty-two percent of Thai smartphone owners access social media daily on their phones.

Teens Are Deserting Facebook

Teens Are Deserting Facebook, And They're Heading To Places Where Their Parents Can't Find Them

Kevin Smith/Business Insider
Facebook made a startling admission in its earnings announcement this month: it was seeing a "decrease in daily users, specifically among teens". In other words, teenagers are still on Facebook; they're just not using it as much as they did. It was a landmark statement, since teens are the demographic who often point the rest of us towards the next big thing.
Their gradual exodus to messaging apps such as WhatsApp, WeChat and KakaoTalk boils down to Facebook becoming a victim of its own success. The road to gaining nearly 1.2 billion monthly active users has seen the mums, dads, aunts and uncles of the generation who pioneered Facebook join it too, spamming their walls with inspirational quotes and images of cute animals, and (shock, horror) commenting on their kids' photos. No surprise, then, that Facebook is no longer a place for uninhibited status updates about pub antics, but an obligatory communication tool that younger people maintain because everyone else does.
All the fun stuff is happening elsewhere. On their mobiles.
When mobile messaging apps such as WhatsApp first emerged in 2009, they looked like a threat to mobile carriers. Everyone from Vodafone to Dutch operator KPN was mentioning them in sales calls. Mobile operators are estimated to have lost $23bn in SMS revenue in 2012 due to messaging apps, which host free instant messages through a phone's data connection, which these days is often unlimited. Now these apps are becoming a threat to established social networks too.
WhatsApp, the most popular messaging app in the UK and on half the country's iPhones, according to Mobile Marketing Magazine, has more than 350 million monthly active users globally. That makes it the biggest messaging app in the world by users, with even more active users than social media darling Twitter, which counts 218 million. About 90% of the population of Brazil uses messaging apps, three-quarters of Russians, and half of Britons, according to mobile consultancy Tyntec. WhatsApp alone is on more than 95% of all smartphones in Spain. The power users and early adopters of these apps, the ones you're most likely to see tapping their thumbs over a tiny screen, are under 25.
Part of the reason is that gradual encroachment of the grey-haired ones on Facebook. Another is what messaging apps have to offer: private chatting with people you are friends with in real life. Instead of passively stalking people you barely know on Facebook, messaging apps promote dynamic real-time chatting with different groups of real-life friends, real life because to connect with them on these apps you will typically already have their mobile number. The trend flies in the face of recurring criticism of young people – that their social lives are largely virtual – when many more are in fact embracing the virtues of privacy and services like WhatsApp, which shun advertising.
"I only use WhatsApp to communicate and send pics these days," said Natalie West, a twentysomething financial sales associate in London. In the last few years she has used Facebook less and less because she doesn't want "the whole world to know" what she's doing. When people set up events and get-togethers on Facebook, West and her boyfriend tend to reply on WhatsApp instead because "it's more personal". For similar reasons, some 78% of teenagers and young people use mobile messengers to plan a meet-up with friends, according to research advisory firm mobileYouth.
Another factor is the rise of the selfie, often silly self-portraits taken at arm's length with a mobile. Almost half of the photos on Instagram feeds among people aged 14 to 21 in the UK are selfies, according to mobileYouth. Sending those photos via a mobile messaging service is safer than broadcasting them on Facebook, since they're less likely to be seen by a boss or dozens of Facebook friends you forgot you had. Selfies are even bigger on Snapchat, the evanescent photo sharing app that deletes a photo several seconds after it has been viewed. With around 150 million active users, the service has inevitably become a favoured way for teens to send sexy or even naked photos of themselves, an ill-advised practice known as "sexting". But teens also love Snapchat because it allows them to send inane photos of themselves without fear of leaving a permanent digital footprint.The California-based app is seen as so hot, with so much potential for growth, that it has already been pegged with a $2-$4bn valuation in the Silicon Valley tech community. Estimates are even higher for WhatsApp, which makes money through an annual subscription; some observers suggest it could be worth $5bn or more.
The final, big reason why young people are gravitating towards messaging apps is that many of these apps no longer do just messaging. They are social networks. The best examples come out of Asia, with messaging platforms KakaoTalk (South Korea), WeChat (China) and LINE (Japan). All have tens of millions of users, with WeChat boasting more than 200 million, and take their services beyond offering straight messaging to games, stickers and music sharing. Before you write off digital stickers as inane, they are a decent moneyspinner for LINE: of the $58m the company made in sales in the first quarter of 2013, half came from selling games and 30%, or roughly $17m, from sales of its 8,000 different stickers. Some are free or, in Spain where LINE has 15 million registered users, cost around €1.99. Often users choose stickers instead of words when they need to express themselves, one LINE executive said; it's known to have helped couples get over fights more easily by offering multiple stickers to say sorry.
Gaming is another money-maker. With KakaoTalk, which is thought to be on 90% of all smartphones in South Korea, registered users can choose from more than 100 games they can play with one another, and games alone helped the company generate $311m in sales in the first half of 2013. A couple of non-Asian messaging apps such as Kik (Canada) and Tango (US) are turning themselves into full-fledged platforms too, inviting software engineers to create games that run on their apps. They will typically let developers take home half the revenue while taking a 20% cut. App stores such as Google Play and Apple's App Store take the remaining 30%. Tango took all this a step further this month when it partnered with music-streaming Spotify to allow its 60 million monthly users to share music clips with one another. Two years ago Spotify launched a similar partnership with Facebook. "What we're seeing in the messaging space is an explosion in growth," said Spotify's vice-president of strategic partnerships, Tom Hsieh, who hinted there would be partnerships with other messaging apps in the future too. "I don't think there's been a clear winner [among them] yet."
It is worth noting that, with so many of these apps getting into games, stickers and now music sharing, it is becoming harder to define them as messaging services. "I think there is some misunderstanding here in how we categorise these apps," says Pavel Durov, who founded Russia's version of Facebook, VK.com, and recently launched a mobile messaging service called Telegram. "They are social networks. You have a social graph there; a newsfeed; you have profile pages. Many things that are related to social networks by definition." Social chat apps is another way to define them, says Gartner mobile analyst Brian Blau. "People are sometimes using three or four of these apps."
Many of the Asian chat apps such as Kakao and LINE are struggling to appeal to US users, though, because of the stylised nature of their interfaces – vivid colors, manga-style characters and lettering. "We're used to being a little more subdued," says Blau, who is based in the US.
In the race to become platforms with extra frills, the big exception is WhatsApp. Founder Jan Koum has said publicly that he has no plans for his service to start providing games. Koum and his co-founder Brian Acton, both former Yahoo managers who were one of the first to create a mobile messaging app for smartphones with WhatsApp, see it almost as a pure communication utility that should not be saddled with extra features that might slow things down. "That's what's happened with Facebook now," says Neeraj Arora, business manager for WhatsApp, which is based in Mountain View, California. "It tries to do everything for everyone. Our core is communication."
That is a somewhat conservative approach compared to most other messaging platforms, yet WhatsApp is still quietly broadening out. In the same way Facebook first rolled our Facebook Connect in 2008 to allow people to use their profiles to like or comment on other websites, WhatsApp recently unveiled an instruction set known as an API that lets other mobile apps share content through WhatsApp too. The roll-out is still in its infancy, but after one music streaming service in the Middle East added the WhatsApp sharing button, its was surprised to find its users sharing 50% more songs via WhatsApp than Facebook.
The future for these messaging apps is still uncertain. Some in the industry expect buyouts from big internet companies like Google, which was rumoured to have flirted with WhatsApp earlier this year. Facebook already has its own popular Messenger service, while Apple has iMessage – both are popular, but lack the gaming ambitions of Asian chat apps. Still, it is hard to imagine these players consolidating to create a global social network as big as Facebook.
"If you look at the landscape, it's geographic," says Greg Woock, CEO of the US calling and messaging service Pinger. "We dominate the US, WhatsApp dominates Europe, LINE owns Japan." China's WeChat is trying to break out of that mould. Its executives have talked about expanding internationally, and custom building its app to suit local tastes for how it should look. "We have put a lot of thought into how to take it outside of China," Martin Lau, the president of WeChat owner Tencent, said at a recent conference.
Who dies, survives or thrives may ultimately depend on how well any of these players can make money. Snapchat, arguably a photo-sharing service more than a messaging app, has yet to explain how it will do so.
WhatsApp says it is already profitable thanks to its annual subscription fees; Pinger relies on advertisements; WeChat, LINE, Kakao and Kik sell stickers and games. Some of these services are bound to go out of fashion, and a few business models will fail, and they're still a world away from the $2.1bn in sales that Facebook brought in this last quarter.
But there is little doubt that millions of teens will use these apps more and more, and older demographics will eventually join them. There's a good chance that will continue to be at the expense of Facebook.
Parmy Olson is a technology writer for Forbes magazine in San Francisco. She is the author of We Are Anonymous (Little, Brown, 2012).

Top messenger apps

WhatsApp
Started in 2009 by two ex-Yahoo staff, this smartphone messaging system handles more than 10 billion messages a day and is reckoned to have more than 250m users worldwide. One of the most popular paid-for apps on any platform, and a threat to telecoms companies which charge for texts.
Snapchat
Allows users to send "view once'"photos, specifying how long the photo will remain on the recipient's device. "Snap an ugly selfie or a video, add a caption, and send it to a friend (or maybe a few). They'll receive it, laugh, and then the snap disappears," says Snapchat. The company is valued at $800m and users send 350m messages per day, up from 200m in June.
WeChat
The Chinese social media app, which handles voice messages, snapshots and emoticons, has more than 200m subscribers. The vast majority of users are in China, though it also has subscribers in the US and UK. It is being tipped as the first Chinese social media application with the potential to go global.
KakaoTalk
A Korean messaging app with more than 90m users that generated $42m of revenues in 2012, ending the year with users sending 4.8bn messages a day. The company recently launched KakaoHome in its home country: a similar app that provides "a customised home screen experience on your smartphone" with widgets, notifications and deeper integration of the main messaging service.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Some Food Companies Ditch 'Natural' Label

Some Food Companies Ditch 

'Natural' Label

Amid Lawsuits Over the Claim, More Producers 

Drop the Word


Updated Nov. 6, 2013 12:07 a.m. ET
Now you see them. Now you don't. Food products labeled as "natural" are starting to disappear.
A growing number of food and drink companies are quietly removing "all natural" claims from packages amid lawsuits challenging the "naturalness" of everything. Mike Esterl reports on the News Hub. Photo: Naked Juice.
"Natural" Goldfish crackers will soon be just Goldfish. "All Natural" Naked juice is going stark Naked. "All Natural'' Puffins cereal is turning into plain old Puffins.
A growing number of food and drink companies including PepsiCo Inc.PEP -1.67% and Campbell Soup Co.CPB -2.27% are quietly removing these claims from packages amid lawsuits challenging the "naturalness" of everything from potato chips to ice cream to granola bars.
Food labeled "natural'' raked in more than $40 billion in U.S. retail sales over the past 12 months. That is second only to food claiming to be low in fat, according to Nielsen. A survey last year by Mintel, another market research company, found 51% of Americans seek out "all natural'' when food shopping.
The problem is, "natural" has no clear meaning.
The Food and Drug Administration has no definition, says a spokeswoman, but rather a long-standing policy that it considers "natural'' to mean that "nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.'' The agency's website says it is "difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth."
A "food labeling modernization'' bill, introduced in September in Congress, would force the FDA to establish a single, standard nutrition labeling system, including new guidelines for the use of "natural.'' But any rules are certain to take a long time to hash out.
Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up, alleging false advertising. Attorneys say at least 100 lawsuits have been filed in the past two years challenging the natural claims of UnileverULVR.LN +0.36% PLC's Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg Co. K -2.03% 's Kashi, Beam Inc.BEAM -1.51% 's Skinnygirl alcohol drinks and dozens of other brands. Some lawsuits have been thrown out, but others have ended with multi-million-dollar settlements. Still others are pending. For the most part, the suits are filed by plaintiffs' lawyers on behalf of consumers who purchased the products, seeking class-action status.
"There's a boatload of litigation and that is going to continue until companies stop conning people,'' said Stephen Gardner, litigation director at Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has urged several companies to remove "natural'' or "all natural'' from packaging.
"Companies are tending to pull back from the natural label because it isn't worth it right now,'' said Lori Leskin, a lawyer at Kaye Scholer and co-head of the American Bar Association's Products Liability Committee.
Only 22.1% of food products and 34% of beverage products launched in the U.S. during the first half of 2013 claimed to be "natural," down from 30.4% and 45.5%, respectively, in 2009 according to Datamonitor. Though many Americans still want natural products, Datamonitor says only 47% view the claims as trustworthy.
The litigation issue is complicated on both sides by the lack of clarity from the FDA. Judges this summer stayed lawsuits for six months against Gruma Corp.'sGRUMA.MX +0.46% Mission tortilla chips and General Mills Inc. GIS -1.59% 's Nature Valley granola bars, requesting FDA guidance on whether products with genetically modified organisms can be marketed as natural.
Other gray areas include processed ingredients like high fructose corn syrup, alkalized cocoa, sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid.
The legal uncertainty is a setback for PepsiCo, which has worked hard to make its snacks healthier and used the term "All Natural'' to signal the overhaul to consumers.
As part of a companywide strategy shift, its Frito-Lay snack unit reformulated more than 60 products by 2011. It removed about three dozen artificial ingredients including FD&C Red 40, a food coloring it replaced with beets, cabbage and carrots. The company experimented with more than 300 "all natural" versions of its barbecue potato chips alone before finding one that tasted like the original.
That year it launched Frito-Lay's largest marketing campaign ever, "Seed to Shelf,'' and emblazoned "all natural'' on Lay's potato chips, Tostitos tortilla chips, multigrain SunChips and Rold Gold pretzels. But by last year, several lawsuits against PepsiCo alleged the chips and pretzels contained GMOs and additives such as caramel color, citric acid and maltodextrin. The "all natural'' labels have quietly disappeared and the litigation is pending.
A Frito-Lay spokesman said the snack maker is "constantly updating'' its packaging and, like Kellogg and Beam, declined to comment on the lawsuits.
In 2009 PepsiCo acquired Naked Juice Co., which started out selling small batches from a backpack on Santa Monica Beach. At the time, PepsiCo said Naked juices were made from "the best bare-naked fruits'' and represented its continuing expansion into "natural, healthy, good-for-you products.''
But in July PepsiCo agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class action alleging the juices contained GMOs and chemically processed vitamins. Naked is made with "all-natural fruits and vegetables'' but the wording is being removed "until there is more detailed regulatory guidance,'' PepsiCo said.
Campbell Soup's Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers have begun arriving on store shelves in recent weeks stripped of their front-of-pack "Natural'' claim. The crackers have been the target of several lawsuits alleging they contain genetically modified soy. Campbell said the change was part of a "package refresh'' that preceded litigation, which is continuing.
Barbara's Bakery Inc., the maker of Puffins cereal and Snackimal crackers, paid $4 million this summer to settle a suit accusing it of using some nonnatural ingredients. The company, a pioneer of the natural-foods movement, in recent weeks changed its logo to "Since 1971'' instead of "All Natural Since 1971.''
Barbara's says it used to define natural as "no artificial preservatives, flavors, colors or ingredients'' but that it now believes the term is "vague and confusing.'' It instead plans to rely on terms such as "simple,'' "wholesome,'' "nutritious'' and "minimally processed.'' Barbara's also says it began eliminating GMOs in 2011 and has secured non-GMO verification for nearly 80% of its products, which it touts on new packaging.
Ben & Jerry's has grappled with the issue since 2002, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest began publicly urging the ice cream maker to quit claiming its products are "all natural'' because they contained hydrogenated oils and other factory-made substances.
In 2010, Ben & Jerry's agreed to remove "all natural" from its packaging and today trumpets the ice cream as "Vermont's finest.'' Last year Unilever, the parent of Ben & Jerry's, agreed to pay $5 million to settle a consumer lawsuit against the brand. But the deal was rejected by a judge. Another court hearing is scheduled this fall.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Walmart Tests Neo-Generic\Basic Private Brand: Price First

Walmart Tests Neo-Generic\Basic Private Brand: Price First

Walmart - Price First - Circular 1In a surprise move that demonstrates an increasing emphasis on Private Brands, Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, has begun what appears to be a test of a new extreme value\basic brand. Price First is featured in a 2-page flyer introducing the brand and it’s stark blue and yellow neo-generic packaging with the headline, “Choose our lowest-priced brand for all your grocery staples. Look for it in your store today.” The products appear to be moving from existing unbranded or control brand SKUs.
Walmart - Price First - mayonaise2It appears that the brand is now being tested in numerous markets including: Opelousas, Louisiana; Richmond, Virginia; Mobile, Alabama; Greenville, SC and Jeffersonville, Kentucky.
Combined with the recent redesign and expansion of Sam’s Choice, if successful, the new brand will dramatically expand the Walmart Private Brand portfolio. With its addition, Walmart will create a very traditional three-tier private label architecture similar to the strategy implemented by most mainstream grocers in the 1980’s. The grocery portfolio is then rounded out by the specialty and category Private Brands: Clear American, Lucky Duck, Oak Leaf, Prima Della, The Bakery and Walmart Deli.
Walmart applied for the trademark in early 2012 and has now extended the application to more than twenty classes. Categories listed include:
  • Laundry products, namely, bleaching preparations, anti-static dryer sheets, fabric softeners for domestic use, and stain removers; dishwashing detergent, laundry detergent
    Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices.
  • Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply, and sanitary purposes.
  • Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks.
  • Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats
  • Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, frozen ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.
  • Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other nonalcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.
While I applaud Walmart finally acknowledging the numerous unbranded and control label SKUs in grocery as private label products and creating a brand to tie them together – the 1970’s flashback design is at best disappointing, but at its worst it could set the industry back twenty years.
With Lucky Duck, Prima Della, Marketside, Pure Balance, You Zone, Onn and Backyard Grill, Walmart has demonstrated their ability to create engaging well-positioned and well-designed brands. This simply does not live up to those standards.
The introduction of Price First into the Walmart Private Brand Portfolio raises a few questions.
  • How will customers react to a new private label that makes no apologies for low quality products?
  • Will customers embrace the neo-generic package design or find it embarrassing?
  • Will customers understand the difference between the two descriptively named brands Great Value and Price First?
  • How will the introduction of Price First impact the penetration of private label in grocery?
  • Is Walmart creating labels or building and managing BRANDS?
    Walmart - Price First - Circular 2Walmart - Price First - Circular 1Walmart - Price First - Yellow Mustard