Google has launched a software application in the UK that will give consumers information about their energy consumption, usage pattern and carbon footprint thereby enabling them to save both money and energy. The "opt-in" tool receives information from utility smart meters and energy management devices and provides it to customers on their screens.
Currently Google just has a deal with energy supplier first:utility in the UK. Users of other energey suppliers need to install a sensor device AlertMe Energy (for £69) to their meters and then view the data for an additional £3 monthly charges.
Powermeter provides energy information in the form of graphs on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and enables users to compare their usages and derive their average use.
However, in keeping up with users' demands for interactive tools, Powermeter aims to allow users to share their energy habits, tips and light-hearted energy-saving competitions, according to a report in the Guardian.
Google has expressed its wish to bring the social element on to the software, perhaps for a more robust uptake. But here in lies the future of interactive media - an innovative application build on the premise of providing crucial information and then building the interactive element on to it. A refreshing shift from standalone social media websites.
As rapid advances are being made in the web 2.0 tools and interactive technologies, several studies and surveys suggest that most of the user-generated content in Twitter is "banter" and that such tools are hampering people's productivity at workplaces.
Almost simultaneusly, niche and focus-group based social media applications such as Springer's The NeuroNetwork for neurology researchers and Sage's Methodspace to discuss research methodologies among others are proving beneficial in peer-to-peer information sharing, discussions and advice.
The primary function of the web - accurate information provision - was hijacked amid the launch of a slew of purely user-generated content through the latest web 2.0 tools.
Powermeter- that displays information on the web on users' customised iGoogle page brings progress in the area of information provision. It brings to our screens crucial information that is otherwise difficult to access and then builds interactive technologies around it, suggesting evolution in the mainstream social media space.
Thursday 29 October 2009
Friday 16 October 2009
Social media technologies must do what they say
Micro-blogging website Twitter has managed to secure a "significant round of funding" from five investment firms, as was revealed through the blog post of its co-founder Evan Williams.
The new funding has reportedly come from two new investors Insight Venture Partners and T R Price, as well as its existing funders Institutional Venture Partners, Spark Capital and Benchmark Capital.
There are two problems to start with. First is that Williams was not as candid about the exact amount of investment because the investors want the deal to be a private affair. Isn't web 2.0 all about sharing information and encouraging transparent and candid conversations? Internet has liberated information and has always preached professionals to provide information. Shouldn't it apply the same rules to itself?.
Unless social media companies including Facebook - which is also known for shying away from sharing plans, projections and security measures - come out in the open, it is hard for information professionals who want to capitalise on these tools to chart out their plan or realise the potential.
Amid tight budgets, it's extremely important for marketers too to define the return on investment and unless there is more information, it is hard to define ROI. The lack of information also hinders discussion on whether the amount of investment was right in the first place. And it does not set a basis to evaluate other social media technologies.
Also presumably, Twitter has secured the funds and valued itself on the basis of its whopping 45 million users in its three-year history and expecting this to grow exponentially.
Twitter is planning to roll out adverts and even provide companies with initial insight and market reaction. But the second problem is that because information on web2.0 applications are user-generated, scattered across multiple platforms and at different times, professionals and advertisers would find it difficult to target the right information for the right set of audience.
There has to be more collaboration of content in the social media technologies before any plans to leverage on them take to the sky. And there definitely needs to be more engagement between users and social media companies.
The new funding has reportedly come from two new investors Insight Venture Partners and T R Price, as well as its existing funders Institutional Venture Partners, Spark Capital and Benchmark Capital.
There are two problems to start with. First is that Williams was not as candid about the exact amount of investment because the investors want the deal to be a private affair. Isn't web 2.0 all about sharing information and encouraging transparent and candid conversations? Internet has liberated information and has always preached professionals to provide information. Shouldn't it apply the same rules to itself?.
Unless social media companies including Facebook - which is also known for shying away from sharing plans, projections and security measures - come out in the open, it is hard for information professionals who want to capitalise on these tools to chart out their plan or realise the potential.
Amid tight budgets, it's extremely important for marketers too to define the return on investment and unless there is more information, it is hard to define ROI. The lack of information also hinders discussion on whether the amount of investment was right in the first place. And it does not set a basis to evaluate other social media technologies.
Also presumably, Twitter has secured the funds and valued itself on the basis of its whopping 45 million users in its three-year history and expecting this to grow exponentially.
Twitter is planning to roll out adverts and even provide companies with initial insight and market reaction. But the second problem is that because information on web2.0 applications are user-generated, scattered across multiple platforms and at different times, professionals and advertisers would find it difficult to target the right information for the right set of audience.
There has to be more collaboration of content in the social media technologies before any plans to leverage on them take to the sky. And there definitely needs to be more engagement between users and social media companies.
Friday 2 October 2009
Drop the silo approach
Two research reports on the impact of social networking and Web 2.0 tools in the workplace highlight the anxiety among experts over these issues. Suggesting identical outcomes, both reports - one from Economist Intelligence Unit on managing technology democracy in the workplace and the other study by Recommind on the use and implications of Web 2.0 tools in businesses - urge businesses to "act now and manage Web2.0, it's already late".
The reports found that even today, over 40% of senior executives in organisations said they restrict the use of such applications and have no training in place to manage the uptake of these tools by staff in the near future.
The concerns these executives raised were about security, lack of productivity, loss of information, data breaches, difficulty in preserving and accessing information and legal implications.
The moot point of discussion at both the events were about "Who takes responsibility for implementing and enforcing the company policy on Web2.0 use?"
Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to tackle the tricky issues of Web 2.0 because they acknowledge and identify its benefits in this internet age. Meanwhile, staff insist on "technology democracy".
People may be techno-savvy but they lack digital awareness and history shows that we pay a huge price for this lack of awareness. Young staff have been sacked for posting negative comments about employers or customers; public sector organisations have lost and misplaced highly sensitive information and personal data has been used for vetting future staff.
The question of responsibility is a tough and dodgy one. And the Recommind survey suggested that 70% respondents think it is IT department's responsibility, 17% said it was the legal department and the others were divided between dedicated Web 2.0 specialists in offices, team leaders and individual members of staff.
It's time to drop the silo approach. Not only does the IT department, legal team and staff need to work together, it is time individual users, application providers and regulatory services take responsibility too. Until now, the legislation and public awareness has always been catching up with technology. It is time to stop playing catch up and get even with technology.
The reports found that even today, over 40% of senior executives in organisations said they restrict the use of such applications and have no training in place to manage the uptake of these tools by staff in the near future.
The concerns these executives raised were about security, lack of productivity, loss of information, data breaches, difficulty in preserving and accessing information and legal implications.
The moot point of discussion at both the events were about "Who takes responsibility for implementing and enforcing the company policy on Web2.0 use?"
Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to tackle the tricky issues of Web 2.0 because they acknowledge and identify its benefits in this internet age. Meanwhile, staff insist on "technology democracy".
People may be techno-savvy but they lack digital awareness and history shows that we pay a huge price for this lack of awareness. Young staff have been sacked for posting negative comments about employers or customers; public sector organisations have lost and misplaced highly sensitive information and personal data has been used for vetting future staff.
The question of responsibility is a tough and dodgy one. And the Recommind survey suggested that 70% respondents think it is IT department's responsibility, 17% said it was the legal department and the others were divided between dedicated Web 2.0 specialists in offices, team leaders and individual members of staff.
It's time to drop the silo approach. Not only does the IT department, legal team and staff need to work together, it is time individual users, application providers and regulatory services take responsibility too. Until now, the legislation and public awareness has always been catching up with technology. It is time to stop playing catch up and get even with technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)