Gothenburg and Facebook - what's up?

I just had a quick look at the regional/local statistics for Facebook in Sweden. To my surprise Gothenburg seems really underrepresented.And yes - I also used Gothenburg (and even Goteburg) as search terms - all gave a similar figure.

As a comparison - the same search for Stockholm returns more than 2.6 million people (far more than the official population in the region?) and for Malmö it returns 234 000 people.

The official population of Gothenburg is just above 500 000 individuals (Gothenburg is the 2nd largest city in Sweden).

How come? Any ideas? Could it be that:

• People in Gothenburg doesn't use Facebook and social networking sites to a large extent?
  
  
• Perhaps there's another social networking site which is large in Gothenburg?
  
  
• People in Gothenburg would rather not state that they live in Gothenburg?
  
  
• A slightly more technical possibility - Facebook uses, among other things, the user's IP address to decide the geographical location. Perhaps the Internet connections in Gothenburg are routed through Stockholm or some other place?

I'm stumped and surprised. What do you say? Do you have any Facebook friends from Gothenburg to ask..?

Copyleft or copy-theft?

Creative Commons and Noncommercial use - what does it really mean? Can you help me understand this?

Please take the time to answer this poll (link) - I will post a summary when I get sufficient number of replies.

You might be familiar with Creative Commons and how they:

provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily
mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. You can
use CC to change your copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some
Rights Reserved."

Creative Commons works with four basic attributes, which are combined into a specific license:

Now, it's the "Noncommercial" I need your help with. (Again, here's the poll where I would love your feedback!)

How shall "Noncommercial" vs. "Commercial" purposes be interpreted? Is there a clear definition?

• It is pretty clear that you can't sell somewith which is licensed as "Noncommercial". Ie, you can not make a postcard or a T-shirt of a non-commercial picture and sell it.
  
• On the other hand I guess you can make a T-shirt and wear it yourself, or make a postcard and send to you friends?
  
• Can you make a postcard or T-shirt and give it away? To your personal friends? On behalf of your employeer? If a corporation gives something away, even for free, it is in many cases a commercial reason for this.

It is quite common to apply a copyright model that let people reuse and embed content from the Internet (eg video files) given certain conditions. In many cases this includes a condition that the content "may only be used for non-commercial purposes".

At a first glance the interpretation of this sounds obvious. But beware, the definition of "Non Commercial" might not be as obvious as you thought. The interpretation is not crystal clear, and the formal meaning is in many cases more narrow than you might intend - both as a content creator, granting a "Non Commercial" license and as publisher/user, using "Non Commercial" content.

Let's have a look at the topic, starting with Creative Commons and then moving to some examples.

Creative Commons
Have a look at Creative Commons and the set of licenses they offer for creators and contributors that are looking for a crisp and clear way to apply a copyleft approach (rather than copyright) to their works and creations. In essence, this allows creators to apply a "some rights reserved" license to their works.

One of the attributes that can be part of a Creative Commons license attribution is the Non Commercial (NC) tag. Three out of the six available CC licenses includes this tag.

Now, what is meant by the NC tag? It turns out that this is not as obvious and straight forward as you would wish.

The license attribute
The short version of the Noncommercial attribute reads:

You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only.

When you dig into the small print of the more legal version of a CC license including the NC attribute you find the text:

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You [in Section 3 above] in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

What does this mean?

The key phrase is "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation".

This phrase is not as clear as you would wish, and in many cases I believe the practical interpretation applied by individuals differs. Especially as many probably doesn't read the fine print, and instead relies on the even more open-ended phrasing "noncommercial purposes only" in the Noncommercial attribute.

The problematic word seems to boil down to "primarily".

Primarily or Secondarily?

How do you define what's primarily and what's secondarily..?


Consider a few examples:


Private use:

• You have a blog where you post "funny things" just for the fun of it.
  
• You have a blog where you post "funny things" just for the fun of it. Also, just for the fun of it, you included some ads on the blog.
  You know that you'll probably not make any money from the ads (best case a few dollars a year). The reason you included ads are not to make money, but something else (like "I'd like cool ads on my blog" or "I'm trying to understand how ads work technically").
  
• You have a blog where you post "funny things" just for the fun of it. The blog is hosted at a site that includes ads automatically (like eg. Facebook).
  The reason the ads are there is to finance the (free) service that hosts your blog.
  
• You have a blog where you post "funny and useful things". The aim is to make yourself more attractive to employ.

Corporate use:

• You are posting to a corporate, external blog. The aim of the blog is to promote the "know-how" of the company and to attract new customers.
  
• You are posting to a corporate, external blog. The aim of the blog is to build the perception and brand of the company. All sales goes through other channels.
  
• You are posting to a blog on your company's intranet. The aim is to share knowledge, which in the end might make your company more efficient and competitive.
  
• You are posting to a corporate, external blog. The company is a non-profit organization, but you still charge for your services in order to finance the activities you do to eg. support victims of various disasters. The aim of the blog is to promote the "know-how" of the company and to attract new customers.

In which of the above cases would it be OK to use content with the Non-commercial attribution? Have your say in this poll.

A study from Creative Commons
Creative Commons published a report September 2009 on this topic, looking into how the online community defines and perceives the term Noncommercial. Interesting and recommended reading - but no clear conclusion of the definition. Read the announcement here.

Conclusions?
So, what's your take on the definition of Noncommercial? A no-brainer or a can of worms?

How do you apply the definition, or don't you you see this as applicable to you?

Please drop a comment below, and contribute to the poll!

Source criticism criticism

A few weeks ago the site Internetkunskap.se went live, with the aim to publish a number of videos to enhance the Internet knowledge and competence among school kids in Sweden.

A good initiative, which fills a need.

But, last week Internetkunskap.se published the second video about internet source evaluation (källkritik). Obviously an important topic in the context. However, the video has a major flaw.

"How to validate a search result..?"
About two minutes into the film a search is made to find out which city is the capital of Brazil. The first search result is from Wikipedia, and suggests that the capital is Brasilia. So far so good, but as the topic of the video is how to evaluate information found on Internet the film goes on. Next follows a discussion on that you can't trust a search result as such, but then..

"...click on the search result and read the page!"
About three minutes into the video we are ready to verify that Brasilia indeed is the capital city of Brazil. And the best way to do that is to click on the search result and read on the site that Brasilia is the capital. Right... (Not, of course...)

This small lapse hurts the overall impression in a number of ways.

• It makes you look for other weaknesses in the video
  And there are some to be found...
  The most critical one is the lack of any discussion on the type of source (ie that Wikipedia is editable by anyone) or the need to identify the publisher and the intention of the publisher.
• It makes you wonder about the overall project
  Will the other films have similar flaws? What's the intention and target group? And who is really behind the site (source criticism...)?
  Have a look at the first and third movie as well. And look for the upcoming ones.
  
• It might be the takeaway for the target group
  "I have done my "källkritik", I clicked in the search result and read it" (Not the sole message from the video, but an easy one to catch...)

The video discusses the need to provide references for information, and to get as close as the original source as possible. But it doesn't come anywhere near discussing "källkritik" as an academic/scientific method. (Or actually, the films shows this, but I feel the reference is misplaced in the overall context provided by the video).

I originally found it a bit humorous, and a nice touch, that the presenter of this specific topic is a PR consultant, who furthermore uses the alias "Doktor Spinn" (what is a spin doctor?). But with this major flaw it puts a (probably unintended) flavour to the overall video.

(Note: I have used the Swedish word "källkritik" in several places, instead of the term "source criticism", because I am not sure about the best translation.)

And here is the video:


Anyway, I'm looking forward to the coming videos. And tomorrow I plan to be at the Stockholm Social Media Lunch Club, where both @annika and @doktorspinn will attend. Let's see if they have read this by then...

But again, for the second video my suggestion is, as we say in Sweden - "Gör om, gör rätt".

(Minor update to the text 100305 - rewrote and moved the paragraph on spin doctors further down)

Facebook Ads goes social and useful (?)

When I went into Facebook today I noticed this ad:

Two things struck me as interesting, which I hadn't noticed in Facebook ads before:

• Govermental information related to society
  The ad (for those who don't live in Sweden) tells you that you don't need a little sticker on your number plates from now on. (The sticker was a way to show that you had paid the taxes related to the vehicle).
  This highlights the value of Facebook Ads for other messages than the pure commercial that have been the main part of the ads so far.
  When you click on the ad you end up at the Swedish Transportstyrelsen.
  
• Social recommendations
  Notice the "like"-button, and that two of my friend have "liked" the ad.
  I hadn't noticed this before, but apparently this was announced in August by Facebook.
  (One reason I hadn't noticed might be because there wasn't any ads "liked" by my friend before?)
  This is obviously a way to ensure that the ads as such become more personal relevant for you, in two ways: They are "filtered" by your friends, thus the content might be more likely to be relevant for you and they are "recommended" by your friend - you noticed your friends names and look twice.

That you start to see this type of "useful" information, rather than pure "spam ads", in Facebook leads me to some observations:

• Facebook starts to be seen as a valuable platform for information spreading
  As the Facebook penetration in Sweden continue to grow, now with more than three million users, it's becomming a mainstream channel that is useful not only for businesses.
  
• A targetable information channel
  With Facebook ads you can target the demographics of your receivers quite well, so local information, information for a specific gender and/or age group, information for specific interest groups etc can be effectively spread.
  
• It adds further value to Facebook
  I get more value out of this specific ad than most others than I have seen so far.
  
• More natural placements than Google ads
  My initial reaction was that this specific ad found a better placement through Facebook than it would have if included in the Google ad platform.

What do you think? Will we see more information spreading through Facebook ads, as opposed to commercial messages?

Three million Facebook users in Sweden - statistics and demographics

The number of Facebook users in Sweden have now passed the three million mark.

This number have been close for a while, already in the end of October this blog mentioned the 3-million users in Sweden.
However, since October the number of Swedish Facebook users has oscillated around three million users and regulary gone back below the three million mark. But now it seems to be stable above.

Since I had a closer look at the statistics and demographics of Facebook users in Sweden when the number passed the one-million mark and the two-million mark I will once again drill down in the numbers. Enjoy.

The growth
The first million users in Sweden was reached in November 2007, the second million of users was reached in March 2009. Now, end of 2009, the third million users are reached in Sweden.

Based on the graph of the number of Facebook users in Sweden it doesn't look like the trend is flattening yet. Will the growth continue, or is the user base saturated?

When you look at the number of users per age you get the following distribution:

Most users are between 14 and 24 years old.

The genders
The Facebook users in Sweden is evenly distributed between male and female users: In all age groups there's a small surplus of female users (except for the 65+ group; perhaps male persons are more likely to fake their age?) The penetration
The current number of Facebook users in Sweden means that one third (33%) of the population are using Facebook. Out of the age group 15-64 years old nearly half of the population (47%) are on Facebook. In the group of people between 15 and 39 years old three out of four (73%) are on Facebook.

When you look at the penetration for each age you get this graph: Note that the 19-years-old have more than 100% penetration. Obviously there's some errors here (I discuss a few possible reasons in the end note).

It is also interesting to note that the reach is close to 10% even among the older part of the population. I'd say that there's plenty of room to grow towards four million users - as we have a notable part of all ages on Facebook it might continue to grow.

Compared with the one-million and two-million mark...
When you compare the age group penetration today with the previous distribution it is obvious that Facebook has got a foothold among the people above 35 years of age, and that this is where there has been a growth in the number of users. Note also that the highest penetration is in the age group of 15-19, which is a change from earlier this year. Facebook is no longer a place only for people in the early twenties, but a place where you'll find individuals of all ages.

Notes:
Are these numbers correct? What is meant by a Facebook user - someone with an account, or someone with an active account?

The numbers in this analysis is from the Facebook ad system and the Swedish demographics is from SCB.

There is definately some errors involved, but as an indication of the penetration and demographics these numbers might be used.

The age and gender is self-stated. Especially the age contains error sources. Eg. no doubt that the youngest Swedes, those below 13, also have found Facebook. (To a large degree this is probably driven by all the social games (eg Farmville) that can be played on Facebook.) But since the minimum age in order to register a Facebook account is 13 there is a number of kids who have stated an age of 13 or above. And the birth year can not be changed for an account, so this error might still be in place even when the user have passed the age of 13.

"Facebook Ads uses IP address and a user's profile information to determine a user's location." - it is not exactly clear how Facebook uses this combination to determine which users are Swedish. You might very well have individuals logging in through a Swedish IP, but who are not "part of the Swedish population".'

Further more, Facebook has the information of exact birth date, and the SCB numbers is an estimate of the age distribution for the year, not at the current date specifically. Thus the mapping of age information towards the Swedish demography from SCB have some errors.

Active users or not? - This is not clear, but my educated guess is that Facebook lists accounts which have been accessed in the last 30 days in the ads utility, thus the answer to this question is probably "Yes, active users".

CBO & CCO: Brands, Culture and a book

CBOs and CCOs, interesting development!

Ericsson now has an appointed Chief Brand Officer. Read more at this blog, or have look at the Wikipedia article on the topic. Not the first one in the world, but a fairly new corporate title.

So, what's next? I just saw that there's a new book coming - "Chief Culture Officer"

With the subtitle "How to create a living, breathing, corporation" it looks interesting. Have a look at the table of contents, the pages available as preview and the reviews so far.

I will definately add this to my list of books to potentially get and read.

It is also interesting to notice that not only is it released on Kindle first, it is also more expensive to buy the Kindle version. Are we seeing willingness to pay a premium price for non-paper versions of books?

(D&D; Disclosure and Disclaimer: I work for Ericsson in my daily profession. However I do not blog on behalf of Ericsson; all opinions expressed here are my personal views)

Phone as PVR - learn from the kids

The industry is pushing the TV experience out to the phones, and in general there is an interest in this use case. However, the next generation consumers are already defining how they will embrace TV and moving images on the phone.


I found my son watching the Simpsons, and at the same time recording it for later viewing. On his mobile phone.
As his phone usage budget is low, he and his friends doesn't use the mobile network that much. Yes - some phone calls and SMS's, but not connecting to the Internet. Mostly using the phone as a gaming platform, and also for various media consumption and creation.


In this case he uses the phone as a PVR, instead of a VCR or other more stationary solutions. By capturing the Simpsons episode the "analogue"way he solves the hazzle of later transfering the file to the phone. And he will be able to enjoy past episodes whenever and wherever he likes.


Oh yes, a bit cumbersome perhaps. But it definately solve the needs of my son. And with a 4 GB memory on he phone he can store a lot of shows...


The quality? Surprisingly good I'd say. And as long as he can keep his sieblings and parents quiet and out of the way the audio is acceptable also.

So - keep an eye on the kids, they define the future. Now.


What are your kids up to? Any stories to share?