I hate when the tech and media industries create cutesy names for no reason. For some reason when Commerce is conducted in some way through or on a Social Network they name it Social Commerce.
com·merce
[kom-ers]
noun
1.
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.
2.
social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc.
3.
sexual intercourse.
4.
intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.
5.
(initial capital letter) Also called Commerce Department. Informal. the Department of Commerce.
Wow did not know number 3 was part of the definition maybe we view this sex for money thing completely backwards?
Anyway, back to my point. Bloomberg had a great article on how major brands are shutting down their Facebook Storefronts. I have seen some of these storefronts. The fact is they are like one of those center kiosks in the mall vs what an actual store holds. And you can't do on Facebook the things you can do on your own website and trick it out with tons of inventory, bells and whistles etc. I called failure on this in the past and not surprised this didn't work. People don't go to Facebook to shop. In fact why would you? If I wanted to buy a product from a brand online why would I go to Facebook and not their website which is just as easy to get to, more robust, or and who trusts having Facebook see your credit card number anyway?
But if I buy something on Facebook is that different than Amazon or physically in Starbucks? No it is all the same. So let us just be honest and call it Commerce ok? E-Tailing? Is RETAILING! E-Commerce? Commerce. Get it? Nope? Why I aughta.... <SMACKS UPSIDE OF THE HEAD> Capiche? Good.
Oh and for some comedy Forbes which I never read because they are the Mashable of Business Trade Publications allowed a company that makes storefronts on Facebook to counter the Bloomberg article. They give a graph supporting their business with no numbers. Hilarious stuff.
Where do I start? Wait a minute. I should stop laughing first. OK, OK I am fine now. This list shows how I read this post so as to be as neutral as possible.
ReplyDelete(Disclaimer: Facebook sucks ®ick's big donkey Øick.);
The List
1. Read entire post without clicking links.
2. Look at graph. [link]
3. Read Forbes article. [link]
4. Read Bloomberg article. [link]
5. There is no five -- LMAO & ROF
Once I regained composure I could not shake the following impression Forbes made on me; this rag is highbrow "People" magazine.
Hats off to Bloomberg for demanding any declaration of fact to have the source material handy for inspection. However, the comments by Wade Gerten are the so called out-of-context story (see: Social Commerce Today) which is kind of normal for news everywhere. I did not say desirable or good, it is why you have that "grain of salt".
Conclusion: Bloomberg scores win due to having source data to read. It does not get 100% because misquotes are hardly an accident. Forbes? If you like fluff such as "People" magazine then go read it. Don't take any wooden nickel data it offers.