G+ Deja Vu All Over Again?

A quick Google search on "Pinterest growth" emits the latest Silicon Valley effervescence (yeah, recommended Googling that too ;). It's true that rarely a day passes when I am not notified of at least 2 or 3 new "followers" on the service. And for some reason, I feel compelled to "follow back" out of courtesy. At least, I used to. Now the follows come so furiously that I've lost track.

Which feels like Google+ Deja Vu All Over Again. After the whackamole frenzy of adding G+ Followers my own Circles, I also soon stopped, exhausted and scratching my head at why it was even meaningful.  But Google was quick to assure the world that in its first month, it attained 40 million users.

Um, and...what is usage? Turns out this can constitute simply clicking +1 at the end of any story. Because this feeds back to your Google+ page, this means you are a Google+ "user." At least, to Google+ and the blogging that perpetuates these frothy myths.

Back to Pinterest. Despite claims that it's "2012's Hottest Startup," I'm hard-pressed to be impressed. Like Google+, its users are dramatically skewed towards one demographic (male engineers in G+ case, and women in Pinterest's). But I could stand teh imbalance if the actual significance merited the jubilee. But even some bubbly articles with titles like "Holy SMOKES! Pinterest is the fastest-growing site ever" also include disqualifiers at the end like, "Users aren't spending that much time at the site -- about 90 minutes a month, compared with 7 hours for Facebook."

No matter: it's far more fun to just talk about numbers in abstract; even if out of context, stats make for some sexy infographics. Like, "Over 1/5 of Facebook Connected Users are on Pinterest Daily." Does this  mean the server that hosts my (primarily untouched) Pinterest boards is sending server hits back to this count? And "Daily Users have Increased by 145% Since the Beginning of 2012". Same question as before and added to that is, what was the baseline at the start of 2012 anyway? Let's never forget the so-impressive "Raised $37.5M in funding since October 2011" stat in our list of business fundamentals.

The final straw that eliminated any last ounce of credibility I held for the service was when I learned that Pinterest is "quietly" making money from affiliate revenue. A partner fittingly called "Skimlinks" has helped it create a scheme where Pins that are clicked send an affiliate fee from the content provider straight to Pinterest.

So, in addition to lots of fluffy usage numbers, Pinterest is hiding how it's benefiting from the (few?) women actually taking the time to post stuff to their boards.

Well, at least it's not ALL women.

But...really...is there any reason we don't use metrics like DAU and ARPU here? Tell me I'm missing something...

 I'd Pin this if I trusted the service more...

If it's been said already...

...it may still merit saying!

So much has been said about doing email introductions properly ... and so much of it feels like common sense. So the only amazing thing is that people continue to do it so badly. And perhaps one of the worst parts of this phenomena is that the people making the poorly-formed requests tend to blame the person asked for not responding, when the responsibility really falls on them to make the entire process effective.

How can we eliminate this ill will and save lots of people time? It's hard to top these posts by the prolific VC, Mark Suster...so I'll just underscore some of these points with my own twist in the hopes that this in some small way reduces some frustration and wasted time for all in the future.

(1) Make it Forwardable: This is my ongoing mantra and listed as Suster's #4 here. I've lost count of how many long email threads I have with friends or contacts sussing out how well I know someone, how I suggest reaching out to them, etc, only to end in, "Thanks!" The expectation is then for me to package up all the thinking (and whatever attachments) were embedded in the previous emails to create a version that is digestable by the prospective intro. Making me realize my friend etc. is absolutely clueless or zero in the empathic category.

(2) Short Does Not Equal Focused: Point #1 above does presuppose that the person packaging up the request understands what is useful for someone getting the intro.  Which is why it's helpful to also read the "Short" and "Focused" top 2 points in Suster's post.

But don't be tempted to think "short" necessarily translates into "focused." Today I got a hugely general intro from someone I know saying I "should meet" this other person because they are doing something vaguely pertaining to what I'm currently working on. Worse, the reply from the person being introduced only mentioned wanting to "network" to raise money. No elaboration on or links to what his project is and even worse: no mention of why I specifically am someone he wants to meet. Does he know anything about me, or can he identify whetherwe have something in common, etc. that would make "networking" a truly valuable endeavor?

(3) Do The Work. In the examples above, a common theme is that it's on me to either package things up or devise a useful connecting point. Why me? If you are asking for an intro, you should have done your research on me (or whoever you want me to introduce you to), and laid out some specifics on exactly why an introduction would be valuable. As in, make it clear on what your ask is and what tangible next step you propose: Coffee? Meeting at an event? A brief answer to a question or two?

However, if your goal is to simply want to "get connected" and "network," I encourage you to rethink your definition of networking in an era where time is becoming one of the rarest commodities.