The top 20 brand leaders were scrutinized to by Socialgility with Google coming out on top across a variety of metrics however the interest for me was the underpinning of the Social Media Brand Performance and Brand Value and Brand Growth with a 95-99% degree of confidence. The findings showed the balance between Performance and Size/Growth to make sure a healthy balance was being maintained.

The infographic goes further to to explore five dimensions and the results of the top five brand performers namely: Popularity, Receptiveness, Interaction, Network Reach and Trust with Google trumping in three categories but not featuring in Receptiveness.

The aspect of confidence and arrogance was to me most interesting with Google falling short in having the largest disparity between popularity and receptiveness and IBM coming up trumps in that regard.

Channels are visualised with Disney’s engagement on Facebook leading and suprisingly Google topping the Twitter count.

Social Media Performance to Brand value


DDS-LOGOThe rise of mobile needs no introduction.

Not only are smartphones the genesis of most searches now but tablets are outstripping computer sales in growth, lets just say that recent numbers from Google show that computer searches are down 40% and over to mobile.

So it makes sense to run out and have an app made, right? Wrong.

Should you have a website that is truly mobile ready, and your budget permits it, then sure, but a website that is truly mobile ready is as good as an app, if not better. Let me explain: Mozilla have been saying something a little differently that I am inclined to agree with \"there is a web for that\", as opposed to \"there Is an app for that\". So what is the big deal?

Follow the money

If an app could run through a website, or more simply, if a website functions just like an app, is an app necessary? Well if Apple and Google can help it, yes. Sounds a bit smoke and mirrors to me.

Lets put it this way, if the average smart mobile phone is stronger now than say all the processing power available to send the first people to the moon, and the internet is 30 years old, is a browser on a mobile now that lame so as not to be able to run what computers can, which is mostly as good as if not better than mobile apps?

Google pays a not-for-profit Mozilla in the region of $300 million per year to have their search engine the default of their internet browser Firefox?

If Apple and Google can control the \\\'eco-system\\\' of the mobile App stores, they can make heaps of money, oops... wait, they do!

So why is Mozilla releasing (sorry released) a Firefox operating system for mobile phones?


Apps are free in the form of websites, creating boundaries where there are there are technically none in the form of \\\'App Stores\\\' is making someone a lot of money.