1. Facebook check in was not as successful compared to foursquare as it was a simple check in application where foursquare produced a ranking system, with a "game sense mentality" where users that checked in had a rank and as a result also received possible promotions at locations if their rank was high enough
2. You can get returns for every place you check in, there is a purpose for using the app rather than announcing to the world where you have been.
2.1. FOURSQUARE customizes your interests as well as your friends. This allows customers to communicate to each other and allow for word of mouth advertising, engaging customers in different levels
3. Foursquare is much more focused on "checking in" then Facebook
3.1. Facebook does everything in a sense and thus less attention is paid to just another new "app" it produces.
4. Group 413
4.1. Foursquare creates a community, which is focused on locations, places, and reviews. Not everyone on Facebook wants their location to be posted online, which makes using it really inconsistent among your friends
4.2. You can be rewarded for checking in at places using Foursquare
4.3. Sometimes Facebook statuses, and therefore places, can be seen as annoying when it isn't your close friends posting. However, with Foursquare, people expect and sign up to know their friends favourite places
4.4. Foursquare has been extremely successful in building customer loyalty, an example being Starbucks. Frequent visitors who check-in to this location can receive a "Mayor" badge and get free drinks or large discounts off of their purchase. This is true of other companies Foursquare has built relationships in order to create repeat business for the application as well as the business the application has built alliances with.
5. Group 414
6. Discussion Question: Foursquare did well but Places check-in is not as popular, why?
7. Group 411
7.1. Foursquare has material benefits and is more commercial oriented and facebook Places does not have any rewards regarding checking in to restaurants etc...
7.2. Specifically tailored to businesses whereas facebook places is more of a social networking system and not business related
8. Group 412
8.1. There are better benefits for people using Foursquare. There aren't enough incentives for people to use Facebook Places.
8.2. Foursquare unifies check-ins and business activities and promotions, so that users can enjoy the benefits that come with checking-in, have fun beating out other users for frequency of visits and these businesses gain more customers (and perhaps long-term ones).
8.3. Fuursquare has a game element to it that encourages users to interact with others (a key feature that differentiates Foursquare from Facebook, who only has a group check-in for feature in terms of interactivity), where they can become mayor of a location for having the most-checks ins and win "badges" as achievements.
8.3.1. Facebook offers a lot of services and applications for users, but as with the Parody of Choice and a growing preference for minimalism- Foursquare does only one real service, and I think that users appreciate that simplicity. (Also, this is a personal reason but, Facebook simply knows/shows too much about a person!)
9. Group 415
9.1. New node
9.2. Facebook is more general and doesn't give room to share opinions
10. Group 416
10.1. Starting 4square is another community built upon the purpose of sharing location and foods choice s - not the purpose of Facebook
10.2. Facebook takes your other information into consideration - in 4square - its only about that one thing
10.3. Facebook may have friends that you do not want to be sharing certain information with
10.4. foursquare reward users with points and "badges"
10.5. 4sq provides incentives for users while Facebook Places does not. There is no reason for people to use Places if it takes the same amount of effort and offers no return.
11. Group 417
12. Group 418
12.1. Foursquare users can choose to have their check-in posted on twitter and facebook or both, but what you post up on facebook will only show up on facebook.
12.2. When using Foursquare you can share the information to other social media platforms beside just Facebook
13. Group 419
14. New node
15. New node
16. New node
17. Group 420
17.1. Facebook has been know of stealing consumer's information and having privacy issues for the past few years. while putting an emphasize on the consumers as well as the location identification feature itself, 4 square came out first and thus has the first mover advantage.
18. New node
19. Foursquare allows reviews and ratings and users are more interested in viewing friends' reviews. Foursquare also rewards users for reviewing and rating places. Facebook just allows you to see who you're hanging out with.
19.1. The place may not show up and it takes a long time for facebook to search your location
19.1.1. Foursquare automatically syncs with facebook and is more efficient
19.1.2. Facebook is time consuming and frustrating
20. New node
21. Foursquare is designed for checking in to places, and therefore attracts people who want to check in and receive rewards while doing it. Facebook however, is much more broad and instead of tediously checking in via a separate Facebook Places application, people can simply update their status and include where they are.
22. Foursquare encourages consumers to 'check-in' for rewards while social networking with friends and contacts at specific locations -> one up on facebook
23. Foursquare offers incentives for using their application more often and checking in to businesses (i.e. coupons or free products for becoming a mayor) compared to facebook, which has no real incentive other than sharing details about your personal life.
24. Group 402
24.1. Reach to Users
24.1.1. Facebook has over 750 million users, many from countries that do not provide necessary infrastructure to support location-based technology. So, even if Facebook did match up to Foursquare's level of service, it would only reach a portion of its users in countries that accomodate this technology.
24.1.1.1. This limits the use of this feature nation-wide in some countries. Where some countries support it and some do not, this would lead to some inconsistency in terms of the provision of this feature.
24.1.2. FourSquare operates mainly in the United States, where location-based technology is very well accommodated. As a result, Foursquare is able to exert considerable leverage in terms of exhibiting consistency in the provision of all its services nationwide.
24.1.2.1. Also, because of the way its services are embedded on Smartphones, its services can also be used in places where such technology is limited. It has seen success in countries like India, Thailand, and Southeast Asia.
24.2. Failure to Fully Anticipate the Benefits/Value of Location-Based Technology (just like IBM, with computers)
24.2.1. Facebook's saw Facebook Places as nothing more than a feature that displays only a Facebook user's location.
24.2.1.1. Facebook was unable to anticipate other possible features of introducing location-based technology beyond just the physical location of a person. It failed to embed this feature with Facebook's brand image (social connectivity with others relating to photos, hangout places, reviews/ratings etc), and instead treated the feature as just another app on the Facebook platform.
24.2.2. Foursquare is a lot more specialized in this area, and as a result introduced features such as social connectivity with friends regarding location, reviews, uploading photos etc, and not just limiting to location
24.2.2.1. Because Foursquare is more specialized in this area of technology than Facebook, it was much easier for the company to anticipate ways to embed value into its services (more than just presenting the location of an individual). It recognized the implications of this technology by providing a variety of features/services and sought to create business value out of it.
24.3. User-Oriented/Policies
24.3.1. Users prefer FourSquare because of it easy use, opt-in nature and strict privacy policy
24.3.2. Past Facebook mishaps on privacy concerns have made many users skeptical towards using Places
24.3.3. FourSquare is more user friendly in that it is embedded well with Google Maps platform and has a flexbile user interface (unlike Facebook Places, which is presented as just another Facebook App)
24.3.3.1. Foursquare has many features that highly emphasize on social connectivity. Features such as badges and mayorship encourage increased use of the application, along with enhancing overall user experience
24.3.3.1.1. As a result, FourSquare has seen an increase in people using its services (and this also includes many well known figures)
25. Group 401
25.1. Rewards
25.1.1. Facebook takes your information an dsells it to advertisers while Foursquare promotes and mutually benefits users
25.1.1.1. Can become mayor and get even more benefits so there are more incentives to use Foursquare
25.1.1.1.1. Foursquare users can receive badges and awards
25.2. Facebook is inconvenient
25.3. Personalization
25.3.1. Can upload pictures
25.3.2. Creates an entire experience for the Foursquare user
25.3.3. Shows a history of places you've been to and based on that, recommends other places similar to the places you've been to. Suggests possible alternatives based on your previous experiences
26. Group 403
26.1. Facebook is already highly established in the minds of consumers and possesses similar features which makes Four-Square redundant. It also lacks effective promotional tools to spread awareness of the unique benefits it may provide over other applications.
27. Group 405
27.1. hello
28. Group 404
28.1. Foursquares was more successful because it offered more incentives, and rewards. This makes it interesting for users and gives them more motives to use this as compared to using Place check-in
28.2. Facebook has already established itself and its services in cunsumer's minds and though they are subject to change, the general idea of the service provided remains largely the same. Facebook has also come under a lot of scrutiny over the years for their trailblazing role in social media and the personal privacy concerns that have arisen as a result. Therefore consumers have generally been more wary of facebook when it comes to issues of personal security and therefore could perceive the "places" feature as intrusive and undesirable.
28.3. working on it
29. GROUP 406
29.1. There is no incentive for Facebook users to check-in while Four-Square allows users to accumulate points and receive special offers and discounts
29.2. New node
29.3. Four-Square also reveals friends' reviews on restaurants and places whereas Facebook check-in does not allow this
30. GROUP 407
30.1. Foursquare has a "points system." Games.
30.1.1. New node
30.2. Facebook, has a negative reputation for "stealing your information."
30.3. Facebook users will probably see Facebook Places as a "side function" and will not focus their time and effort on it, whereas the main function of Four-Square is to check into places
30.4. You earn badges by visiting locations whereas you don't get any rewards for checking in on Facebook
31. Group 408
31.1. Privacy
31.1.1. people have issues with Facebook privacy (some changes in terms of services regarding ownership of information happened for a few times)
31.1.1.1. Some people may not feel comfortable sharing their places information with some of their facebook friends.
31.2. Functionality
31.2.1. People choose to use Facebook not because of its "places" app but to connect with friends. (Facebook Places is only an add-on, Facebook developer may not spend as much time in it as 4sq developers will)
31.2.1.1. sorting friends into groups to allow certain group see the places they've been to might take too much work for people who have hundreds of friends.
31.2.2. the main function of 4sq is for people to check-in the places that they visited.
31.2.2.1. incentives
31.2.2.1.1. Facebook places is a new add-on from Facebook -- they are still working on it, but so far there's almost no incentives for people to use places.
31.3. Target market/audience
31.3.1. 4sq work together with businesses around the world, so their target market is more specific than facebook
31.3.2. Facebook's target market is too broad for an add-on like places (teens may use them differently than adults will)
32. Group 410
32.1. People who sign up for Foursquare are actually willing to use it, whereas for Facebook, it's less the focus of the service.
32.2. Facebook has too large a network, and people are hesitant due to privacy concerns of Facebook, and the frequent privacy setting changes. Foursquare would be more focused, and it would be shared only with closer friends.
33. Group 409
33.1. Incentives
33.1.1. Foursquare was more successful because it provides users with rewards such as badges, while making it challenging and fun to earn them.
33.1.1.1. In contrast Facebook's check-in only provides information within a circle of friends which could be rather dull compared to Foursquare.
33.1.2. There are more functions in using Foursquare. For example you could submit tips and notes about a certain location and this could be viewed by many others.
33.1.3. Foursquare also provides special benefits such as coupons or discounts to Foursquare members who meets a certain level of check-ins from one location.
33.2. Privacy
33.2.1. Facebook has faced various privacy issues in the past which creates concerns/doubts for users who are not willing to share such personal information on insecure sites.
33.3. Specialization
33.3.1. Facebook is generally not known for the check-in function. Therefore not many members would use Facebook to check-in to places, whereas Foursquare is used exclusively for this.