profiles

Top social networks: Guide to images for company pages

May 13, 2013 By Dan Thornton

Are you setting up social network profiles for your business? Or maintaining social media which already exists? Either way, it’s important to make sure your pages and profiles look their best.

If you’re updating your company logos, re-branding, or simply want to change images to give your page a refresh, then it’s important to ensure you know the right image dimensions, file sizes and positioning for each social network. So we’ve compiled the requirements in once place.

When looking at logo designs, always keep in mind that social media generally requires versions which will work in a rectangular landscape format (Cover images), and also a version which will work as a smaller, square image (Profile images).

Facebook Pages Images:

There are two images to maintain for a Facebook page.

Cover Photo: This should be 851 pixels wide x 315 tall. Smaller images must be at least 399 pixels wide and will be stretched to this larger size. Smaller file sizes will help quicker load times, and Facebook recommended a .jpg which is less than 100kb in size.
They must include no more than 20% text.
Profile Picture: This should be at least 180 x 180 pixels square, which will then be displayed at 160 x 160 pixels. Leave space around your image or text to allow for cropping of the image.

Cover photo guidelines state that you should use a unique image to represent your page which can’t be ‘deceptive, misleading, infringe on anyone else’s copyright or be in violation of the Page Terms. You may not encourage people to upload your cover photo to their personal timelines.’

You should also account for your profile image being displayed on top of your cover photo, which is a 160×160 square starting 23 pixels from the left edge.

Twitter Profile Images:

A Twitter page requires three images to be complete. Photo and Header Images are located under Account settings. Background images are changed under the Design setting.

Photo Image: The photo image appears throughout Twitter. It’s a 73 x 73 pixel square, with larger files able to be uploaded. File size can be up to 2MB in JPG, GIF or PNG formats.
Header Image: This appears behind your profile information on your Twitter page. It’s recommended to be 1252 wide x 626 high, and with a maximum file size of 5MB.
Background Image: The background image can be up to 2MB in size, with no fixed dimensions as you can choose to Tile your image if desired, although we wouldn’t recommend it! In general, a 1600×1200 .JPG image will be the right dimensions for your Twitter background.

When designing a Background Image, remember that the navigation menus on a Twitter profile will take up significant space beside the Twitter feed. Limit graphics to under 200 pixels from the left-hand edge to ensure they can be seen clearly.

Google+ Page Images:

Two images are needed for the Google+ page for your company:

Profile Picture: These have recently been changed to display as a circular profile image, meaning that your 250 x 250 square dimensions now need to account for circular cropping with plenty of space around the focal point of your image.
Cover Photo: Cover photos are now displayed in a 16:9 ratio, with a size of 2120 wide x 1192 high to display properly.

Youtube Channel image sizes:

As another Google property, the new ‘One Channel’ designs for Youtube are similar in some ways to Google+. Again, there are two images required:

Profile Picture: Currently still a square image, so we use a 240 x 240 square which then displays at smaller sizes.
Channel Art: A single 2560 x 1440 pixel image which can be optimised to display properly on different devices with a safe 1546×423 central area which works across platforms, a wide area for tablets, larger desktop displays, and the full image on TVs. A template is available to download from Youtube’s help page.

Notice that on your page, the Profile Picture will sit in the top left of your Channel Art.

LinkedIn Company Page Images:

LinkedIn requires 3 images for a company page.

Image: 2MB PNG, JPG or GIF, which must be 646×220 pixels or larger.
Standard Logo: Max 2MB PNG, JPG or GIF which will be re-sized to 100×60 pixels.
Square Logo: Max 2MB PNG, JPG or GIF which will be re-sized to 50×50 pixels.

Don’t forget to click Publish after adding your Image, or it won’t be saved.

Flickr Profile Image Requirements:

Photo sharing site Flickr has unveiled a new design effective from May 21, 2013, which now includes a Cover Photo on the profile page for every user.

The selection of photos for both Cover Photos and Avatars are both limited to either new uploads or Recent Photos.

Cover Photo: There’s no official size guidelines, but looking at how the page displays above, the Cover Photos is approximately 1349 pixels wide by 235 pixels high. The Flickr navigation menu stretches 45 pixels down across the top of the image, with the username, avatar image, and other information stretching up 120 pixels from the bottom.
Profile Photo: 300 x 300 pixels square

General profile tips:

There are numerous other social networks which we could have also included, ranging from Pinterest and Instagram to Reddit and Stumbleupon. Most simply require a square profile image, but let us know if you’d like to see any additions to our list above.

We’ll keep this page updated with the latest changes, so it might be worth bookmarking us, or following us on one of the above social networking sites to make sure you’re up with the latest designs.

Google Buzz proves problems with single online identities

February 24, 2010 By Dan Thornton

I’m assuming most people have been caught up in the huge amount of discussion around Google Buzz, the new social sharing and conversation tool from Google which surprised a lot of people by suddenly appearing as a full release within Gmail, and again by having some serious privacy problems at launch, which Google has had to work hard and fast to rectify.

But I think the launch of Google Buzz has simply highlighted the inherent problems with the move towards a single profile and identity for each internet user, whether that ends up being controlled by Google, Facebook, or an alternative service. Particularly as Google tested the system internally, where everyone had a Gmail account and several of the public problems just never arose.

1. Security: Almost everyone has encountered a scam or phishing attempt by email or a social network. There’s no way to eradicate these entirely, and a single identity which is then linked out to every other internet location would be a valuable prize for phishers. Seperate logins encourage you to use seperate passwords, so if one acocunt is compromised you’ll be able to alert people and still get on with most things – For example, my online email is backed up elsewhere, and contacts are replicated between Gmail and LinkedIn, so I could get the word out if problems occurred. Stalking also becomes a lot easier if everything is linked to one central location.

2. Embarrassing Content: This doesn’t have to just mean naughty pictures, although if you’re of legal age then I have no problem with you using the internet how you like. But it can also mean drunken photos and comments, or perhaps surprise presents or events being organised online which end up being discovered. The rule of thumb is to never publish anything online that you’d mind anyone seeing, even if it’s behind the thin veneer of a privacy setting, but we’d all still like to have some illusion of control over whether our boss discovers the pictures of our last night out, and we certainly wouldn’t want to ‘cross the streams’ and inadvertently shove it in front of him or her.

3. Different tools for different things, and added hassle: I’m a slight edge case here as I use several work accounts in addition to my own on a lot of networks, but even within my house, there is a shared computer which has at least two profiles used on the same site. Switching accounts suddenly becomes a real hassle – for instance, Youtube now automatically logs me in with my Google Profile, forcing me to log back out and then in again as Absolute Radio or OGS Labs.

4. Anonymity can be a good thing: Obviously this crosses over with the security and embarrassment issues, but not every anonymous person is a troll or 4Chan prankster. Take Wikileaks as an example of the positives that can come from anonymity.

5. Dependancy: Most people are combining email and social networks in varying amounts now, but if your email and social network ids are combined and potentially based in the cloud, any loss of access will leave you completely stuck. Or if your profile is removed for any reason, whether it’s a mistake or justified removal by whichever company controls all of your details…

But maybe there is a solution.

The people discussing Vendor Relationship Management hold the secret. Let me own some software – ideally Open Source, which is stored locally on my own devices, and then allows for the initial interaction with networks and service providers. And potentially have a mirror of certain elements of that software which is securely stored online somewhere that is also owned entirely by me. And that online element can then be differentiated into each of my personal and work profiles allowing me to quickly and easily switch between them, and not cross the identity streams. Companies would be able to access the particular information I wish to share with them, and use of that system would be a key part of digital education, which would implicitly educate people about privacy and sharing issues.

The only problem with this is who would store that info online – would you trust the Government of your country any more than Google, Facebook or Amazon?

Useful study on Social Network Marketing on Facebook and Myspace

October 7, 2008 By Dan Thornton

I’ve finally had a chance to sit down and read Tom Chapman’s study of Social Network Marketing, Engagement Marketing and Brands, which specifically looks at marketing on Facebook and Myspace from the perspectives of both social network users, and brand executives from the likes of innocent drinks and BBC Radio 1.

It’s quite unusual to see a report from someone who isn’t linked to either the network in question, or an agency which may be looking to attract business (Tom is Head of Marketing for an ISP).

It’s effectively split into two parts. The first section is a look at the quantitative findings of surveying Myspace and Facebook users, whilst the second part compiles the in-depth interviews with brand executives.

I won’t quote too much of the study, but it covers topics like the percentage of Myspace and Facebook users who would feel more affinity to a brand that listened to them and communicated with them (65% and 67% respectively). And it goes into detail for both social advertising and brand promotions, as well as finding out how many Myspace and Facebook fans are aware their profile information is used to target them – (56% and 45%). It’s quite surprising, particularly after the uproar within certain circles over Facebook’s Beacon advert system, for example.

And it’s certainly interesting to hear the responses of some executives who use both networks to great effect – for instance, the Chris Moyles fan page with 536774 fans.

As someone who is fairly deeply involved in the subject (It’s my day job, after all), I saw lots that will be useful in supporting my own work and theories, and some correlation between what other brands have found, and what I’ve discovered from Bauer Media’s brands on Facebook and Myspace.

I’ve had the chance to exchange a couple of emails with Tom, and voiced my thoughts that the next stage will be to look at exactly how brand executives are measuring loyalty, engagement and participation, especially with respect to Return on Investment and justifying the time and effort involved. It really is the multi-million dollar question of social media, and it’s getting closer every day – and I think this study goes a long way to reaching that destination.

Anyway, if you’re interested in reading more, the study is at socialnetworkmarketinguk.com.

Two new Twitter apps – one fun, one ho-hum….

October 3, 2008 By Dan Thornton

Just caught up with two new applications making use of your Twitter data:

The first is a fun little thing called Tweet 3D. It’s a Tweet cloud – but in 3D! Not exactly about to start a revolution, but quite a pleasant and enjoyable way to display your most common tweet terms. You can check out mine here.

Meanwhile, there’s been some murmurs about What’s Your Tweet Worth?, which claims to value your Twitter account – presumably on the number of followers and posts. Unfortunately there are a few slight problems.

1. Apparently my valuation indicates I’ve made 200 updates. So underreporting by 4221 at the time of writing.

2. The site discloses that it’s sponsored by Twitads, which is good and honest – but in immediately suggesting people use the tool and then rush to Twitads to sell their profile backgrounds, it really rams home the fact that capitalism is coming to Twittersville.

3. There’s always been one major problem with any valuation service like this, whether it’s for blogs, microblogs, social networking profiles etc. The value of something is determined by what someone will pay for it – not by the number of contacts and links. They might provide the world’s roughest guide to possible popularity, but only in as much as an older antique might be worth more than a younger one, possibly, all other things being equal.

If I was buying a Twitter account or background, I wouldn’t look at the totals. I’d want to know who is following the account? What professions are they in? What demeorgraphic are they? Are they likely to be interested in my product? Are they likely to buy my product? Is the account posting quality content likely to have an impact on sales when I advertise on it? Etc.

And then I’d probably go and start my own account instead, for free, and connect with people that are really interested in what I’m offering.

For the record, my account is supposedly worth $44.32 per month. So, as it’s on Twittads as a test, let’s see if the valuation finds me the buyer I haven’t attracted so far!

Great question about data – does Facebook have more than Government?

July 2, 2008 By Dan Thornton

Forrester Senior Analyst Jeremiah Owyang publishes a valuable blog, Web Strategy by Jeremiah, for anyone in the digital space.

It’s a must-read, hence making it into my blogroll. And one of his most recent posts is a classic, in which he compares the amount of data the U.S Government has on Generation Y, and compares it to the data which Facebook has access to.

And although the Government will have access to sources it won’t have publicised, and has ways to access anything if it really tries, the interesting point is that Facebook has accrued all this data by participants self-submitting it. No census, no artificial rewards, no incentive schemes, and no forcing people.

Check out Jeremiah’s insightful thoughts, and make sure you check out the comments which are normally just as informative.