The Future of Social Networking...or is there?

To conclude my blog, I thought that it would be interesting to see where social networking's future lies, or even if there is a future at all. I stumbled upon a blog called 'PDA The Digital Content Blog' and there was an article about a conversation that took place at Oxford University last Monday, where multiple CEOs of social networking sites came to discuss whether or not social networks are the Internet's last big development. The first to speak was Peter Thiel, the cofounder of PayPal. He reminded everyone of where in history we are. Explaining that in 2002 even experts missed the fact that Google was the number one search engine. He posits the idea that we don't know whether we are in the early or late stage, and that we are maybe at the end of Internet innovation in it's entirety. This seems largely out of proportion because there are sites that are expanding and opening themselves up to new forms of technology and ideas.

One of these is Twitter. One of Twitter's cofounders Biz Stone, weighs in with the idea that he believes "in a trend of openness". He explains that Twitter is not a social networking site rather a "information network". This is absolutely true because it has been used in political situations like the Iranian election protests. Stone says, "On a large scale, the open exchange of information can even lead to positive global impact. If people are more informed they are more engaged, and if they are more engaged they are more empathic. They are global citizens, not just a citizen of a nation." If we look at the Obama election, we see a very similar methodology where open-endedness, open-information were used in order to get so many people more involved in the election. The future seems to be here, that rapid contribution from individuals to mass audiences is the fastest, most efficient way that information is transfered. This is interesting because people who make measly 140 character tweets are helping change the world just by spreading information. However, this does not necessarily guarantee longevity for social networks.

This is when Ram Shriram, a founding board member of Google, weighed in. He said, "Combining social and mobile-there is a new wave of opportunities coming up, a growth of users, so mobile internet is clearly the next major computing cycle. And this time this didn't start in the US, but in Asia and Europe form where it is going to the US." The way in which people use mobile devices to access data in these places is such that of a desktop computer user. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are the main wave of opportunity and creation of information--the social is the now. Shriram states, "There will be new distribution and consumption patterns which will impact society". He even makes predictions that Facebook will replace email, chat will become a multimedia format, and that Apple will be successful because of its strong mobile focus. A very bold prediction in my mind is that Facebook will replace email because there are so many email platforms available. But, I could see it being used more and more as people are finding that opening mail in different platforms inconvenient. Also since Facebook has taken on this WebOS approach, there has been less and less time spent on other applications other than Facebook's. However, I do not think that it will ever amount to Mac OS or Windows--Biz Stone might say this is close-minded.

The last CEO to weigh in was Reid Hoffman, a graduate from Stanford who founded LinkedIn. He says, "I actually think we are just beginning to see how people launch the eventualities of social network into their life" and he compares this to how 'mobile phones had grown from a tool for bankers to a part of everyone's life'. The interesting and good point Hoffman make sis that people treat online information like ice cream. He says, "It is not nutritious, but people still eat it." I think that this is valid because people will always eat up information that is on social networks, we loved being entertained and one of the biggest components of entertainment is gossip. But, this still doesn't answer the questions posed. Where is social networking going? Is it stagnate? Is this the end? Hoffman believes this isn't the end and that with all of this data, you have a breeding ground for new applications.

Oxford lecturer, Dr.. Kate Blackmon summed up the discussion with the idea that 'the future was not about crowd sourcing but crowd filtering.' So social networks must find ways to make use of the stream of information that is being poured into them. I would agree with Biz Stone idea that social networks must follow the trend of openness. It will be the challenge of figuring out how we can utilize this massive amount of data, how social networking data can be used to create applications that both serve the world and help the individual. Twitter may be a strong example of what the future of social networks looks like, a crowdsourced data hub in which people filter information that they want to get the latest news. In cases of politics and disasters, Twitter shows that it can help the world and the individual. However, I am not so sure that all social networks will have this capability to move in this direction. In addition, I believe that there will be a ton of innovation around making data more relevant, more easily accessible, and more accurate. For me there does not seem to be an end for social networks, but rather an end to the lack of use social networking data.

_________________________________________________________________

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/nov/24/future-of-social-networks-twitter-linkedin-mobile-application-next

Oldbook. When Grandma posts on your wall.

Oldbook--the new Facebook, but a separate site from those older than forty. This is perhaps the only solution to the up and coming scare that Facebook is facing. Well, maybe not the only solution, since creating separate networks based off age would cause problems for those on the border line. But let's continue.

I love my Grandma. Don't get me wrong. She is as sweet as Grandma's get. HOWEVER, when she friended me about two months ago I saw about 70% of my Facebook freedom disappear or rather been eradicated by my new privacy settings. After she half-learned how to use Facebook, she began to use the Facebook status bar to respond to her personal emails. She wrote, "Dear Connor, Please send me the photos of the museum event. Love, Grams" This appeared on my mini-feed along with ten of my friends' mini feeds. Not terribly embarrassing, but I saw another 20% of my privacy disappear. She then proceeded the last two weeks to actually write on my wall. And so, I found myself completely censored. I could no longer be myself with out receiving a wall post saying, "You know Grams doesn't approve.". That hurts. Apparently, I am not the only one to notice this. "When you start getting friended by your grandmother, I think that's when it starts to lose its cool," said Huw Griffiths, evp and global director of marketing accountability and research at Interpublic Group's Universal McCann.

Steve McClellan poses the question, "Is Facebook Getting uncool for 18-24s?" According to multiple media agencies, this is a fact and they have data to prove it-- "According to comScore, the average number of minutes spent online with the site among 18- to 24-year-olds fell in September for the third consecutive month compared to the same period a year ago. And the drop-off rate is accelerating. In July, usage fell 3 percent, in August 13 percent and in September 16 percent."

The belief that it is similar to Myspace losing its trendiness is valid. Also, that growth in older people's use of the site has turned some 18-24s away. But, I do not think that it is the invasion of Facebook by older people. That is not the problem. If Facebook was considered uncool by this age group, we would see a complete abandoning of the site. In reality I don't think that the data is accurate since it does not take into account mobile phone usage. With the invention and development of the iPhone and other smart phones we are beginning to see a tremendous amount of Internet usage via mobile phones, almost half of which use their phones for social networking. see chart

Facebook is not like Myspace in that the loss of the 18-24s age group will not immediately crash the entire site. The Facebook Platform will maintain activity since many are using it like an operating system. I do not see a near end to Facebook, however, the growing population of older users will generate a loss in 18-24s.

Facebook=Myspace+Brains

Facebook is commonly referred to as, "Myspace + Brains", which is somewhat truthful if you look at some of the Facebook statistics:

General Growth

• More than 300 million active users
• 50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day
• The fastest growing demographic is those 35 years old and older

User Engagement

• Average user has 130 friends on the site
• More than 8 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day (worldwide)
• More than 45 million status updates each day
• More than 10 million users become fans of Pages each day

Applications

• More than 2 billion photos uploaded to the site each month
• More than 14 million videos uploaded each month
• More than 2 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) shared each week
• More than 3 million events created each month
• More than 45 million active user groups exist on the site

International Growth

• More than 70 translations available on the site
• About 70% of Facebook users are outside the United States

At least, the developers are the people with the brains. So how did they do it? Development, presentation, platform, and mobile.

Platform

• More than one million developers and entrepreneurs from more than 180 countries
• Every month, more than 70% of Facebook users engage with Platform applications
• More than 350,000 active applications currently on Facebook Platform
• More than 250 applications have more than one million monthly active users
• More than 15,000 websites, devices and applications have implemented Facebook Connect since its general availability in December 2008

The developers (all one million of them) have created a personal profile page that is easy to navigate, clean, and organized. In comparison to a Myspace page, which is more like digital vomit than a personal profile, Facebook appeals to users and appeals to users' friends. It does not allow embedded HTML and CSS, which Myspace does. The advantage here is not allowing users to create large swathes of profile pages or to embed hidden links to viruses which poses security risks. There is a disadvantage of limiting customization options, but Facebook makes up for it with Facebook Applications and the Facebook Platform. Facebook utilizes a different method to allow users to be more involved with their personal pages while avoiding inherent security and unattractiveness risks. The platform allows developers to create applications of anything imaginable, from the useful to the irrelevant. Since there are so many options on Facebook, how can one be bored? Apparently, they don't get very bored. (see chart). Facebook writes, "a Facebook application uses Facebook Platform to access information from the social graph, offering users an experience that's relevant to them". Facebook's Platform is considered a Web Operating System (WebOS), where its applications are taking the place of those on other operating systems because they are easier to use and free. People do everything on Facebook now, and that is why it has become so popular.

One ingenious, yet simple marketing technique that Facebook used to generate its user base so quickly was the automated e-vites new users could send out to their friends in seconds. After joining, you upload your typical e-mail contact list and Facebook uses those e-mails to send an e-vite with your name on it inviting your friends to join. The next level was Facebook Mobile, a powerful yet, simple method of making the site more accessible.

Mobile

• There are more than 65 million active users currently accessing Facebook through their mobile devices.
• People that use Facebook on their mobile devices are almost 50% more active on Facebook than non-mobile users.
• There are more than 180 mobile operators in 60 countries working to deploy and promote Facebook mobile products

Looking these statistics Facebook is clearly taking advantage of the growth in Internet use on mobile phones. People can check their page, update their status, and check the statuses of others almost instantly. All of these methods have created a tremendous social networking site, that has become a WebOS and does not seem to be faltering. However, I do think there are a couple of challenges it must overcome.

So I pose a question to the Facebook Developers:

With the growing usage of the Internet on mobile devices, it seems as though Facebook activity will occur mostly on mobile devices in the future. Facebook even says,"People that use Facebook on their mobile devices are almost 50% more active on Facebook than non-mobile users." Doesn't using mobile devices assume limitations on the usage of Facebook applications and thus eliminate the addictiveness of the site?

Lastly, whether these strategies can maintain growth and constant activity is another matter. Facebook has yet to be complained about for being used inappropriately--at least in the way Myspace has. However, this seems very unavoidable as it continues to grow. In order to fund such technological expansion to match network growth Facebook will have to find another way gain revenue, which will be a challenge. Plus there is growing number of privacy-related complaints.

Twitter: Self-Expression Tool Becomes Useful in Emergencies, Marketing, Politics and Education

Since its creation by software programmer Jack Dorsey in 2006, Twitter has caught fire. As of April 29, 2009 it had 20 million worldwide users, called “tweeters”. In comparison, relative “old-timers” Facebook and Orkut had fewer than 15 million users worldwide.[1] Users post information (tweet) on their user page in brief 140 character or less messages (microblogs), and “followers” subscribe to the online tweets which are sent to their cell phones, PDA’s and computers. The name “twitter’ was adopted because it literally means “short bursts of inconsequential information” and Dorsey wanted to be able to SMS any device not just phones, and also to be able to tweet from anywhere.[2] In fact, it has been called the “SMS of the internet” and had its roots in emergency dispatch, where firemen and policemen can get up-to-date information in crises.[3]1 It is not strictly a social networking site, as the communication is usually one-way and the transmission is to many followers generally with no personal relationship with the user/tweeter.

Twitters appeal appears at first superficial and narcissistic and people use it to microblog about themselves. Even the founding document of the company, which is a sketch of the original idea in 2000, lists relatively inconsequential activities such as “in bed” or “going to park”.2 Rapid uptake by celebrities catalyzed huge groups of followers on twitter, who wanted to know their favorite celebrities every move.

Criticism of Twitter has included its potential inaccuracy, however inaccurate information is also sent via email (spam) or SMS (spam). One difference with Twitter is that you at least know who is sending you the information. Although your response to the inaccurate reporter will likely be ignored, you can tweet the fact that a given reporter is spreading falsehoods. It is testimony to the success of Twitter that very little change to the platform’s feature set has been made since 2006, except for the addition of search.³ The search feature also enables you to check on the accuracy or inaccuracy of information. A simple real-time search on “Swine Flu” or “#swineflu” on twitter.com will reveal results such as “time for people to stop eating pigs!”; and “This pigflu thing seems quite bad, you might even call it a hamdemic”.¹ However, you can go to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to get accurate information at http://twitter.com/cdcemergency.

Interestingly, the early uptake of Twitter was motivated by self-interest and self-expression, and the high drop-out rate of 40% per year may reflect that the followers grow weary of their celebrities’ rants. However, although the software has not changed, the platform has certainly grown to be used in many other productive ways. For example, (and true to Jack Dorsey’s insight into emergency dispatch) the American Red Cross uses Twitter to keep its staff and volunteers up to the minute on unfolding crises. In the San Diego wildfires, people were able to update their friends and neighbors more quickly than TV or radio. President Obama used Twitter to broadcast his positions and comments on current events and issues. In China, students are taught English by asking them to Twitter messages on certain topics. Manufacturers use Twitter not only to advertise but to put out useful information such as rebates or warranty information to their customers. Like Wikipedia, news may be obtained more quickly on Twitter than on conventional news sites. And because of the search feature, facts can be checked relatively easily.

What began as a short burst of inconsequential information, has evolved into a useful platform for getting very fresh information to followers with specific interests and needs.

---

[1] D’Monte L. Swine flu’s tweet tweet causes online flutter. Business Standard. April 29, 2009. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/swine-flu%5Cs-tweet-tweet-causes-online-flutter/356604/

[2] Sarno, David. Twitter creator Jack Dorsey illuminate the site’s founding document. Part I. Los Angeles Times. Feb. 18, 2009. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/twitter-creator.html

[3] Sarno, David. Jack Dorsey on the Twitter ecosystem, journalism and how to reduce reply spam. Part II. Los Angeles Times. Feb, 19, 2009. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/jack-dorsey-on.html

Friendster Falls, Myspace Rises

I read an interesting article that outlines the definition and history of multiple social networking websites that we all know and love. What sparked my interest is how Friendster's marketing choices led to the rise of Myspace. And, more importantly, how self-interest motivated users of Friendster to move into the free and personal world of Myspace. One of the main ways Myspace evolved was through music communities that formed between indie artists and their fans who rapidly found the interests of other fans very much aligned with their own. Essentially, Myspace cater toward users economic self-interest and thus a community began to develop. But before I go into detail, I want to explain the basis for how Myspace was able to be successful.

In 2003, Myspace was launched to compete with Friendster, Xanga, and AsianAvenue. Myspace sought to fulfill the interests of Friendster users by marketing their site as a free tool rather than a fee-based system which is what Friendster was adopting. Another key factor in the move from Friendster to Myspace was the ability to customize one's personal profile. By targeting the interests of the Friendster users by creating a free and fully customizable social networking site, the rapid shift from Friendster to Myspace commenced. What happened here was that the users of Friendster were actually posting messages on where to find cheaper, better sites such as Myspace. Again a direct catering to economic self-interest. What intrigues me is that the indie music sub population that was expelled from Friendster for not complying with the site's policies jump-started Myspace completely, along with the connections between fans based on similar interest.

The indie bands and their fans was a symbiotic relationship that Myspace did not really see coming but opened its arms to as soon as the Myspace population started growing. Local bands around the Los Angeles area (near Santa Monica, CA where Myspace was founded) sought out the economic opportunity of creating fan bases using this new hot and free social networking site. Not only would local fans follow this lead, thousands of other bands and ten of thousands of fans fueled the Myspace fire. The bands and fans dynamic is one that is mutually beneficial, each group having its own interests in mind and as a result creating a community that benefits from these self-interests. Bands could connect to fans and fans could become "Friends" with the bands to feel more connected to them. As this dynamic developed, it also allowed fans to discuss their favorite bands with each other, again highlighting how important this band-fan relationship was for the development of Myspace. But without this dynamic would Myspace even exist today? Surely there can be money poured into the site, but I would think not. The fundamental principle that Myspace is built on is it ability to accommodate the interests of its users and in doing so it creates a symbiotic community that mutually benefits. To be more specific, Myspace also brought in constant change and a diverse set of tools for its users to fulfill their needs--"features".

Myspace also constantly updated its site with new "features" such as the "Myspace Blog". I actually ran a quick search on Google to see how the impact these "features" had on the shift from Friendster to Myspace and guess what popped up? Five different links to Myspace Blogs talking about how much better they liked Myspace.

This of course is the result Myspace wants to see, and the method of using a "me" type interface allowed it to be successful. Also, it success was determined on a few other key factors. One, by becoming a free site, Myspace generated thousands of users that were already using Friendster--the catering to the economic self-interest. Two, band-fan dynamic was a symbiotic relationship that proved how Myspace's catering to its user's self-interest creates a mutually beneficial environment. Third, Myspace constantly created "features" to allow its users to fulfill their interests and needs, which in turn helped everyone as users shared ideas on "Myspace Blog". So Myspace's success was largely drawn from the catering to self-interest, and specifically economic self-interest as the site became free.

Wiki Users, The Few. The Proud. The Altruistic?

Do people contribute to Wikipedia out of the goodness of their hearts? I don’t think so. If they did, they would contribute and edit any old article. Instead they edit the pages relevant to the subjects that they are interested in. People seem to have a need to express themselves on their topics of interest, especially when they have strong emotions about it.

In 2006, Marshall Poe’s article on Wikipedia in the Atlantic Monthly, entitled “The Hive”, recounts that Wikipedia’s founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, had originally intended to employ scholars to build an online encyclopedia, called Nupedia, but it proved very slow going. When they decided to let anyone in the community contribute, they “looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark”. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. At the end of January, Wikipedia had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.” Last year, in March 2008, Wikipedia hit ten million articles. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/10M_articles

What propels the Wikipedia editors seems to be their personal interest in certain topics. The stronger their feelings, the more they seem to edit. This is evidenced in the most commonly edited wiki pages:

See top of page

The result of strong feelings about subjects in Wikipedia is that emotionally charged subjects like George Bush or Michael Jackson have been subject to “edit wars” where people push their own personal biases. According to Poe, in June 2001, only six months after Wikipedia was founded, a Polish Wikipedian named Krzysztof Jasiutowicz made an arresting and remarkably forward-looking observation. The Internet, he mused, was nothing but a “global Wikipedia without the end-user editing facility.” What is interesting is that on the web, most blogs or website are private property, and the only one who can edit them are the owners of the sites.

However, the communal editing function pushes out the bias, and the result is a neutral recounting of the facts that allows most readers to draw their own conclusions. Thus, the Wikipedia aphorism, “Given enough eyeballs, all errors become shallow.”, does not just apply to correcting dates and punctuation, but to the elimination of opinion and bias. Because the communal edit function improves the quality of information, the emotional fuel (basically a self interested need to express oneself) that propels the contributors adds information while their personal biases are filtered out. The net result is that the contributors self interest benefits the community as a whole.