Tag Archives: MySpace

Social Networking sites are differiated through their base functions

In the previous post we explored how Social Networking sites normally have 4 different functions:

  1. Networking;
  2. Social;
  3. Identity; and
  4. Sharing

Now, by looking at four well know examples, I will illustrate how different emphasis on these functions differentiate Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Second Life.

Second Life

Second Life is in fact a weak example of a Social Networking media property.

  • This is primarily because it lacks Networking functionality (You have no friend or contact lists, where you can create ties or nodes and track their movements or interactions);
  • It is however very big on Identity formation features (although this identity does not have to map to a real identity);
  • It can be very social and users can build real & warm relationships;
  • It also does have ‘sharing‘ functionality. (Just by being on Second Life you in fact become content! Everything you build is user generated content and therefore sharing.)

But because it tries to recreate reality and its users can not create ties or links (a buddy list) that allows them to associate, track or interact with contacts it’s a social networking site without the networking.

What are the user behavior of Second Life users like? They tend to spend hours on SL, they tend not to use their own identity, but a fictional one. They tend to meet strangers and befriend these stranger’s fictional identities. They can just be or play or build stuff in Second Life. But what they do there tends not to have much of a bearing on what they do outside of SL.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn can be described as a very functional Social Networking site that’s lite on social functionality because:

  • Is a Networking site in the business sense of the word, where people create ties to achieve a goal; (It has built its networking features strongly on so-called weak tie theory.)
  • Does not contain much Social functions (Users not enabled to show their personality and build deeper personal relationships);
  • Has basic and core Identity functions: A user’s real (but laundered to the extent that they can be sanitized of personality) identity is crucial;
  • Little by way of ‘Sharing’ functionality (Although they have recently added Question and Answer functionality, which generates fantastic content);

LinkIn’s user behavior is quite different form SL.

“We focus on a few but high value moments” Reid Hoffman, LinkIn’s founder.

And thats exactly what happens. Many users only visit it when they are job hunting – once every few years. The users real identities are crucial, but they are stripped of any depth. It’s a corporate identity, an online resume of your career status and achievements. There’s little evidence of socialising on LinkIn and little functionality that encourages it. ‘Sharing’ is limited to gaining access of contact’s contacts (weak ties) and asking professional Questions and getting Answers.

MySpace

MySpace combines the 4 functions more equally that Second Life or LinkIn.

  • It has very strong Social functionality that allows users to interact in a personal way;
  • But it has Networking functions as well, that allows users to create friends or contacts through ties;
  • User identity formation and expression, real or made up (and therefore often comprised of groups of people like bands), is extremely important, a user can completely customize a page to reflect who they are and associate with whom they want;
  • ‘Sharing’ things like songs, pictures, videos and blog entries is key;

MySpace’s users come back to the site often and spend a reasonable amount of time on it. It has become very popular with bands and artists as a promotional tool. Anybody can see who your ‘friends’ are, and some users have thousands of them – so weak tie theory applies.

“Andy Warhol said everybody is famous for 15 minutes. Social Networking changed that to everyone is famous for 15 people. If you have a million friends, your broadcasting. You’re an entertainer”Tom Anderson (MySpace)

Facebook

Like MySpace Facebook applies the 4 core functionalities associated with social networking more evenly. It has:

  • Very strong Networking functions, without ‘Friends’ you literally have nothing to read, see or interact with. Facebook is built on strong interpersonal ties;
  • It has allot of functionality that makes it very Social and allows personalities to to be on display. Poke!
  • User Identity functionality is paramount, made up identities are virtually useless (pun intended);
  • ‘Sharing’ is crucial (Users can share almost everything, their every Facebook move is UGC. UGC that is delivered to their ‘friends’ via a personalised feed);

Facebook’s user behavior is very interesting. Most users visit the site at least daily, but often for less than one minute. Besides the importance of real Identities and Facebooks strong and deep ties (versus MySpace’s weak ties), the main difference between Facebook and MySpace is in the clever exposure given to ‘sharing‘ via its Personal Newsfeed function.

“You can’t create communities, you can just find them” – Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)

All this explains why Facebook has been so successful. As Jeff Jarviss said, it harnesses the wisdom of your crowd. But it’s not suitable for all Social Networking needs, because it militates against discovering new people and therefore new things. It’s also doubtful whether it would have bee so successful without it’s revolutionary Personal Newsfeed.

Conclusion

Facebook and MySpace share almost all their key features, and LinkedIn shares some with them, but the differing implementation of the 4 elements has yielded very different user behavior.

So when planning a Social Networking site ask yourself:

  • To what extent should the users form relationships or ties?;
  • Should they be weak or strong?
  • To what extent should the site allow socializing?; and
  • To what extent should users be able to express their identity; and
  • Should this identity be real?
  • What content do you want your users to generate?
  • And how do users find out of new UGC content that might interest them?

Notes:

Ties

One can not have Social Networking site without two-way ties built into the architecture. The ability to communicate and interact is not enough (See Second Life), although users can still build ad hoc relationships without this functionality.

Building ties into the architecture requires permissioning functionality. Even when one does have permissioning to create ties, how one implements the use of ties leads to wildly divergent outcomes. (See the huge difference between LinkedIn and MySpace.)

Weak ties

Interpersonal ties, generally, come in three varieties: strong, weak, or absent. Weak social ties, it is argued, are responsible for the majority of the embeddedness and structure of social networks in society as well as the transmission of information through these networks. Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals through weak rather than strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. Acquaintances, by contrast, know people that we do not, and thus receive more novel information

Advertisements

MySpace vs Facebook – a class divide

The UK Guardian reports that in the US (Facebook v MySpace – a class divide | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited: ) “Social networking websites MySpace and Facebook are increasingly splitting along class lines, according to a US academic.”

Facebook users

“tend to come from families who emphasise education and going to college. They are primarily white, but not exclusively”.

MySpace, meanwhile,

“is still home for Latino and Hispanic teens, immigrant teens” as well as “other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm”.

Facebook – the social operating system

Has it ever happend to you that someone has told you about something, and the next day another tells you about it, and then another.

ZuluZulu was told about Facebook last week. And again. And then I got an invitation to join.

So I joined Facebook last week. Now I have a MySpace, Flickr, Digg, YouTube, Muti, Blik account, but never have I found signing up and finding friends so easy. As you use it, its simplistic power wonders and charms. It’s the social networking site of social networking sites. A meta web 2.0 site.

And then today on the Tube I read Jeff Jarvis’ always excellent Media Guardian column. It was about, you guessed it – Facebook.

What is Facebook’s secret sauce? I think it starts with identity. On the otherwise anonymous and pseudonymous internet, this is a place where real identity matters: I use my name and I associate with people whom I actually know. Soon after I started, I got invitations from strangers and asked my blog readers about the etiquette of responding. I was told that, in school, one accepts all invitations, because you are all in the same institution and it’s rather like an arms race; school is, after all, a popularity contest. But we newcomer adults already seem to be developing a rule (borrowed from the similar business site LinkedIn) that we should befriend only those we know; it is an endorsement. So we are the masters of of our identities and our communities, which establishes trust. I think internet users have been yearning for such control.

What struck me is that one of the peculiar successes is how Facebook somehow gets you to send messages to friends that are in your email address book that you normally never message. Why? Perhaps because it’s a more social, easier, friendlier environment than an email interface.

Facebook has two other incredible features which Jarvis explains:

Next, Facebook introduced what it calls a newsfeed, filled with simple updates about what your friends have done on the service: one posted a photo, another a video, two more befriended the same person, four others started using a feature.

…it is not news as we know it, but it has news value: if four friends I respect start using a program, that’s good enough reason for me to look at it. As one blogger said, this isn’t the wisdom of crowds but the wisdom of my crowd. It is like the talk around the cracker barrel in a frontier general store: the protonews of my small society.

But Facebook is also becoming a programming platform.

That is, it enables anyone to create applications on top of the service. Already there are scores of aps hooking up users’ information with other services such as calendars, maps, chat, music, news, shopping, and much more. Every media, entertainment and web company needs to figure out how Facebook can help their communities. It is not just about widgetising content – the latest web 2.0 fad – but about people doing things together.

Zuckerberg’s ambition for Facebook -which he has so far refused to sell, even though it is said he has been offered more than $1bn – is nothing less than for it to become the social operating system of the web, the Google of people.

MySpace eat your heart out.

Sky surfs the second web wave

Three smart moves by Sky and its clear that you don’t need to be a New Media company to be successful online. You just need to understand media. Yahoo!, take note.

First Sky bought MySpace and then it decided to dicth satelite for broadband via lines, thus enabeling interactivity and not just one to many broadcasting services. Then this deal was done by Sky with Google:

BSkyB has announced a partnership with Google to provide its broadband customers with branded search, email and other services including a YouTube-style video sharing website.

The deal is being touted as Google’s first global partnership to provide such a range of services and the agreement will also lead to the US search engine giant making its first move into TV advertising.

Initially Google will provide the “click through” search bar and display advertising on Sky’s broadband portal – sharing ad revenues with the satellite broadcaster.

But wait, there’s more!

The two companies are also exploring “future forms of web, TV and mobile advertising”. Under the deal with Sky, Google will look at the possibility of using the information about viewing habits that can be obtained through the satellite broadcaster’s set-top boxes to produce more targeted TV advertising.

Google is already experimenting with newspaper, magazine and radio advertising in the US, using its technology to sell and target adverts.

As part of the deal, Sky Broadband customers will be able to edit, upload and share their video clips on the new user-generated video portal, and can also post and download clips from their mobile.

New communications tools available to Sky Broadband subscribers will include a customised version of Google Mail, Google’s web-based email service for the UK, and instant messaging. Subscribers will be offered addresses at the sky.com domain and the service could be extended to Google’s internet telephony service.

Google’s search tool and targeted search advertising will be introduced across Sky’s network of websites, with revenue shared between the two firms. Financial details were not revealed. Sky is aiming to tap into the UK’s booming online advertising market through the deal.

Compare these bold moves with Yahoo’s dithering over user generated content and Channel 4 and BT’s hamfisted moves into Web TV through their 4oD and BT Vision services.

As Anthoney Lilley points out in today’s Media Guardian (registration required), the biggest problems of prospective broadcasters is how they fund production and not distrinution.

First, video on demand was already here anyway – in the form of the Sky+ box and DVD collection and, for some, Home Choice, NTL or via peer to peer on the net. But I doubt the fanfare amounts to much for another reason. Broadcasters need more than new distribution platforms to define their place in the emerging media ecology. Basically, most VOD services are shops. That’s it. Their biggest effect is to turn media and telecoms companies into retailers. The big problem for broadcasters won’t be distribution but rather how to fund new content.

He continues:

Of course, finding new distribution platforms will be part of solving that challenge but it won’t do the whole job. Likewise, BT Vision might help to lock some people into BT broadband products. The big money for BT is in access and services across a wide front, not in broadcasting.

As for 4oD, it’s early days, but the shop shelves seem a bit empty. I know how hard rights deals are to put in place, but if you download the application – which is a smooth process – and then have a look at what you can, or more accurately can’t, watch from last week’s schedule, you’ll see what I mean.

More tellingly, the 4oD service is conspicuous for its lack of social networking features. C4 claims to be an “editor of choice” for its audiences in that they trust its brand to help them choose what to watch. This is definitely correct in some circumstances.

But not all the time – and it isn’t mutually exclusive with recognising that the “audience” is now an active part of services such as iTunes Music Store and Amazon. Can I send a preview of a show to a friend? No. Can I review it? Don’t think so. Is 4oD aware of my viewing habits and those of people like me and does it prioritise content or recommend stuff as a result? No.

You get what C4 thinks you might be interested in – which has a strong relationship to what they have on the shelves. 4oD is rooted in the mindset of a TV channel.

Locked up in his statement about funding production being the main challenge is this. In this WebTV value chain it is important to be a content and rights owner. Distrubution is taken care of by Google, MySpace and thousands of blogs.

To be able to fund their productions, broadcasters will need advertising or subscription revenues and if they are web savvy, they can get their users/ viewers to make content for them on the cheap.

It’s interesting then that the young Murdoch – sounding a bit like a member of the digirati – spelt out where BT and Channel 4 have been getting it wrong. According to Murdoch: “The weird thing about the media market is that people have thought about it in two halves; online and TV. The truth is, in a connected market, everything is connected.”

Sky knows that they have to open up and give their users an opportunity to watch what they want, and they know that the advertising has to be personalised and targetted like on the internet.

Antony Lilley again:

This is the nub of the problem with 4oD and, for different reasons, BT Vision. Both services have their roots as extensions or protections of existing business models.

Companies which fail to take this kind of thing into account usually lose out to rivals who approach “their” business from a new direction.

And Lilley gives an interesting snippet of news and a big prediction:

With this in mind, look out for The Venice Project from the people behind Skype – it’s aiming to combine social networking and legitimate TV content and I think it might knock the impact of YouTube into a cocked hat.

Internet portals are out of the step with the web

Morpheus : You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake upand believe…whatever you want to believe. You take the redpill…..you stay in wonderland…and I show you just how

deep the rabbit hole goes. The Matrix

Does the portal concept still make sense on the Internet? Nope, read on, stay in wonderland and I’ll tell you why.

Lets restate what a portal is supposed to be: A website that offered structured pathways into the web, offering a range of services and content (many their own, while others would be covered by partners). These portals would be the gateway through which most internet users would pass to the rest of the web. And when companies like Yahoo! and Lycos had their IPO’s the market agreed.

For companies like Yahoo!, Lycos and MSN being internet portals have caused endless problems. They have been at sixes and sevens, trying to be all things to all people, fighting with their own internal subdivions over the use of an overarching brand, style, and even navigation. All a direct result of being portals.

They have been heamoraging users and not growing their reach except in key services like instant messaging and email where they got an early head start. But they are loosing ground to the MySpace’s and Google’s of this world. In fact, most of their organisational and strategic problems are related to them being portals.

Portals are tied to an old fashioned view of the media. A view that did not get that with the internet power shifts away from large top down media companies. Companies that were set up to produce fairly general content to be consumed by large groups of consumers.

In reality we are moving deeper into a world where every person can become a producer and not just a user of media. This is a concept that companies like Google got from the start.

If you accept this vision of the changing media world – a world where it becomes easier and easier for anyone to create a website, post a comment, and upload a video – it follows that on the Internet there will be a great variation of websites, and opinions, and also lots of competition for people’s attention.

In this world entry points to the web are very valuable. If you control these entry points you become the gatekeeper to this fragmented media landscape. Which is exactly why Netscape – the company that blasted the first hot air into the first net bubble – was thought to be so valuable. It was thought that through control of an internet browser, one could become the gatekeeper to the web’s content. Following the same logic, the concept of the internet portal at that time did make sense.

And today, with mobile phone portals this arguments still holds, but just. Mobile operators have a huge captive audience, its cumbersome to type on the mobile interface and therefore to search for services or information is difficult to do.

Yes, until search engines evolved and especially when they evolved to rank listings according to quality, the links on a portal was significant. But search ranked by quality, introduced by Google’s Pagerank system changed the landscape dramatically. (Google ranks a page according to how many pages link to it. Thus if web users link to your page, Google reckons it merits a higher value.)

An even earlier way of how search engines rank websites were the building blocks for this change. By analyzing how popular a site is for a certain set of keywords the trend towards focused and simplyfied pages became significant. If your website does lots of things – like most portals do – and list them all on your home page, the home page ranking will be diluted.

Pagerank will be diminished on a jack-of-all-trades page, because the homepage will give no clear indication of what it’s about, and the web users won’t recommend it by linking to it.

This is because it will feature many different keywords. This coupled with the fact that websites are unlikely to link to a page which is just a collection of different services, is deadly. No single Portal could possibly list all the websites a user likes to use. Users’ needs are too specific and various. And thus the websites run by users tend to link to services directly.

Another way to understand systems like Pagerank is how they value the links outward from a page. A link from a high value page will transfer high Pagerank value to the page it links to. But the value to be transferred is shared, so by having three links from a page, the value would also be split three ways.

Thus with a traditional portal’s home page with lots of links to various of its services, the result will be that its links’ power to transfer value will be diluted. The more links they have the more true it will be. The value transfered from a link on the home page of Yahoo! to its email service will be shared with its links to its other many services.

Search engines’ indexing hierachy favour and therefore create a web where there are lots of specialised “champion” websites. Often the characteristics of an internet service further enhances this “champion” effect because of so called economies of scale (Ebay) or a critical mass of users (think IM, MySpace).

The result of all this is that search engines have become quality selection engines. Users have come to know that used well, a search engine gives them access to the best of breed web content and services. Once you follow this logic you can see how the old style portal concept is really dead. A concept for those that won’t experience wonderland.

What compounds this problem for the portals even more is that users are increasingly becoming so used to the mechanics of search, and are increasingly using it as a way of navigation. (I for instance, when I want to look up information on Uganda’s dictator Idi Amin on Wikipedia, just search for “wikipedia idi amin” via Google and click on the first link Google serves up. I’m there. Why bother entering the Wikipedia address into the browser and then searching for Idi?)

Search as navigation is becoming an unstoppable force.

The portals are squeezed on two sides. They are not specialist sites – the sites that tend to be recommended by search engines – and users don’t need portals to point them to these sites.

Time for a bit of futurerology: Users will navigate the web in two ways. By searching via keywords and by searching via brands (or rather sub-brands and sub-sub-brands). In other words when searching for something and you don’t have a brand to mind – that you know will address your need – you will just do a normal keyword search.

Otherwise you will Google/ navigate directly to the sub-brand you know and trust to work well. (I for instance use Yahoo! Mail and I Google “mail yahoo” to directly go to mail.yahoo.com.)

And its already happening. The majority of Yahoo! mail users do exactly that and never see the Yahoo! front page. Even though Yahoo! tries to persuade us all the time to go and have a look and circulate its traffic.

Yahoo! is arguably the most successful portal in that unlike MSN – they actually have one or two channels (Yahoo! travel – as opposed to the large staple portal services: search, email, IM) that are a relative success.

But even Yahoo! has been realizing that users come to it for specific good products and not primarily because they are a portal. That’s is why Yahoo has bought a huge one act pony Flickr (a photo sharing community site) but wont be changing Flickr’s name. Nor have they been adding links from the Yahoo! home page to Flickr. It does not need to. Flickr is a top ranked website already thank you very much. It would be stupid to change its name because a recongnisable brand is paramount if you want users to find (search for) a service.

The so-called Yahoo! home page is actually just a glorified site map. Their users increasingly go directly to the services Yahoo! offer bypassing the front page.The successful Yahoo! channels and services are a success because they are good, not because they are on the Yahoo! homepage.

People have been wondering why Google does not link to its other products from its home page. It’s exactly this reason. They don’t need to, and if they did it would reduce the simplicity and usability of the Google.com page, making it less popular with users.

So what are portals to do? (To be continued.)