Sometimes I really have to sit back and wonder at our short memories…
Facebook is the new new thing it seems, even though it has been around since 2004 – starting at Harvard and spreading to other Boston and Ivy League universities. I have an ivy league alumni email address, so in theory could have joined back in early 2004. However the site was clearly targeted at current university students, and I, well I was older.
Then in 2006 the requirements were opened up, the site gradually went nuts, and now has over 30m members. I remember that part of the appeal of Facebook was exclusivity, so I am guessing those Harvard Students have mixed feelings about the expansion.
Same with LinkedIn.
Linked in launched in 2003, and I remember it was targeted at a pretty small ‘elite’. They now boast 12m members, and the quality is still high enough. It seems to have really taken off in NZ recently.
I’ve previously referred to LinkedIn in as MySpace for adults, but there is an essential difference between LinkedIn and the other social networking sites.
On LinkedIn you just put your profile up and you are done. You manage links as they come, but it really isn’t a site for actively talking about your life and interacting with others. All in all it is pretty low maintenance, and the value is in the slowly building your professional online network.
MySpace, Friendster and Facebook are quite different – they want, nay demand, that you stick around, write a little and have some fun. That requres work, but the work pays off in an increasingly bigger Circle of Friends (which, incidentally, was the name of one of Trade Me’s lessor products). If you don’t stay active, then you are nobody, and who wants to be on Myspace with no friends?
So the 12m Facebook members topline number is really not that relevant – it is the number of active members that counts. LinkedIn memberships require less work, but still provide benefits now and then. So I am guessing that the average active lifespan of a LinkedIn member profile will be longer than a Facebook profile (not that you can easily delete either Facebook or LinkedIn profiles)
My guess is also that social networking sites will come and go, LinkedIn among them. But I’m also picking that the big ones aimed at the mass market will blow up, while smaller sites aimed at niches will prosper. Orkut (Brazil), and Friendster (Phillipines), along with Bebo (strong in NZ) are sites that have abnormally strong memberships in a certain geography – so much so for the first two that the dynamic of the site changed permanently. Sites centered around interest groups (MySpace = music) will also have a chance.
But I’m picking that a bunch of people will realise that these networking sites are not really needed. Most of my friends are not active members of any of the plethora of sites, and frankly I expect many of them will never be. Meanwhile the next generation will find something new to do.
Back to history – the bubble is finally bursting on Second Life as media start to realise that actually not a lot of people hang out there. or care.
So can we remember the headlines from a year ago? MySpace. Second Life. MySpace is still around but being eaten by Facebook, while Second Life is losing relevance.
So how long do we really expect Facebook to last?
Lance Wiggs 
I don’t have any cash at risk with any of the social networking sites so I see my membership as an interesting anthropological and sociological experiment….
Oh and it’s good for SEO as well :-)
LikeLike
But the current wave of skepticism misses some key points about the potential for marketing in online virtual worlds. As I noted in one of the first articles to explore the opportunities (and risks) of this new marketing channel, “Avatar-Based Marketing,” brand-building initiatives by real-world companies in virtual worlds must engage users, enhancing their experience by, say, offering a compelling game or helping to foster a social interest group. A mere presence in the world isn’t enough.
LikeLike
Good post, but it’s more complicated than that. We are in the age of experimenting on the web. Virtual Worlds will never go away, look at the BBS MUD’s (Multi User Dungeons) that thrived in the under world of the early days on the Net. SL may go under, but others will rise in it’s place. The technology is just beginning and it will get easier to use which is a current barrier to adoption.
The real question is how are these technologies being used. Do they offer sticky engagement and the flexibility to evolve as people’s needs or desires evolve. If you read the rest of the Hardvard blog you cited these issues start to be revealed. I ran a tech company that spent time trying to explain the benefits of having an engaging web presence. Many didn’t get it…now it is difficult to not have a web site for any size business.
Just think it wasn’t long ago that those in the know said why would anyone care what random people posted on this “blog thing?
Thanks to Google Alerts looking for Social Network Theory I found your random comments…and I was interested enough to respond.
Thank you!
“But the current wave of skepticism misses some key points about the potential for marketing in online virtual worlds. As I noted in one of the first articles to explore the opportunities (and risks) of this new marketing channel, “Avatar-Based Marketing,” brand-building initiatives by real-world companies in virtual worlds must engage users, enhancing their experience by, say, offering a compelling game or helping to foster a social interest group. A mere presence in the world isn’t enough.”
LikeLike
Not sure you’re quire right, Lance – in respect to the initial appeal of LinkedIn and Facebook being exclusivity. As the article you link to says, “For many people, these sites will mirror the way we behave off-line.”
So, with LinkedIn and Facebook, you don’t have to accept invitations to join other people’s networks – you don’t have to send them either. You can maintain an exclusive network if you wish; you can also ‘close’ your contact list – so, (one of) the appeal(s) is actually flexibility around this aspect. Its also worth noting that true exclusivity would be counter to the business model, so the sites themselves wouldn’t go for that.
There are loads and loads of ‘exclusive’ networks online -newsgroups were one of the first uses of the Internet, and we now have forums… Some participants of which are quick to deter newcomers. Others, by their specificity, are just simply small and exclusive. LinkedIn and Facebook have inherent widespread appeal – they’re both based on tried-and-true offline concepts (business cards and yearbooks) – so it makes sense that they have load of members.
Those older types of social networks also have longevity (to date, anwyay). So, I’m also not sure that LinkedIn and Facebook will come to pass – perhaps as brands and ‘locations’ – but, for instance, over the last century alone, people have congregated (networked socially) at ‘taverns’, ‘inns’, ‘speak-easy’s’, ‘cabarets’, ‘pubs’, ‘bars’, & ‘nightclubs’ – for essentially the same consistent reasons (and often in the same ‘places’). Why will the Internet – which is a social network by definition anyway – be any different?
Lastly, I think that Facebook has gained alot of its recent traction as a result of the VT shootings –> people realising that its a very good way to inform and keep track of loved ones. Self-perpetuating participation.
LikeLike