Can any social networking site survive if it isn't dynamic enough to adapt to the personal changes in the lives of its users?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Yesterday morning I was reading a short New York Magazine article about the downfall of one of the last truly alternative performance venues on New York's Lower East Side: Mo Pitkin's House of Satisfaction. Like so many that came before it - Fez Under Time Cafe, Surf Reality, Collective Unconscious, Sin-é, and Tonic - Mo Pitkin's is now destined to become just another glittering memory in the unfortunately sieve-like minds of its often alcoholic and sometimes drug-addled patrons. (As an occasional patron of these venues myself, I mean no offense.)
As I remembered these venues, and thought about how they've come and gone (some faster than others), it occurred to me that social networking sites, like Friendster, MySpace, and now Facebook, really aren't all that different. As I wrote in a previous post, "What we're all looking for [in a social networking site] is a completely low-maintenance, casual, and low-key little spot where we can just chill out." We want a space where we can easily and intuitively navigate our complex social lives with little stress and little effort. Think about the real-world spaces where you've gathered with your close friends over the course of your life. Junior High? High School? College? Post-College? Career? Of course the actual locations have changed; but I bet that the atmospheres and the fundamental experiential qualities of each environment have changed, too.
And it's completely understandable that your chosen hang-outs have changed, because you've changed. You've evolved, from Junior High to High School to College to Post-College to Career, maybe family, and beyond. As these changes go through your life you seek out new experiences and new communities who share your values and interests. And the way that you interact with these communities has to adjust to the exigencies of each community's unique social dynamic.
Now look at these social networking sites. All of the popular websites have come of age during a short amount of time. Their popularity has been fueled by a relatively small, but passionate, portion of the entire online population. Each site was the right thing, at the right time. MySpace is still on top with the lion's share of social networking users. But, what happens when it's youthful and unsettled core users grow up? Start getting married? Start having kids? Yes, of course you could point out a significant number of active MySpace users who are already married with kids, but frankly they are a small minority of the entire active user base.
Look at Facebook. I would say that their move to open their network to users out of college last fall was a wise response to the natural change in the lives of their core user base. The die-hard Facebook patrons had grown up with Facebook during their undergrad years, but now they are out in the real-world, away from college and they needed their online identity to adapt.
The question now is, will Facebook be able to continue to stretch to accommodate an increasingly wide range of users in vastly different stages of their lives?
One of the frustrations that Danah Boyd voiced in this post about Facebook was the loss of context. She wanted one kind of interaction with her close friends from college, and a very different, and less intimate, interaction with people she only knew through her blog.
If Facebook - or any other social networking site - hopes to grow and continue to be relevant and useful to the users who first made the site successful, it will have to be dynamic enough to allow its users to fine-tune their interactions and online relationships. Allow users to share certain information with their co-workers, another set of information with close friends, and another set of information with strictly online acquaintances.
One of the problems that this presents, though, is that it is much easier to finesse these layers of intimacy in real life than it is online. In this post Noah Brier wrote, "As anyone on Facebook can attest to, making friendship a binary decision makes things quite difficult on occasion." I responded that we want "to just quietly shift your attention from one person to another without broadcasting it." Controlling intimacy is a delicate interaction that does not lend itself to the binary constructs of social networking sites. The key to success for Facebook, or any other social networking site, is figuring out an elegant solution to this problem.
As I remembered these venues, and thought about how they've come and gone (some faster than others), it occurred to me that social networking sites, like Friendster, MySpace, and now Facebook, really aren't all that different. As I wrote in a previous post, "What we're all looking for [in a social networking site] is a completely low-maintenance, casual, and low-key little spot where we can just chill out." We want a space where we can easily and intuitively navigate our complex social lives with little stress and little effort. Think about the real-world spaces where you've gathered with your close friends over the course of your life. Junior High? High School? College? Post-College? Career? Of course the actual locations have changed; but I bet that the atmospheres and the fundamental experiential qualities of each environment have changed, too.
And it's completely understandable that your chosen hang-outs have changed, because you've changed. You've evolved, from Junior High to High School to College to Post-College to Career, maybe family, and beyond. As these changes go through your life you seek out new experiences and new communities who share your values and interests. And the way that you interact with these communities has to adjust to the exigencies of each community's unique social dynamic.
Now look at these social networking sites. All of the popular websites have come of age during a short amount of time. Their popularity has been fueled by a relatively small, but passionate, portion of the entire online population. Each site was the right thing, at the right time. MySpace is still on top with the lion's share of social networking users. But, what happens when it's youthful and unsettled core users grow up? Start getting married? Start having kids? Yes, of course you could point out a significant number of active MySpace users who are already married with kids, but frankly they are a small minority of the entire active user base.
Look at Facebook. I would say that their move to open their network to users out of college last fall was a wise response to the natural change in the lives of their core user base. The die-hard Facebook patrons had grown up with Facebook during their undergrad years, but now they are out in the real-world, away from college and they needed their online identity to adapt.
The question now is, will Facebook be able to continue to stretch to accommodate an increasingly wide range of users in vastly different stages of their lives?
One of the frustrations that Danah Boyd voiced in this post about Facebook was the loss of context. She wanted one kind of interaction with her close friends from college, and a very different, and less intimate, interaction with people she only knew through her blog.
If Facebook - or any other social networking site - hopes to grow and continue to be relevant and useful to the users who first made the site successful, it will have to be dynamic enough to allow its users to fine-tune their interactions and online relationships. Allow users to share certain information with their co-workers, another set of information with close friends, and another set of information with strictly online acquaintances.
One of the problems that this presents, though, is that it is much easier to finesse these layers of intimacy in real life than it is online. In this post Noah Brier wrote, "As anyone on Facebook can attest to, making friendship a binary decision makes things quite difficult on occasion." I responded that we want "to just quietly shift your attention from one person to another without broadcasting it." Controlling intimacy is a delicate interaction that does not lend itself to the binary constructs of social networking sites. The key to success for Facebook, or any other social networking site, is figuring out an elegant solution to this problem.