myspace

I can’t believe it either, but the Washington Post suggests that maybe teenagers aren’t a real stable audience. Wow!

Supposedly teenagers are moving to Facebook because they’re sick of MySpace stalkers. The article is based on the opinions of one high school English class, which tells us that teens travel in packs (more shock). I have a few problems with the article:

1. Article relies on too small of a sample.
2. Creeps don’t ruin MySpace, spam ruins MySpace.
3. Things won’t be much better at Facebook.
3a. I still don’t think the two work very well in direct comparison, and I have a whole new round of issues with FB that I’ll discuss later.
4. Article mentions YouTube but not the MySapce downturn effect on YouTube.
5. Failure to cite Josh Amer for all of his insight into this coming problem.
6. 320,000 new profiles a day is still pretty damn good growth.
6a. The real problem is that of those 320,000 many are either one time users or businesses (that use spam and call it viral marketing) not real people.

Best line of the article: She routinely heard from people who complained they weren’t designated as one of her top eight friends. “People would be like, ‘why am I not in your top eight?’ ” – that’s the type of insightful journalism that separates blogs from print.

Sorry this isn’t on schedule - we’ll call it the Sunday Special.

Why does everyone in tech think that myspace is doomed to fail?

The answers tend to have something to do with either 1) the design or 2) the purpose.

This leads me to one of three conclusions:
1. Yes, it will fail
2. Design doesn’t really matter
3. Those that question it don’t understand it

It may fail but not for a while

If myspace fails it will be because something else came along that was exactly like myspace, but has a better network. I didn’t say better design and didn’t say better (read: more professional) purpose. I’ve criticized MySpace in the past, but the fact is I now use it more than any other Social site (except my own). It succeeds because it has the right network of people. I’ve never once used the site to flirt with someone and I don’t stalk people, but yes I like it. It simply helps me stay in touch with some of my friends - what’s wrong with that purpose? The problem is that the criticizers of the site seem to have the negative opinion before they ever even try it.

It doesn’t have to look good, it doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to work.

And that MySpace does very well. Working in a social context means having the members to allow socialization, no one does this better than MySpace (at least not yet).

see also:

del.icio.us - compared to other social bookmarking sites del.icio.us is probably the ugliest and compared to some lacks features (though it is very close and exceeds most) - but del.icio.us has the strength of the network. I’ve been trying out a new social bookmarking service, but unlike del.icio.us I can’t explore other bookmarks based on what I’ve tagged nearly as well - the network just isn’t there.

What does this mean for good design??

Nothing, good design will still be a great asset to any site - but it won’t take you very far if you don’t have the network.

Why did I blog this: I’m tired of stories like this from Wired and all of the others on the web that just don’t get it.

I write a lot about social networks for someone that is more in the local vertical, but I’ll have plenty of time to talk about local search. Who knows how long the new SNs will be around.

There’s a pretty good write up on publishing 2.0 about the fall of MySpace. I don’t agree with the rejection of seasonality as a factor, but I do think that certain signs point to a downturn. Seasonality is a factor, it’s spring people at college are onine less, that’s just a fact. The argument that it wasn’t a factor last year is misguided. MySpace’s penetration in the college market is much higher than it was at this time last year (okay it’s just bigger in general), isn’t it possible that the new users that were added are more of the trend-following-less-loyal type of user, not the always-on-no-matter-what-time-or-day it is early-adopter? The same thing happened with facebook’s herd of college students last year. Facebook’s data from when it was thefacebook is no longer available through alexa, but it went through a huge downturn when schools let out - the same trend seems to be starting up again (weekly traffic rank 66, 3 month avg. 55).

More important however, is Guy Kawaski’s (gasp) Focus Group. Seasonality is something that will always happen, but Guy’s focus group seems to indicate that permanent changes are coming. Sure the sample was way too small to mean anything, but the implications from the study are pretty much in line with what I would expect from a “trendy” company. The problem is a company will never survive by being cool. Being cool means sooner or later everyone is going to want what you have, when the mass-audience arives early adopters will leave and eventually the rest will once again follow, leaving your “cool” brand behind. In 5 years no one will talk about MySpace or Facebook unless they drastically change their focus. To survive, both companies need to find target audiences with higher loyalty and greater attention span. Hello Boomers.

Related: The Wrinkled-Facebook

I’ve changed my habits lately.  I’ve finally started using MySpace and I’m rarely on Facebook anymore.  This is mainly because I just wanted to try out MySpace… prove that pages don’t have to be ugly, also wanted to download some free songs.  What I’ve found is that I really don’t think any MySpace-Facebook comparrisons make any sense.

Facebook seems to be supporting my general thought about the distinction - that it is more of a LinkedIn than a myspace - through it’s recent moves to add limited networks at large employers.  FaceBook seems to be going more for a “this is what I’ve done” and “this is where I am” focus rather than the MySpace focus of “this is who I am.”  The problem is that FaceBook’s users haven’t really figured this out.  I believe that most of them view this as a social tool to post pictures, leave messages for friends, and put jokes in their profiles.  Truly it is little more than a glorified aim profile.  There’s nothing wrong with that but that’s probably not the direction FB would like to steer its users. I believe FaceBook is trying to move away from “the place to keep in contact with the girl you hooked up with” and move towards “the place you keep your professional and actual educational contacts.” Personally I think this is the right move, I don’t think FB can last forever just on being a cool website that a lot of people are using.  It needs to morph into a tool that people can actually use for some life purpose.  Otherwise it’s the next abercrombie - everyone on campus is doing it for a while and then it just gets a little old.

MySpace on the other hand is strictly personal which I think makes it likely to suffer a Friendster type fate.  The main advantadge is the Music that will help keep it around as long as MySpace can keep the musicians happy. Personally I like it because I like hacking up CSS, others just stick templates in, and that’s fine, but there’s some scary stuff on MySpace. Flexibility is nice, but also seems to make it hard for the site to do upgrades.  If MySpace changes its core code most templates would not work anymore.  That fact seems to make it something that people are likely to get bored with. I don’t know I’ve been using it and have to think that it’s not as bad as everyone claims. I even reccomend that someone that I know in the entertainment industry set up a page - it does have its role.

What both are lacking is real interaction - and this palopia promises.  We’ll have to wait and see, but I’m pretty skeptical.  Even after the valleywag interview.

Lastly, Sphere (blog search) launched today - it’s pretty good. I like how the profiles of the blog work, but then again I always like useless statistics. I first heard about this a long time ago, and it was worth the wait - hopefully this will crank up the innovation in the blog search industry.

Jason Calacanis, who is one of my favorite bloggers, had a good post the other day on the struggle of Social Networks to effectively advertise.  The gist of his post is that the entertainment provided by the social networks makes the user unlikely to leave the site.  So, if they don’t suck why do social networks fail?

As I see it, the problem is not with the sites / concepts, the problem is the user.  MySpace started out by targeting bands and actors, almost guaranteeing that it would just be a fad. Is there any group more prone follow to fads than entertainment industry? Maybe high school and college students, which happen to be a primary target for SNs.  The problem is the users.  They don’t care about the future of a social networking site, all they care about is the network, its residence is immaterial.

For example, a lot of MySpace’s success is based on Bands.  If a few influential bands had incentive to leave MySpace their followers would soon leave, and eventually the wannabe bands would leave as well.  No one cares that they are on MySpace, they care about who else is on MySpace.

So, who can win in this space? The answer is, a social network that can survive without the network. If you can survive without the network, that is to say you offer something other than a residence, you may be able to survive.  If you can’t do this, you will fail.  The sites best suited to offer social networks are probably sites not initially set up as Social networks. A company like Apple could probably create a lasting social network, because they have other things to offer. If you built a social network around iTunes you could offer all of the features of MySpace, but also offer the uniqueness of the iTunes store.  Therefore, even if some of the network residents leave, the unique thing that they all want, the thing that initially brought them to the network, remains and will keep them coming back at least for that aspect.

Apple may not be the best example, but it’s one possibility. The point is, if a SN is created on 1) a fad-prone network of users and 2) a business model based solely on advertising, it will always fail.