Social Network Transitions
Posted 11/05/2007 11:21:00 AM |
To generalize, let's consider two types of social networks: ego-centric and object-centric. An ego-centric social network places the individual as the core of the network experience (Orkut, Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster) while the object-centric network places a non-ego element at the center of the network. Examples of object-centric networks include Flickr (social object: photograph), Dopplr (social object: travel instance), del.icio.us (social object: hyperlink) and Digg (social object: news item). The characteristics of ego- and object-centric networks are similar, and a human can certainly be considered a social object, but I delineate based on the significant experiential difference.
In a post I wrote exploring the network effect multiplier, the value proposition of object-centric social networks is described. Object-centric social networks offer core value, which is multiplied by network value. A great photo-hosting service like Flickr stands alone without the network, making it less susceptible to migration. An ego-centic network, on the other hand, has limited core-value - it's value is largely in the network - making it highly susceptible to migration. We see this with Myspace: individuals lose little in terms of affordances when they migrate from Myspace to Facebook, making the main chore of migration network-reestablishment, a chore made ever-simpler as the migration cascade continues.
Of course, the problem with ego-centric networks lies in the fact network-reestablishment is the main chore. Talk to individuals joining Facebook today - what are they doing? They're using inbox importers and searching to find their friends/ex-classmates/etc. It's a game, it's fun for a bit, but then (say it with me readers) "What's next?" Yes, the what's next moment occurs. This is not to say the network becomes useless: no, it's very useful rolodex, and the newsfeeds introduce concepts of peripheral participation (or social surveillance), but the game is in essence over.
Now, a note of caution. Because ego-centric networks suffer from these vulnerabilities, it does not mean that all networks suffer from these vulnerabilities. Simply because Facebook and Friendster and Myspace are enormous it does not mean they speak for object-centric networks. Do you leave Flickr once you've uploaded all your photos, migrating to Zoomr to relive the experience? Of course not - object-centric networks perpetuate: the network parts of these sites just help with the perpetuation. Amy Jo Kim has discussed these "game functions" of networks extensively. The Facebook's are the outliers of social software in many senses: size, use-behavior and lifespan.
The genesis of this post is a Techcrunch entry that talks about Facebook competitors, stating "startups might be wise to try capturing the niche that Facebook has intentionally left behind." The blog goes on to review a number of Facebook-clone websites. As I've been noting for the past few months, Facebook has neglected its core audience, sacrificing college students for a broader audience. Even with this neglect, are we really supposed to believe that college students are going to start looking for and adopting a Facebook clone? This is simply not how social network transition occurs. It's not a 1 for 1 switch.
In her essay exploring the Frienster-Myspace transition, danah boyd points to the "cluster effects" of Myspace. While Friendster and Myspace were co-evolving, both sites had their own cliques; we heard more about Friendster, but both sites had found an audience of dense, small-world clusters. It was the technical and managerial failures of Frienster that catalyzed the change, but the Friendster-Myspace transition couldnt have occurred if Myspace hadn't been significantly primed. Friendster ex-pats moved to Myspace with increasing intensity as the networks cascaded, leaving Friendster a virtual ghost town.
What about the Myspace-Facebook transition? For the past three years, Facebook has been building dense clusters among a powerful class of users: college students. These students have wide networks, influencing peers, family members and marketers alike. There's a ton of reasons to leave Myspace: the site is spammy, the interaction is ridiculous, it's developed a stigma - but what can we trace the cascade to? Unlike Friendster, which just fell apart, Myspace is no longer situationally relevant. Users have got all they can from the system, they've exhausted the game-like experience, and there's a viable alternative. Tech journalists, longing for a new beat after years of following Myspace, provided the coup d'grace - but none of this would have happened if Facebook hadn't had strong initial clusters.
In Gladwellian language, we need a "tipping point" to fuel the transition cascade, but a network must first be populated with dense clusters for the transition to occur. Why is this? Pretty simply, only about 2.5% of us want to be the first onto the dance floor (or have the skills to find the dance floor, to abuse the metaphor). Facebook developed its clusters by exploiting tightly-knit communities (college campuses). Legend has it that the Myspace founders drove up and down California exploiting the tight-knit car-tweaker communities. These clusters provided the seeds for network growth. In every case, it was less about the affordances and feature set, more about the network and connecting tight clusters.
Therefore, the idea of college students jumping ship from Facebook to an empty Facebook-clone is pretty ridiculous. No matter how many features, or whatever, these nets have - the features aren't the motivating factor. So what will be the next big thing? It will be a situationally relevant social experience that exploits dense, underserved clusters, treating the ego-centric aspects as a sub-feature. I'm almost certain that the experience will be mobile based, incorporating geolocational data and personal beacons. We'll still want a rich social experience, but this experience will be secondary to the core situationally relevant need answered by the site (be it positional data or otherwise).
Important to understand is that, in the context of individual value, network size does not trump network relevance. This is where Facebook is so instructuve. Yes, we care about everyone we know, but we care more about the people we see every day. In the words of social capital theorists, we're more interested in bonding than bridging social capital. As the next networks will trade in hyper-personal data, success requires the creation of network-enforced boundaries. Using Facebook's gimmick is uninspired, there will be better ways of doing this in the future.
The next transition, however, is a few years off. We've got another 1-2 more years of significant Facebook growth. I expect their network will top off around 250-300M members before the next phase transition occurs. This will make Facebook an extremely wealthy company if they can capitalize before the transition point. Unfortunately, since they are ego-centric, there's no way to sustain this network in the long-haul. However, this 1-2 year lead time will give mobile devices significant time to improve; the iPhone and iPhone clones will be in the hands of hundreds of millions of youth, priming the market for the next phase transition.
As I've stated, Facebook and the ego-centric social networks are the outliers in social software. And while its tempting to be the outlier (look, Techcrunch says Facebook is the 5th most valuable internet company ever!), its an ultimately impossible proposition. Object-centric networks, however, offer unlimited potential. Look at del.icio.us - the site is built on the fact that we can have a social experience around a hyperlink - and you can imagine hundreds and thousands of other possibilities. Don't mistake this as a call for niche social networks - they only work if they're situationally relevant - but rather as a call towards bringing smart experiences to the social objects we value. There's still tremendous potential out there.
Permalink |
|
to this post
View blog reactions | Post to
15 Comments: (Post a Comment)
-
At November 06, 2007 10:58 AM,
said...
-
Very insightful post. One thing to watch out for is the ability to objectify the ego. That has not been done yet, but Facebook seems on the way. Then what are the limits?
-
At November 06, 2007 4:00 PM,
said...
-
This is an brilliant post. Razor sharp. Thanks Fred!
-
At November 06, 2007 4:01 PM,
said...
-
Hey Fred.
Don't you think that the major social object in facebook is actually the photos in there: makes it very hard to leave with all the tagged images in there. -
At November 06, 2007 4:45 PM,
banksean said...
-
Check out Jyri Engeström's post from 2005 on "Object-Centered Sociality"
-
At November 06, 2007 4:54 PM,
fred said...
-
Yes, that's a good one. Its one of the few blog readings I assign in my class, actually Jyri's mega-bright.
-
At November 06, 2007 8:11 PM,
jeff said...
-
hey fred,
this is a really great post. now that facebook has launched facebook pages, we have both an ego-centric and an object-centric social network in one place.
how would the new facebook fit in your analysis? -
At November 06, 2007 8:14 PM,
fred said...
-
Jeff, Facebook Pages don't really change anything in my opinion. Facebook is and wil continue to be an ego-centric network.
-
At November 07, 2007 12:48 AM,
Tola said...
-
I'm digging this post as well. I like the ego and object-centric breakdown a lot. We've been developing an app that leans toward the object-centric network side of things...where the user profile is not the center of the universe. I'm really interested in the revenue models of either type of network. I think it will continue to be difficult to monetize the ego-centric network - like walking into a highschool cafeteria and trying to hand out pepsi t-shirts to seniors. On the other hand, I think there are more opportunities to monetize object-centric networks. I don't get the sense that this has been an area that has been as deeply explored yet. I could be wrong.
-
At November 07, 2007 1:21 PM,
Xavier Vespa said...
-
That's a really good thought. All psychological phenomenon imply a subject (I is a subject), an object (others can be objects) and a situation (or environment).
Therefore, I don't know where to put the line between egocentric and objectcentric: What is so different between writing in a person's wall and watching a person's video? -
At November 07, 2007 1:31 PM,
fred said...
-
Xavier, that is a difficult question, and I step around it by finding experiential differences. Of course, the boundaries are not fixed, and in a multiplex, multimode network such as Facebook there's a mix of object and ego. The form is ultimately fungible but we may find that the experience trumps.
-
At November 07, 2007 4:57 PM,
Brenda Chawner said...
-
There is a very interesting knitters' community growing up at Ravelry (http://www.ravelry.com/). It's still in beta, with access 'by invitation' (but people can register to join the waiting queue). I've noticed a decrease in people blogging about their knitting because everyone who gets into Ravely immediately starts spending time there.
In some ways it's a combination of ego-centric and object-centric networks. I can see what specific individuals are doing, but I can also see who has made a particular pattern or owns a particular book. There are already hundreds of Ravelry groups for knitter who share a knitting (or non-knitting) interest/characteristic (knitters who love ghost stories, anyone?) Right now there are 861 Ravelers online, and over 10,000 members.
If you want to look into it more, you'll need to find a knitter who has already joined. -
At November 07, 2007 10:53 PM,
said...
-
Great Post,
But I have noticed that as soon as the techcrunch community starts jumping on some bandwagon the Facebook guys leap onto it and implement it. They have so many resources and they are so fast that as soon as they realise that they need an object focus they will start developing it left, right and centre. -
At December 05, 2007 6:30 AM,
Ignatia eLearns through the web said...
-
The thing I thought about while reading this post, was what about trust, where does this fit in the equation? Going to think about that...
-
At January 03, 2008 10:32 AM,
said...
-
Hi Fred
Seems like some of your ideas were exported for this article: what do you think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/30/apple.google?gusrc=rss&feed=technology -
At January 03, 2008 10:38 AM,
fred said...
-
Thanks for the link - that was an interesting post. One thing I've learned from a few years of publishing is that ideas sort of exist in the ether...so I generally don't get worried if I see stuff similar to what I write elsewhere. I'm sure someone is reading my stuff and going "hey! i already wrote/thought that". ;)
