Sunday, March 6, 2011

Social Network Characteristics

In his blog of January 28, 2009, Steve Hargadon says “You don’t really know which social networking sites you create will take off or succeed.”    I think that could be said of all startups, but it is especially true of businesses that depend on the interaction of their customers to grow.  When customers drive the content and the purpose, the control moves away from the original authors and the group takes shape on its on.  It’s like giving birth to an amoeba, except that amoebas have certain constraints within their cell structure that always keep them looking something like an amoeba.  In a social networking site, what started as an amoeba may grow into plankton or kelp or even kudzu. 
            This brings up the question of how to define a successful social networking site, and what is an optimum number.  Hargadon says that “a network doesn’t have to be 17,000 people.  It can be 40 or 50 if there is a good conversation taking place.”  If you were a venture capitalist looking to bankroll the technological needs of a large site, you would walk away from 17,000 people.  Investors want big number of participants so they can sell big amounts of advertising, thereby not only making a profit but also keeping the behind-the-scenes infrastructure going.  Without big numbers, as in millions of visitors, that won’t happen.
            I have to wonder also, even if the context for the social networking site is free or low cost, whether 40 or 50 is large enough for a group to be self sustaining.  We know that the site will gain some participants and lose some participants, but if the two always balnace, the site won’t grow.  Without growth, the conversations can become stagnant, since the same people are always contributing.  If the site is only about having conversations, it lacks the avid ownership that people have when they post to places that store their photos and allow them to create their own pages, play games and interact with others.  I wonder if there are any small sites that have survived with only 40 or 50 people.  I believe there is a critical mass below which the site will eventually drift apart and die.
            Hargadon’s post left me with more questions than before I read it.  To start with, how do you define success?  Is it the number of registered users, or the number of pages or options the site offers, or the number of advertising dollars?  Or is it something less concrete, such as being a social networking site that makes social change possible in our world?
            For people who want to start social networking sites, how many ideas do you have to test before you find the key?  I suppose this is like asking how many business models an entrepreneur must test and toss away before finding one that works.  Still, are their people who have had multiple successes, and if so, why?
            Social networking sites aren’t like other businesses in their appearance, but they do have one thing in common with all startups:  You can’t force people to play.  You can invite and lure and entice, but if it’s not what people want, you’ve got a solution looking for a problem.

1 comment:

  1. I think for a class like this, we just need a little network of 15 or so and I am happy. But only if there is a need?

    ReplyDelete