Focused social networks-how many are too many?
There can be no doubt, social networking is picking up steam.
When Facebook was still “thefacebook”, Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg intended it for use by his dorm mates. It quickly grew beyond Harvard and eventually accepted members from any college or university. It has continued to grow, and today anyone can join. Wikipedia lists their membership as of June, 2008, at 140,000,000.
MySpace opened its doors in 2003 as a service to eUniverse employees. Three years later it welcomed its 100 millionth member. This year membership is over 250 million.
Friendster, the grandaddy of social networking sites, began in 2002 as an invitation-only site. It’s growth hasn’t been as dramatic as Facebook and MySpace. Still it boasts over 90 million users today.
These sites all began as focused, localized networks of friends, fellows and co-workers. They quickly expanded into massive, open-to-all communities with members from nearly every nation on Earth. It appears that people on the internet, just like people in the real world, enjoy socializing with their friends and even strangers. Social networking has proven to be immensly popular, and it’s popularity continues. Wikipedia lists 132 networks active this year.
(image courtesy of mediaspin.com)
Now networking is once again returning to its roots. Businesses are incorporating social networking into the enterprise. Networking software is being developed to scale from a small business with few employees to global enterprises hosting several intranets. Even blogging platforms like Word Press are offering themes intended to act as social networks. Localized and focused are the new goals of many networks. Groups are forming among neighbors, students (deja vu all over again) and like-minded individuals with common social and philosophical interests.
Localized networks do have one weakness that doesn’t afflict the larger ones. Let’s say you’re a cat lover who wants to network with others who share your passion for kitties. Open your browser and Google for “social networks for cat lovers”. Of the 218,000 hits returned, let’s say that at least 10,000 of those are unique networks. How do you decide which one to join? They are all focused on cat lovers. Presumably all the members of those groups love cats. How will you select just one? What criteria can you apply to make your decision productive, and how will you apply that criteria? Maybe you can narrow down your choices to a group in your area, or one that is further focused on adopted cats, or Persians. Whatever means you use to make an intelligent choice, however you choose the group that fits your needs best, you have a daunting task ahead of you.
Another example. Anyone who reads my blogs knows I’m an atheist. Atheists are few and far between. We represent less than 7% of the U.S. population. Yet there are at least three atheist social networks I’m aware of originating in this country, Think Atheist, Atheist Nexus and Richard Dawkins Social site. It’s conceivable that every atheist in America belongs to one of those sites. So how should I decide which to join? If I join all three, my activity is going to be spread very thin and I probably won’t get much value out of any of them. If I want to focus on just one, which one? Other than different platforms, they’re very similar in content and membership. Should I follow my friends who have atheist blogs, joining whichever network they suggest? What if I want to start a social network just for atheist who blog? Am I wasting my time? How do I establish a unique identity for my group that doesn’t overlap existing networks? How can I offer a unique experience to my members?
Sometimes many choices become too many choices. Focus and localization are worthwhile goals, but they can complicate the process of choosing which group to join. Am I saying that only massive, world-wide social networks have value? Not at all. But it is the challenge of small, local networks to find a voice uniquely their own, a way to stand apart and provide value to their members. Members of local networks receive more attention than members of massive ones. That can be both an advantage and disadvantage to the group as a whole. The “South Beach Cat Lovers Network” will have to develop a reason beyond geography to entice people away from large, international cat lovers’ networks. Meetups are popular among local groups, as is involvement in local issues and activities. Small social networks shouldn’t ignore the possibility to socialize beyond the computer.
Only time will tell if the world-wide social networks continue to grow in popularity or eventually fracture into smaller, more focused “neighborhood” groups. Which do you prefer? What helped you decide which network to join? What does your membership in a network mean to you?
