I really like this quote - " people are, just, well, *bored* of social networks." As if humanity will *ever* be bored of social networks, considering that we have been happily using them for thousands of years.
It certainly wouldn't be surprising that there would be an upper bound on how much socialization an individual can maintain, and that the need for different types of socialization change throughout the phases of one's life. My guess is that the SNAs that offer more mature services such as finding employment may appeal to a larger audience and see longer-term usage, while those focusing on posting college party photos probably only appeal for a shorter period and see a high-turnover in their user base. I would also expect that there are high-value niche opportunities for SNAs that haven't properly been explored yet. -Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________ Jeff Axup, Ph.D. Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting, San Diego Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability E-mail: axup <at> userdesign.com Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com "Designers mine the raw bits of tomorrow. They shape them for the present day." - Bruce Sterling ________________________________________________________________________________ 2008/1/31 Murli Nagasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Social apps are far more complex than single-user apps. I wonder to what > extent a lack of social psych research input into the design of these apps > -- the most popular ones having been designed by college undergrads -- is > causing their popularity to plateau? To me, this suggests a discontinuity > similar to the one that occurred when command line interfaces were > displaced > by GUIs. Every GUI out there can trace its origins to the the > multi-disclipinary, thoroughly grounded research conducted at Xerox PARC. > I > think it's possible to go only so far by the seat of one's pants. Without > GUIs or at least the bastardized compromises that were delivered on the > DOS > platform in the mid-1980's, PC use would have plateaued in much the way > the > social apps are slowing down now. > > The next phase of Social App development might require Sproull, Kiesler, > Turoff, Hiltz and others to re-emerge from the shadows. -murli > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/31/myspace_fb_comscore_drop/ > > 'Facebook fatigue' kicks in as people tire of social networksSeven Two > year > itch pokeBy Chris > Williams< > http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/01/31/myspace_fb_comscore_drop/ > > > → > More by this author< > http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Chris%20Williams> > Published Thursday 31st January 2008 15:19 GMT > Find out how your peers are dealing with > Virtualization< > http://whitepapers.theregister.co.uk/paper/view/341/reg2?td=toptextlink> > > *Shhh!* Can you hear a hiss? That's the sound of naughty facts deflating > the > social networking balloon a tad. > > Whisper it, but numbers from web analytics outfit comScore have confirmed > what the chatter in bars and cafes has been saying for months - people > are, > just, well, *bored* of social networks. > > The average length of time users spend on all of the top three sites is on > the slide. Bebo, MySpace and Facebook all took double-digit percentage > hits > in the last months of 2007. December could perhaps be forgiven as a > seasonal > blip when people see their real friends and family, but the trend was > already south. > > The story year-on-year is even uglier for social networking advocates. > Bebo > and MySpace were both well down on the same period in 2006 - Murdoch's > site > by 24 per cent. Facebook meanwhile chalked up a rise, although way off its > mid-2007 hype peak when you couldn't move for zeitgeist-chasing "where's > the > Facebook angle?" stories in the press and on TV. > > You can survey the full numerical horror for youself > here< > http://creativecapital.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/its-official-us-social-networking-sites-see-slow-down/ > >at > Creative > Capital. > > That "user engagement" is dropping off (page impression growth is merely > slowing) should be of particular concern for the sales people struggling > to > turn these free services into profit-making businesses. In the age of > tabbed > browsing, how long people stick around is particularly key for > "interactive" > sites, where people aren't attracted by useful information, but by > time-wasting opportunities. > > And as we've noted here before, if the cash isn't raining down on you you > need a "phenomenal" growth line to sell credulous reporters and investors. > Expansion into non-English speaking countries is viewed as such a panacea > for the increasingly obvious slowdown US social networks are suffering > (see > Facebook's trawl for translation > bitches<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/24/fb_translation/> > ). > > The fact is that web users people are just as fickle in Leipzig as they > are > in London, and it seems to us that a delayed Friends Reunited (remember > that?) effect is kicking in. > > When Friends Reunited enjoyed its "phenomenal" growth period people would > join, log in maybe a dozen times, catch up with those class mates they > wanted to, then forget about it. > > On Facebook behaviour seems much the same; join, accumulate dozens of > semi-friends, spy on a few exes for a bit, play some Scrabulous, get > bored, > then get on with your life, occasionally dropping in to respond to a > message > or see some photos that have been posted. > > Similarly, once the novelty of MySpace wears off, most people only stop by > to check out bands or watch videos. > > They've basically developed a way to add a penny-scraping coda to the > Friends Reunited pattern, thanks to diversions that have been enabled by > broadband. The biggest difference is that Friends Reunited made easy > profit > because it didn't give all its features away to users for free. > > In the meantime, expect spinners to work on massaging the comScore > figures, > and happy-clappy bloggers to leap to social networking's defence by > claiming > the falls are sign of the market maturing, and of fierce competition. They > could be right, but it still means that the individual business are not > the > goldmine their greedy backers slavered over. > > Despite his endearing deployment of rubber sandals in public, Mark > Zuckerberg is yet to convince marketeers - the only people who are ever > going to pay him for access to Facebook - that the popularity of his site > heralds the next 100 years of media. > > And the "widget economy", where developers cobble together web > applications > in the hope of grabbing their own slice of the riches social networking's > massive personal data warehouses > promised<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/18/dodgy_facebook_info/>? > Well the business model for RockYou pretty much sums it up. The startup, > that owns the number two Facebook App "Fun Wall", only sells advertising > to > other Facebook App developers. > > Ted Dzuiba of the recently-departed, much-missed blog Uncov put it > best< > http://www.uncov.com/2007/12/3/rockyou-dominates-the-fake-business-world>: > "Fuck, this is a pyramid scheme. There is no money input into this system > except venture capital. > > "I remember a time, long long ago, when tech companies spent their own > venture capital on each other, so revenues were all booked from the same > small pool of money. Yeah, as I recall, it didn't end well." > > We're not suggesting that social networking sites are totally useless or > are > going to disappear anytime soon (Friends Reunited is still around? Who > knew!) - they're a boon for prying journalists and recruiters for sure, > and > damn it, Scrabulous *is* a good game. But today's shocking confirmation > that > their "phenomenal" growth isn't impervious to human nature does make the > $15bn valuation Microsoft slapped on Facebook when it paid $240m for 1.6per > cent equity seem even more preposterous, if it were possible. > > It's an oft-quoted fact among social networking sceptics, but it's worth > reminding ourselves for perspective that Ford - y'know, the massive > international automotive conglomerate with massive physical assets, > customers who stay loyal over decades and truly global reach - is valued > at > less than $15bn on Wall Street. (R) > ________________________________________________________________ > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
