Social networking is NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Social networking has exploded in recent years. The wave of social networking sites is reminiscent of the mushrooming e-commerce sites during the late 1990s. The entry barriers are so low that anyone can create the infrastructure for a social networking platform with minimal investment. What is more interesting is the frenetic pace of adoption of some of these sites.

So, what is all this frenzy about? Is it curiosity that drives people to become members of these sites and “network socially” through them? Or, is it just a bunch of kids with too much time trying to play with the latest online fad? Or, is online social networking indeed such a significant innovation that it warrants all this attention? Here's my take on the social networking phenomenon from an “innovation” standpoint.

Social Networking v. 1.0
Social networking in the physical world has existed throughout history. The new, virtual breed of social networking obviously has its roots in the Internet. So, how did it all start?

In my opinion, online forums and groups were the v.1.0 of the online social networking world. Fundamentally, the objective of an online group or forum is to give users the opportunity to converse and congregate in cyberspace, thus sharing ideas, opinions; debating issues, exchanging stuff, seeking advice, and doing any of a myriad other things made possible by the Web. The advantage of making group communication less disruptive (through daily digests and the like) is icing on the cake.

Characteristics
There are remarkable similarities in the way social networks and online groups / forums approach the same objective. Private online groups & forums are typically virtual manifestations of real-world groups (at least the private ones) – in which case they are brought into being primarily to facilitate non-disruptive communication. So, in these cases, relationships exist even prior to the group being set up. Otherwise they are no different from a group of e-mail addresses created in your Outlook.

It gets interesting in case of public online groups and forums because even strangers can join these groups. So, in effect they facilitate strangers with common goals, interests & passions meeting. Additionally, online groups provide a private space for sharing files, photos, etc., polling members, scheduling meetings, planning events, etc.

Present Wave: The key difference
The current wave of social networking (let us say v.2.0) pretty much offers the same functionality. The key differentiator though is that the present breed of social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, etc. allow users to not only browse groups and (public) discussion forums, but also lets them explore and discover other users who share the same interests and passions.

Thus, instead of networking with groups en masse you can connect with individuals separately. But for this difference the current breed of social networking sites is pretty much the same as the earlier breed. This to me is nothing more the same old wine with a twist.

So, what is all this ado about? It is just evolution of technology at work.

Marketer's Interpretation of Forrester Research on Online Participation Habits

In a recent report from Forrester Research on "Social Technographics," authors Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff used the metaphor of a ladder to show user participation in social media. They estimate that 13% of adult online consumers are content creators; 19% are critics who comment on blogs and/or post ratings and reviews; 15% are collectors; 19% are joiners; 33% are spectators (often called lurkers); and 52% don't perform any of the previously mentioned activities (Refer figure below for details).

Based on this report, Business Week later published a graphical representation (see figure below) of online participation levels by age group.

What is the significance of these statistical insights on online user behavior to a consumer Internet marketer? Well here are some conclusions I have drawn about online marketing strategy on the basis of figures in these diagrams:

1. Interestingly, in a previous study, Jacob Nielson had talked about the "90-9-1 rule" for online social behavior i.e., 90% lurkers (or inactives); 9% infrequent contributors; and, 1% frequent contributors. The findings of Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff seem to reinforce these numbers.


2. It is remarkable that collectors are almost uniformly spread across all demographic segments. More remarkable is that fact that the ratio of collectors to creators is far lower for the youth (less than 26 years) than that for the (more) mature adult categories (greater than 26 years). Does this mean that the average user does not really care for syndication? Should RSS figure lower in product management and engineering priorities? Well, your guess is as good as mine.


3. The high percentage of specatators and inactives really reinforces the belief that social media's potential is still untapped (despite the mushrooming of applications). It also perhaps implies that the average online user is reluctant to adopt / embrace social media. Is this an indication of 'online social shyness' or 'do-not-feel-the-need-to attitude'?


4. Clearly the teens, youth and generation Y are the darlings of social media. It means the younger age groups feel a greater need for social expression and networking. Hence, it is also likely that these demographics spend more time online than their older-age counterparts (besides willing to be early adopters). Thus, marketers of social media applications need to necessarily focus on these segments for building vibrant and sustaining online communities. So, a social application that these age groups finds 'cool' (and useful) is more likely to spread faster virally than an application that is perceived to be not 'hip and trendy.'


5. The big picture that emerges for marketers is that their market entry strategy is more likely to be successful if it targets the younger generations. The 'joiner' percentages in these segments are far higher than the 'creator' percentages (with almost a differential of 15-30%).

In summary, younger social media users are 'early adopters.' They exhibit greater propensity to participate. Marketers of social media and online communities should keep these online behavioral insights in mind while chalking out their online strategies.

KEEPING SOCIAL MEDIA SITES CLEAN

Recently social media sharing and publishing platforms have become ubiquitous. People use these sites to create and contribute content; or to critique and comment on content; or just to collect and consume content. Regardless of the use, people of all ages flock to sites that are in this realm (like YouTube, Digg, Flickr, etc.)

So, how do you keep these user-generated-content-sites clean for all ages and free of objectionable content? Do you remove all mature content? Do you display a warning before showing mature content? Or, do you filter content display depending on the age of the user? And, what processes do you provide for the community to flag mature content? These are some of the policy challenges that social media sites address regardless of media silos (of text, audio or video content).

Browser Preferences
As is well known mature material on the Internet is not just pornographic content. It also includes adult / obscene language, and violent or hateful material. Such content can be posted on social media sites as text, audio or video content.

Users do have ways and means of filtering such content on the Web using settings on their browsers. For instance, on Internet Explorer you can use The Recreational Software Advisory Council rating service (based on the work of Dr. Donald F. Roberts of Stanford University) to filter mature content. Some search engines also provide Safe Search preferences, which can be set to filter adult material.

These techniques basically place the onus on the user for setting viewing preferences. Suspect sites and / or offending content get entirely blocked.

Selective blocking
Social media sites feature content users generate. They do not provide editorial filters for approving content and hence have no control over the material that gets published.

So, while they would like to attract users belonging to all demographics, some controls are necessary to insure users do not accidentally view objectionable content on the site. Besides, they do have social responsibilities and moral obligations.

Best Practices
Social media sites need to have well-defined policies for flagging mature content. Getting users to declare mature content while publishing it is the first step. The media site needs to prominently flag all such mature content. A ‘mature icon’ may be displayed to warn users about the nature of the content and to prevent accidental viewing. Next, sites may have to incorporate date-of-birth based controls to prevent underage users viewing mature content.

A means for users (viewers of content) to report inappropriate content should also be provided. The media site should allocate resources and define processes for reviewing complaints and then taking appropriate steps including, but not limited to, expeditiously take down of the inappropriate content. Termination of the violating user’s account is also a step that can be pursued as an option.

Finally, social media site owners need to be vigilant about their site being used for publishing child pornographic material. Federal and state laws make it a crime to produce, possess, distribute, or sell pornographic materials that exploit or portray a minor. It has to be remembered that social media sites as service providers must report child pornography incidents to law enforcement authorities.

How Many More Accounts & Passwords?

The blogosphere is replete with frustration over "centralized social networking sites" (e.g., Krishnan, jEN...). The reason is pretty simple and straightforward. The way the ‘social’ aspect of the Internet exists today, you have no choice but to open and manage accounts over several sites to network around "social media."

So when will this multi-account networking end? What will it take for us to network with people over the Web regardless of where they have their "virtual media homes" set up?

Personality Fragmentation
I believe "the social realm" in the virtual world has to eventually mirror in many ways the physical realm. In the physical world, when someone looks at me they see one persona. During interactions over a period of time, they may get to see different emotions, expressions and the ilk. But, all that behavior manifests eventually in one personality. So, over a period of time with continued interactions, they get to know my likes (& dislikes), interests, passions, friends, family, and so on. Those who get invited home even get insights into what I own, value and cherish – books, music, videos, etc. In other words, they get to build a 360-degree view of me over time.

In the virtual world, outside of the words that I use to talk about myself (profile) or about something and the few photos or videos (faked?) that I share about myself, there is no personality. Further, my profile & personality is split across sites depending on the use I am putting the site to. Thus people publish content (regardless of media), participate in threaded conversations, manage schedules, etc., on myriad sites.

Further, the lack of physical interactions is a big impediment in virtual communities. There is no sense of bonding, belonging or togetherness unless it is an essentially physical group with presence online to facilitate remote communication (e.g., Yahoogroups).

Unification
So, for a (truly) virtual community to become socially connected, and to congregate (albeit virtually), there is a need to provide each member with an opportunity to know as much about the other members in the community. In other words, it becomes important to consistently expose common profiles about members across social networks irrespective of the platform or site where the network congregates.

By the very nature of today’s fragmented social applications, this is impossible. For instance, it is not possible for me today to expose my Flickr photos and Wordpress posts to members of a YouTube amateur movie club that I am part of.

So, what next?
Thus, the need is to seamlessly network with social and professional circles without endlessly opening accounts, maintaining passwords, entering profile information, checking threaded conversations, viewing published content, etc. on various social platforms. Open identification seems to be a step in the right direction.

Maybe Digital Lifestyle Aggregation (DLA) is the way to get there. However, I kind of felt many of Marc Canter’s concepts of DLA have been around for some time. One question that pops up in my mind is: What if a service does not expose itself with an API?

So, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Blogger et al. are you listening?

Media Convergence: Have we achieved it?

Ever since the Internet revolution began, industry pundits have waxed over the possibilities of using it to channel multimedia content. It was even predicted that this new media would eventually converge with old media on the Internet. With the Time Warner and News Corp. acquisitions of AOL and Myspace respectively, it finally seemed this “media union” was here for good. Other hardware and device-level innovations and developments have bucked this trend.

So, has the potential of the Internet been realized in the delivery of unified media? The answer is a big NO. The progress of this “new-old” wedlock has been anything but satisfactory. I believe the power of the Internet has been grossly under-utilized in the delivery of a convergent media. And, here’s why.

The Internet advantage lost
One of the great advantages of the Internet is the delivery of rich content over the same physical medium. Audio, video, text, image and other content can all be transmitted to the consumer over the same (communication) channel.

Yet, unfortunately what we see is the replication of old media techniques and approaches in the Internet realm. This is most evident in the “divvying” up of content-sharing and publishing sites along old-media-type lines. Blogging is the new-media equivalent of print publishing; video blogging for television broadcasting; podcasting for radio broadcasting and so on.

True power of the Internet
The true power of the Internet lies in the fact that it provides a common delivery backbone for a media mashup. In other words, the Internet can serve as a medium for dynamic delivery of video, audio and print content – all in the same channel.

How will such media convergence be useful? Imagine a single communication channel of democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, being used for publishing editorials on her views; broadcasting videos of her public addresses during the day; podcasting her radio interviews; publishing photos of her public engagements and so on.

This unique “mixed-media” publishing will prove to be the hallmark of Internet-based public communication. This media mashup would be the key differentiator between old media and “truly” new media (Internet) publishing.

Mixed-media for the masses
Sure enough, Hillary Clinton’s campaign can afford to invest substantially in infrastructure to set up a website to deliver (streamed or otherwise) such mixed media content. But, what about the average John or Jane Doe, or the average family in the American heartland wanting a channel to keep its extended family or community informed? That is indeed a challenge that the new-media technology companies need to address.

Disclosure: I am a co-founder of Cylive - a social application that empowers users to network in highly personalized ways.