Social networks suck. There is a new social network launched every other day, and they suck as well. Somewhere along the line, the evolution of social networks took a wrong turn, and we the consumers are left to choose bad from worse. Every new social network created today imitates the mistakes of the predecessors before them. For instance, it has become a standard to make site maps difficult to visualize because their primary demographic, teenagers, have all the time in the world to figure them out [1]. Fortunately for us startups, though, we can pay attention to the failures of the existing social networks and figure out what not to do the next time around.
The Nobel Prize winning free-market economist, Milton Friedman, believed that when left alone, people will intelligently act in their own best interest, and that the market will coordinate their actions to produce outcomes beneficial for all. In other words, the wisdom of crowds depends upon the rational wisdom of the individual. Friedman was a genius, but he never came across MySpace or he would have retracted his belief on consumer rationality. MySpace and its cousins are bacteria feeding off the irrationality of the wisdom of the crowds. MySpace has taught us that even though the customer is not always right, it is, nonetheless, detrimental to prove them otherwise.
If my statistical software is correct, 80% of the people visiting this page will leave within the first 30 seconds of their visit [2]. Such is the attention span of today’s web user. Now, as I glide through the many social networking sites, I can hardly come across one that is inherently easy to navigate through [3]. I have an incredible attention span of about 5 minutes; if I can’t figure out how to edit my profile within that time frame, I will simply leave the site. I wonder how many potential members Friendster has lost this way. Well who cares, they have plenty already, right? [4]
Social networks these days are under the misconception that user activity can be increased by providing wide variety of features, such as blogging, polls, whiteboards, flash videos, etc. This pattern is recurring in major players such as Bebo, Friendster, MySpace and Facebook. In reality, though, the majority of users try features such as blogging or polls just once or twice before moving onto something more fulfilling. These extra features end up putting extra burden of information on the already overloaded users. In order to increase user activity, social networks need to circle their users around common grounds that make sense to their bottom line.
These days, once I sign up for a social network, I sweep through various corners of their network to examine what works and what does not. For the most part, I haven’t found anything remarkable; almost each of these has the standard features, i.e. a blog, comment area, album, song/videos widgets, etc. Once in a while, though, I do find something worth noticing. In this article, I will reveal the good, the bad, and the ugly.
In the land of trolls, spam, choice and infinite features, there is an opportunity to make a social network that works. Here is a compilation of a few thought provoking ideas:
Users don’t think what we think they thinkWomen are the chief consumer officers of the house. Evidence suggests that these primates evolved primarily for the purpose of shopping [5]. For instance, the other day, I observed my mother spend half an hour on deciding what color tissue box she should buy. After pondering over the hard choices between pink, blue, green, and rainbow for a considerable time, she finally gave up and decided to buy them all. The point is, if a choice is present, perfectionists spend a ridiculous amount of time over simple decisions. Such is the mentality governing users of today’s social networks. We are caught up in a web of choices; indeed, the core reason behind MySpace’s success is that users rule. The fundamental driving force behind the success of many social networks is choice. MySpace might suck, but it gives its users ample of choice. Once a user has invested an hour of their life customizing their profile, they are not likely to leave the site anytime soon. Not surprisingly, MySpace has become the Internet’s equivalent of crack; after a few doses of it, users just can’t stop using it.
On the other hand, while choices make a social network addictive, it also undermines the advertiser’s ability to monetize the site. The ability to monetize profiles is inversely proportional to the square of chaos within. As Wired Magazine puts it,“In an online advertising market increasingly dependent on the Net’s ability to precision target ads, MySpace offers no sure way to hit the bull’s eye. Google decides which ads to show based on search terms and page content. By contrast, a typical MySpace pageview doesn’t offer much of a clue about anything. What conclusions can you draw when kid A bounces onto kid B’s profile and leaves the message ‘Wazzup?’”
MySpace and its counterparts have taught us a lot about the new economics of the social network, and people in general; people choose when given a choice. When given the choice to embed videos or put up animated GIF backgrounds, guess what happens? Even the savviest geeks avail that choice. Choice depresses us. According to ‘How Shopping Works’ leading research indicates that the many choices women must make on daily basis is the prime reason why they are more likely to be depressed than their male counterparts. So unless your market is the boobless teen, there shouldn’t be a dozen choices available for every decision. Make the key UI decisions yourself, and leave the rest to your users. It’s good for the advertiser and even better for your user.
Ads, ads everywhereOne thing I particularly dislike about Web 2.0 startups is their Web 1.0 approach towards displaying advertisements. It shouldn’t take an Einstein to realize where Google ads are appropriate and where they are not. For instance, after I click on “My Friends” tab in Hi5, I am displayed an ad of “Become a nutritionist” and “Should the government regulate gas prices?”. These ads are absolutely irrelevant to my interests, and there is no way in hell that I am going to click on them. Simply put, they are pointless and annoying. Note that there is nothing wrong with displaying ads as long as it makes sense to do so. If you have no ads on your site, you will not make money off of it. If you have too many ads on your site, nobody is going to click on them.
original essay at m4th