Posts Tagged ‘social networking’

Foursquare Wins Geosocial Networking

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

People use social networking sites because their friends are on it. There’s no value in being an early adopter of an empty networking tool. So the essential problem of launching a social networking site is how to build mass until you reach critical. (Metcalfe’s Law: the value of a network is the number of users squared.)

It’s only so difficult to get people to log on to your site when they’re sitting around at home on a Sunday night. It’s much more difficult to get people to log on when they’re out in the world doing stuff, so the mass-building problem is much worse for geosocial networking.

Foursquare’s solution is to turn geosocial networking into a roleplaying game: your online character gains power-ups when you check in. The most common power-up is that when you check in to a location more than anyone else you become the “mayor”. In the system this doesn’t give you anything more than bragging rights, but FourSquare has huge potential for linking with the real world:
FourSquare Mayor drinks for free!

The obvious business model is to sell site-specific power-ups. For example, checking in to Joshua Tree in Murray Hill, New York gives you a douchebag power-up (make no mistake: this is great publicity). Another example is that the Hotel on Rivington in New York gives you the “I’m on a boat” power-up.

Don’t dismiss people who would buy a $16 cocktail just to ride a dolphin doing flips and shit. Foursquare is the anti-World of Warcraft: it makes a game out of going to new and interesting places; your friends can suggest places for you to go. And guess what, it just launched in Vancouver.

Twitter is for Sharing Information

Monday, August 10th, 2009

In The Tipping Point Malcolm Gladwell identifies two types of nodes in social networks:

mavens
collect information (build memes)
connectors
are connected to lots of people (spread memes)

A single person rarely is both a maven and a connector. Mavens have content but no distribution channel. Connectors have a distribution channel but no content. Mavens and connectors need each other.

Gladwell claims that “mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know”. But a maven’s power comes not from trading information, but from how many people they influence.

The Internet can work as a robotic connector for a maven. Mavens can write reviews, edit Wikipedia pages or blog about obscure stuff.

All of us are mavens and connectors to some extent. But very few of us come across enough specialised information to write a significant number of reviews, become one of the Wikipedia Cabal or have a blog read by more than your friends. Instead, most of us come across random bits of information that we don’t know how to get to someone who cares.

Twitter is a good place to put random bits of information. If there’s an obscure topic someone cares about, they can find tweets about it using search (especially with hashtags). If one of your friends knows someone who cares, they can retweet it – making the most of your meagre network.

I’m particularly interested in sharing local facts and event information. I come across lots in my day-to-day life that my immediate social circle is not really interested in. Hopefully if I start broadcasting it out, some stuff I am interested in will come my way.

Networking, The People Kind

Friday, July 10th, 2009

On the surface, networking is about meeting people then moving up a connectedness ladder, from contacts to interaction to “deep rapport”. Instead, most guides say you should look at it as integrating people into your gift economy: when you meet someone, ask yourself what you can do for them.

This isn’t easy, but it’s at least straight-forward in a business context: find out what their chief challenges are and then keep an eye out for solutions. The classic examples are sending someone an article relevant to their interests or sending them a job posting to escape their current challenges. :)

It just occured to me that maybe a bit more of this sort of thinking would help be build my social network. I assume people mostly hang out with me for my wit and charm. When I do think about it, I focus on killer events: but maybe people don’t need more and better events to go to? I’d like to know what my friends need in their lives (besides money or a dancing monkey).

Set a Trap to Catch a Friend

Monday, March 30th, 2009

I have a handful of Facebook friends that I met in real life, hit it off with and then friended in the hopes that we could grow that relationship. As Stewart observes, this doesn’t work.

There’s always the chance that we’ll discover some obscure interest or connection in our profile info to build a friendship on (shared interests is the standard foundation of man-on-man friendship). But I think the more likely model is that I’ll have an event that fulfills these three criteria:

  1. I invite a lot of people, including acquaintances
  2. Is comfortable for attendees that don’t really know anybody
  3. Is compelling enough that people attend despite the opportunity cost

Other people don’t seem to be involved in events that fulfill #1 (I don’t get invited to many events unless they need bums-in-seats). Since I’m actively working on this, I suspect #3 is where I’m failing. I’ve tried dinners at restaurants, park barbecues, daytime open houses and evening house parties – these tend to get low response rates from good friends and acquaintances alike, even when there’s free food.

Can you, dear readers, brainstorm event ideas that might fit those criteria? Or are we living in a narcissistic wasteland where nobody risks attending events that might not be fun?

You Have Too Many Friends

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

The most common complaint about Facebook made by people who have never been on Facebook is that it takes too much time. After joining, they quickly realize that their friends are not actually generating that much interesting activity (the days of death by 1000 SuperWall pokes are long over). Most of what your friends do is just broadcasting and interactions are generally small and quick. It’s not for nothing that anthropologists call these social interactions “grooming”.

The most common complaint about Facebook made by people who have suspended their accounts is that it doesn’t significantly contribute to their social life. These people fail to understand that the little actions of monitoring their friends’ broadcasts (done before social networking with gossip) and engaging in grooming add up to social cohesion. But what about all the broadcasts you don’t care about in the least and all the friends you never interact with? The problem, in my opinion, is that you aren’t friends with the right people on Facebook.

If you’re a promoter or political organizer or something like that, then your professional Facebook profile should collect as many friends as possible. If you’re a regular citizen, then I think the proper use of Facebook is to do high-quality grooming of a smaller number of people. I propose setting a fixed number of friends and unfriending someone every time you go over that number. This has to be a fuzzy process for a few reasons:

  • not everyone you socially interact with is currently on Facebook (eg: your boss, your grandmother)
  • after you lose touch with people you hang on to them for awhile online to reduce friction in restarting the relationship
  • when you first meet someone you friend them as part of the process of building a social relationship, a process that might fail

I’m going to use Dunbar’s Number: 150. There are many reasons why this number is arbitrary, but there’s some precedent and it is a good symbol. I hit 151 friends today and unfriended someone I met only once many months ago. If you’re with me, join this group.