Facebook won't last forever. MySpace certainly didn't. But Facebook was
designed to be a king of social networking. As was MySpace. And so will
whatever comes next. All social networks are designed to be kings,
provided they ever get the opportunity to rise to the top.
Other social networks took the more clever approach by filling a
different niche, like Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest. But what about
those that are trying to battle Facebook on its own turf? There's
Google+, Ning, Path, and countless others that the mainstream public
haven't even heard of.
What set Facebook apart from the others? Really, just circumstance and
precedence. You see every social network, by virtue of its design, is
meant to secure its own dominance. Just whichever has the most
dominance, wins.
Built to Win
The heart of the matter is this: all social networks are designed to be
mutually exclusive; or in other words to be used at the expense of
others. By using one social network, you shun the others; unless they
occupy different spheres of influence, of course. Using Facebook and
Twitter? No problem. But Facebook and Google+? Now there's some awkwardness.
The question is why?
There is no question that some people don't like Facebook, and would
even go so far as to stop using it altogether. But they like the
networking afforded to them by a social network. So for them, the quest
becomes to find another social network that has the features and
policies they like. Nowadays there are some alternatives, chief among
them being Google+.
But there's just one little problem, or rather potentially hundreds of
them. Friends.
Why do you chiefly use a social network? To stay in touch and
communicate with friends and contacts. So not having all those friends
and contacts would essentially defeat the purpose of a social network,
wouldn't it? And therein lies the problem.
Even if you decide to hop ship and use another social network, the
exercise becomes moot once you discover that none of your friends have
too. Though you've left behind the frustrations of the mainstream social
network for the liberties of another one, trying to convince your
fellows to follow suit is usually no easy task. Why? Typically it's
because they don't want to leave their own friends behind.
The price of leaving behind the king, or of being an early-adopter of a
new social network, is loneliness and frustration. And inexorably, the
king draws you back in to his kingdom, and remains the largest in the land.
Long Live The King
Now that social networking exists as an mainstay of the Web, it isn't
going away anytime soon. Possibly never. The cat's out of the bag;
Pandora's Box has been opened. Now that people have experienced social
networking, they must always have it.
Consequently, this means there will always be demand for it. And by its
own nature, whomever happens to be most dominant in filling that demand
will be king, to the detriment of all others. But should that king
falter, everyone will just flock to another, and then make that one the
new dominant kingdom.
There can only be one king. But there must always be a king.
Do you think Facebook will ever lose the crown, and if so, how? Who do
you think is likely to replace them, an existing competitor, or
something we have yet to see? Let us know in the comments.
designed to be a king of social networking. As was MySpace. And so will
whatever comes next. All social networks are designed to be kings,
provided they ever get the opportunity to rise to the top.
Other social networks took the more clever approach by filling a
different niche, like Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest. But what about
those that are trying to battle Facebook on its own turf? There's
Google+, Ning, Path, and countless others that the mainstream public
haven't even heard of.
What set Facebook apart from the others? Really, just circumstance and
precedence. You see every social network, by virtue of its design, is
meant to secure its own dominance. Just whichever has the most
dominance, wins.
Built to Win
The heart of the matter is this: all social networks are designed to be
mutually exclusive; or in other words to be used at the expense of
others. By using one social network, you shun the others; unless they
occupy different spheres of influence, of course. Using Facebook and
Twitter? No problem. But Facebook and Google+? Now there's some awkwardness.
The question is why?
There is no question that some people don't like Facebook, and would
even go so far as to stop using it altogether. But they like the
networking afforded to them by a social network. So for them, the quest
becomes to find another social network that has the features and
policies they like. Nowadays there are some alternatives, chief among
them being Google+.
But there's just one little problem, or rather potentially hundreds of
them. Friends.
Why do you chiefly use a social network? To stay in touch and
communicate with friends and contacts. So not having all those friends
and contacts would essentially defeat the purpose of a social network,
wouldn't it? And therein lies the problem.
Even if you decide to hop ship and use another social network, the
exercise becomes moot once you discover that none of your friends have
too. Though you've left behind the frustrations of the mainstream social
network for the liberties of another one, trying to convince your
fellows to follow suit is usually no easy task. Why? Typically it's
because they don't want to leave their own friends behind.
The price of leaving behind the king, or of being an early-adopter of a
new social network, is loneliness and frustration. And inexorably, the
king draws you back in to his kingdom, and remains the largest in the land.
Long Live The King
Now that social networking exists as an mainstay of the Web, it isn't
going away anytime soon. Possibly never. The cat's out of the bag;
Pandora's Box has been opened. Now that people have experienced social
networking, they must always have it.
Consequently, this means there will always be demand for it. And by its
own nature, whomever happens to be most dominant in filling that demand
will be king, to the detriment of all others. But should that king
falter, everyone will just flock to another, and then make that one the
new dominant kingdom.
There can only be one king. But there must always be a king.
Do you think Facebook will ever lose the crown, and if so, how? Who do
you think is likely to replace them, an existing competitor, or
something we have yet to see? Let us know in the comments.
Comments