Why Facebook Will Ultimately Trump MySpace
Posted by Sam Huleatt on June 5th, 2007 9:15 AM
I have developed a theory on why Facebook will ultimately trump MySpace and it has nothing to do with innovation, technology or the new Facebook Applications Platform. In my opinion, the true differentiator is the role of groups within the two networks. Specifically, there are two issues of importance here: 1) the types and use of available groups on MySpace and Facebook and 2) MySpace’s emphasis on individuality and personal networks.
When analyzing the science of social networking, the concept of groups is better known as ‘affiliation networks.’ According to Duncan Watts, a well known network analysis researcher, “without any affiliations, the chance that two people will be connected is negligible; the more affiliations [people] have, and the stronger each affiliation is, the more likely they are to interact as friends, acquaintances, or business associates, depending on the nature of the contexts involved.â€
It may seem obvious that the more groups you belong to and the more passionate about the groups’ missions you are, the more likely you are to meet more people. It may also be obvious that the more people you meet outside of your personal network (and subsequently add as your friends), the greater will be the success of the overall network. However, the current use and arrangement of ‘groups’ on Myspace and Facebook have long-term consequences that may not be so glaringly obvious.
Myspace largely made a name for itself by allowing bands and musicians to develop an online presence and by letting devoted fans ‘friend’ and join their favorite bands; great viral stuff. However, if you think about it, most other MySpace interactions are within individual profiles - friends will post blurbs, play with widgets, or comment on photos within other friends’ profiles. This focus on individuality also extends to the profile itself… customizing your MySpace profile (using HTML and CSS) is fantastic in providing users with a sense of personal ownership and individuality. This individuality is undoubtedly a huge initial attraction for users who can spend months “fine tuning†their profiles. The problem is that individuality is ultimately self-destructive from the perspective of network theory. In order to continue growing, MySpace must focus on generating interactions outside of a user’s immediate personal-network if it wishes to maintain its seemingly exponential growth.
MySpace’s initial focus on music affinity groups (fans) also presents a significant disadvantage when contrasted with role of groups on Facebook. Facebook was originally built to support one of strongest affiliation networks in existence outside of family and religion – colleges. The bonds among music fans, while shared experiences, are often more esoteric in nature, such as shared concert attendance or set lists. Such bonds, while powerful, do not carry same weight of the connections typically felt among college alumni and students. Why is this important? Strangers who share the common bond of a college are more likely to connect with people a few degrees away because they have more indirect reasons to connect: jobs, teams, professors, dorms, siblings, etc.
Consider for example, fans of the Arctic Monkeys. Compared to say Harvard Alumni, music fans are less likely to actively look for, and ultimately expand their personal networks without outsiders from their affiliation network. Simply put, the music affiliation group genre is less conducive to network expansion.
Now that we examined the original intentions of the two networks, it is also important to recognize that the role of groups, i.e. affiliation networks, plays a much more prominent role on Facebook. Facebook users typically belong to many different groups, ranging from social causes to sororities to the zany: ‘I remember playing Legend of Zelda.’ This diversity of groups serves a double service: it serves as a source of personal identity and more importantly, serves as catalysts for exposure to new people outside one’s immediate network. Take for example this user who scans his Facebook mini feed daily and joins all networks his friends join. Also, because Facebook users have been so creative in the types of groups created (e.g. ‘Fans of Bert and Ernie’) the possibilities for future groups are UNLIMITED. “Unlimited†is a major keyword because following network theory, the more networks one belongs to the more likely one is to expand their personal connections and thus enhance overall network success.
In contrast, MySpace’s use of groups is more limited to building out profiles (takes more effort) and bulletin boards (dated and non-conducive to interaction). Based on the difference in group structure and design alone, it is easy to see why Facebook’s growth should continue to skyrocket (up 152% in April) while MySpace (only up 49% in April) is likely to level–out over time. Coupled with MySpace’s overall emphasis on profile individuality and personal network interaction, the future for users exploring and expanding with more out-of-network friends seems dubious at best. Especially with Facebook’s new Applications, such as Facebook Causes, I would only look for a larger disparity to soon emerge between the two superpowers.
*This post was written by Sam Huleatt. Sam is a soon-to-be MBA graduate and social media guru. He writes about things that interest him at LeveragingIdeas.
(4.64 out of 5)
(4.22 out of 5)
June 5th, 2007 at 9:25 am
[...] have a guest post today over at the new blog AllFacebook by Nick [...]
June 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I don’t think anyone can speak so confidently about the future of these social networks. The future belongs to whichever network(s) are able to continue to adapt to their users’ needs and satisfy the needs of new sets of users. None of them is doomed to mediocrity by design. Designs can be modified.
June 11th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I don’t think anyone can speak so confidently about the future of these social networks. The future belongs to whichever network(s) are able to continue to adapt to their users’ needs and satisfy the needs of new sets of users. None of them is doomed to mediocrity by design. Designs can be modified.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
[...] as another AllFacebook article pointed out, It is also important to recognize that the role of groups, i.e. affiliation networks, [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Sam, this is a great post. I think you nailed it. Funny though that groups is not why people sign up in the first place…needs a name for this strategy.
Also, groups is a plus in the war from a SEO perspective
October 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Sam, this is a great post. I think you nailed it. Funny though that groups is not why people sign up in the first place…needs a name for this strategy.
Also, groups is a plus in the war from a SEO perspective