Brian Oberkirch rants poetic about companies (and nonprofits, by extension) who choose to roll their own social networking site vs. going to where your audiences already are; Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, The Supermarket, Their Workplace, The Soccer Field (okay so I added the last few, but you get the idea).
Brian takes aim at FastCompany to make his point about the ‘roll your own’ strategy. I love that he chose FC, because if there is an entity that could pull it off, it’s FastCompany. Yet, you still have to wonder…. And, if you have to wonder if FastCompany can pull it off, well… I suppose that means there isn’t much to wonder about whether an under-resourced, overworked, nonprofit pulling it off in a ‘it-will-go-viral’ sort of way, that some will dream about.
Take a look at some of the things that Ed Sussman who was “behind FastCompany’s new strategy” points to as why they just might be able to pull it off:
- They have an existing community of 100,000 members that has been growing for 10 years.
- Their readers get value from their involvement in the FC community.
(certainly FC has qualitative and quantitative evidence of this?) - Readers have been begging them for a site upgrade.
- They are trying something new, which is what everyone would expect of FC.
- Their community will be “based on ideas and content more than
networking.” This is something folks won’t be able to get elsewhere, or so it seems. - They already have 250 members who have created blogs on the site…. hmm… it would be interesting to see how much impact those will really have and how long they will be active…
- They have built the site so it can “be used as a platform for other media companies” with whom who they plan to partner.
- They are planning to “insert” their journalism into the discussions.
- Their staff, who are the ones readers love, hang out in the FC community. (Clearly, this goes a ways towards overcoming issues of community stewardship)
- They are planning on looking for ways to ease the issues of what I will call “silo membership”…
Wow, not an insignificant list of stuff going in their favor. BUT, I personally will be watching closely to see if it works and what they learn. It’s far from a for-gone-conclusion.
Speaking of forgone conclusions, let me use Brian’s own words to tell express what I think about nonprofits going the roll-your-own, silo-membership route to social network development:
“The short version of this post: don’t do it. We really don’t care.
Really. We. Don’t. Care. We are not going to hang out on your site and
reload the page every minute or so just to see if anything has
happened. We are not going to grant you access to every jot &
tittle of our digital friendships. We are not going to gangbang content
for you. You are just not that central to our lives. Really. I’m
telling you this because I care.”
Really, We Don’t Want to Join Your Social Network
Successful social networks excel based on ideologically driven founders followed by a passionate inclusive community. That is nearly impossible to predict or replicate.
While I support many causes, why would I go to their sites daily if I can see new content in my feed reader?
So I agree. I too predict the FC “community” will be marginal at best and we will all stay on twitter and facebook. A shame as I like diversity, but there it is.
100,000 Fast Company members vs. 60,000,000 Facebook members. This seems like an extremely simple numbers game to me and FC is on the losing end of the traffic graph if they don’t take advantage of other social networks out there.
Is there a compelling reason not do do all of the above? Roll your own network, but use every other network you can get your hands on as well?
Yes to Drew and Brian and Ed. The missing piece in interest-based OSNs is 1. Leaders: a person, or a couple of them that live in the networks and lead them and 2. UI that prioritizes/ showcases the human element. Hard to predict/ replicate, unless you have someone who knows how to do lead–an old-school community organizer who invites with purpose, then says ‘you gathered in this room for X’ purpose’ and helps them accomplish shared purpose. No matter how sweet your layout is, if we can’t ’see’ each other, the network is dead.
It’s the people that are the there there. Participants need to see the humanity in the network from the get go, need to be engaged with and responded to, need to feel alive there.
I hear Brian’s need for the org to come to where the user is already online, and to make meaning from that existing online pattern/experience/habit. But I’ll break my pattern/experience/habit in a second and turn my energy towards an online experience that engages with me and is responsive towards me.
Great points, all.
Rachel, your comments also have me thinking about value proposition and the different kinds of value people can get from and OSN. It’s interesting, if an OSN were the only place I could go to get something, the picture changes a bit. I am thinking, for instance, of a campaign that uses an OSN to connect it’s core supporters or activists.
Thanks for the food for thought.