What Makes a Social Network WORK!

When I say social network, I mean anything from something like Facebook to Dogster. Be it by niche or a "general" social network like Facebook, the key to a relatively good social network is "talking" or "communicating to other people. It's as simple as that.

What prompts me to write something as general as this subject was a conversation I had last night which frankly, annoyed me, because I was talking to someone who declared with a rather weird sense of "authority" that "people like gaming". It's seemed he was saying that there is nothing else like humorous repartee, intelligent news, unintelligent news that mattered and that "gaming" is PRIME and thus, makes up a legitimate social network. I refrained from asking if he was three years old of course, out of sublime patience --- frankly, I wondered if he was a bit retarded. If gaming was all that mattered, then there would probably be no need for the keyboard... just the joystick, and there would probably be world peace and happiness because ignorance is bliss.

I wanted to challenge this "authority" and asked, "why only gaming?". He replied, "you see like in Facebook, they have Farmville... " I did not tell him that only less than 20% of Facebookers play Farmville for fear that new information may shock his brain and cause a cyber-concussion.

Most social networks do start for the "fun" or "functionality", much like Facebook was meant for people who were from Harvard. It was originally meant to be niche social networking site for those who were studying at Harvard. Thus, Facebook started with people who had something obviously in common - they belonged to the best university and they had their own "sub-culture". Still, they were individuals from diverse backgrounds and different states. The Midwest is not exactly like California much as California is not New York -- but they managed to relate to each other because they WANTED to communicate, debate, reason out or express themselves.

These people were in College level and I do not think that "gaming" kept the network going. If it did they probably would have done better doing a casino site which is perfectly legitimate in some states. Facebook "worked" precisely because those who started it were a group of nerds, or else they would have stuck to their family computers. Gaming alone as a "key" is lame. It does not require a social psychiatrist or sociologist to predict that when people refuse to talk to each other and express themselves, they'd be better off making reviews. In normal societies, people reach out to each other and do not get intimidated when another decides to express oneself in one's own unique individual manner.

What about because people belong to different backgrounds, have different experiences and perceive the world differently? True, and that is something we must accept. Dogster rates high in ads and traffic because people all over the world love their dogs - they exchange tips and stories about dogs and I am quite sure that it wound NOT be a success if "only owners of little chihuahuas" were the majority in the site. Neither do these "Chihuahua pet owners" brag that they started the site to those who owned mixed breeds or poodles. See how silly that sounds? Yet, members of the site manage to communicate without taking the "location attitude". Facebook works because no one in their Board or staff brags that "hey we're the originals and we're from Harvard!". If they did that, everyone would go to Twitter and do Haiku's instead.

The same "expert" had the chutzpah to lecture me about "we find what is in common" then tells me he's from some place. That's the IRONY eh? The "we started it and my place is better than yours" attitude draws my ire, because you can be from Congo - for all I care - but if you can hold my interest, we have chemistry and I would come back to the site to "see you". To add injury, he blurts, "the youth need gaming...". Oh yeah? and why is the site not "working" if he knew all that? The excuse , "because it is only one year old and we need PR." It made me wonder how much Facebook needed PR, gaming and lame "experts" like this guy. Wht the heck was he thinking?

I had to ask, "okay if the youth... you mean then young people who probably do not have jobs and can't buy anything advertised or reviewed..". He still insists like a drunk donkey. I ask what was his baseline stats of these young people's ability to "buy anything" - no answer. I also inquired "what about yuppies" (young professionals) and he seemed he turned mute.

I still think the same. The key to ANY social network is communication, relating, finding communality instead of the "we started it ". Facebook and Multiply succeeded because anyone who signed felt it was their home - THEIR WALL - and didn't bother asserting or identifying themselves as "originals". It also isn't very wise because someone who may not be within the originals may always be wiser than them anyway.

Another thing is the FAILURE to think of a social network as a potential business or info bank. Companies, governments and even Presidents use these social networks as a data base and these are times when information is power. When there is no talk, no debate, no nothing then.. there will come no business. Digital reputation is a MUST. People will always find out and check who "talks" to you, where you are connected, what type of people "you hang around with" and that is exactly why there is such a thing these days as a K (klout) rating at Twitter. It's the same as "your added value" when you say anything. I mean, what if you are one of the "originals" and someone asks, "WHAT is your klout?" -- which equates into ones digital reputation.

If there is anything any social network has to think of - it's how to relate with the POTENTIAL to make money. Not simply to exist and huddle in some eerie silence, but to make it known that they have more to offer other than "gaming" and pictures. If one cannot visualize nor believe this vision (the greatness of reaching this potential), then... it's a dismal failure.