George, I think you have a really useful insight here. In fact, the 21st century is the century of true visual literacy. The vastness of the image economy is fundamentally changing society, based on the paradigm shift in thinking that TV brought a little more than half a century ago. The rise of MySpace and YouTube are consequents of this image economy, and the question is where people, consumers, users fall into that economy. The appearance of social networks and the way they're already moving from horizontals to verticals is a major indicator of how this is quickly evolving and will further transform the marketplace of ideas and services.
Mr. Zachary, I hope you don't mind if I respectfully disagree with you on a couple points. Hopefully you like and respect that sort of thing considering you’re a venture capitalist interested in differing perspectives and innovative thinking. I really wish I could say I agree, but the online world is my life, and finding solutions and improving the internet always comes first. I'm obviously not going to disagree with you in regards to the fact that an industrialized world where people are brought together in mass is conducive to competitive desires to stand out for reproductive purposes. The question, then, is whether or not real world "survival mechanisms" grounded in the psyche translates fully to the online world; and whether there's more to it than correlations and the given examples of MySpace vs. Friendster.
The first thing I'd like to establish is that reality and virtual reality are two entirely different things, and the advanced, understanding and non-instinct driven side of the human being is not necessarily going to carry a psyche based in reality into a virtual world. Further, if we're talking about animal instincts, we're talking about a world where there's no such thing as the internet--or a virtual world--understandably the need to differentiate for reproductive purposes in this reality is, of course, a very real thing. For example, a human inundated in reality, as they walk down a city street and notice physically all around them their competitors, so to speak, is without a doubt tapping into the instinctual psyche and desire to differentiate by means of fashion, as mentioned, as human instinctual desires rooted in reality will manifest in a reality based environment. The question, then, is are humans advanced enough to understand that the internet is not reality, but merely an extension of it; something within reality, a useful tool that allows them to connect with the world.
I think the answer is yes. If Friendster vs. MySpace is used as an example, I'd think we'd have to cite the counterexample of Facebook or even Orkut. Neither site allows customization, and yet they're both massive successes. I think people, reaching beyond their instinctive desires and tapping into the intellectual, realize and appreciate the emphasis is on where it needs to be: connectivity and people. So much so, that I've discovered that people who have both [MySpace and Facebook] are now spending most [90% or more] of their time on Facebook and not MySpace. If there was a strong innate desire to differentiate yourself on the internet by means of personalization, this would without a doubt be the other way around, and Facebook’s success (in spite of MySpace’s looming presence) and its recent offer to be acquired for 900 million would be a mere fantasy. If anything, the lack of customization suggests that the user is enough of an individual to let their words and pictures speak for themselves, which is the true online expression of any user, allowing them to showcase how they differentiate themselves in reality [using fashion for example], and not some colored border on a page. For the record books, let me say I’m not against customization for the purpose of differentiation, I even think it's a very good thing to some extent, I just don’t believe the data supports the claim of some intrinsic need or desire.
That begs the question then, why was MySpace a blowout hit in comparison to Friendster? I think it's a more complex formula, involving multiple factors which without a doubt include the novelty of having a decked out profile or personal space, but that also go beyond that. MySpace introduced a formula that would bring social networking to the masses. An emphasis on music ensured it was hip, and the name [“My”Space] tapped into an inherent desire to have your own "space" online--although, as Facebook and Orkut prove, one which really doesn't have to be personalized. There are also factors that include interface, as well as Friendster perhaps having somewhat of an identity crisis; a website merely for "friends" doesn't nearly have the same punch as a website that grants you your very own "space" on the internet, the closest thing millions would ever come to their own website.
But as websites like Facebook and Orkut gain steam, and MySpace loses its novelty, proving that the emphasis need not be on personalization, but rather connectivity [people and pictures]; what the internet is all about, I believe people will grow apathetic when it comes to the off the wall customizations and the emphasis not being in its proper place. I honestly think that's why I, even though I have a MySpace and there are more people I know on it, now check my Facebook first, if I check my MySpace at all. It's an extremely subtle psychological tick, but it's there. As mentioned, my friends seem to be experiencing the same phenomenon. It seems as if I and everyone I know sign onto a social networking site to connect, which does not include a major personalization factor. MySpace is big now, but I believe we'll see 3, 5, or maybe 10 years down the road MySpace share a similar fate to Friendster, surpassed by a site that implements a formula to attain definitiveness, [which is not the formula MySpace or even Facebook has presented if we look at the division and rising alternatives). This is done by … (I’ve decided to take this part out to keep trade secrets from being widely distributed on the internet) I can assure you, no site today is doing the above. If you’d like to know more, I can send you an executive summary, which outlines in further detail what exactly this site would be. I've dedicated my life to this site, written over 60,000 words about it, and am more than confident there is a major market {every person who uses this internet) for this. I'm hoping you take a look at it, and I'd love to present the idea to you in full. Thanks for your time, and I really hope I didn't offend you in any way. Happy hunting.
It appears as if my email didn't show up, so I'll post it here.
eocreation@yahoo.com
Hi Jameson,
Thanks for your comment and attention.
Sure happy to hear more!
George
"That begs the question then, why was MySpace a blowout hit in comparison to Friendster?"
-they had the option for black backgrounds and...
-bands thought it was cool
but maybe i am just a big simplifier chick....
I agree with your point about humans feeling the need to differentiate themselves. That's why I've always thought the club in L.A. that will really succeed will be the one where the guys have to pay a $1,000 cover charge. I don't know why this doesn't exist yet (or maybe it does and I'm just really out of the loop).
Extrapolating to the online world, I think we're going to see an explosion of virtual goods that people will use to stand out. Anyone can go and paste in some code they found on the Internet that pretties up their profile page, but if someone ponies up $5 for a gift or a piece of unique "artwork", they'll stand out. This makes it an even better time to own prime storefront real estate on the Internet, such as social networks or online MMRPGs.
Hmm, good post and good comments here. I'd agree with you that there's an explosion of consumer goods and consumerism out there right now. Imagine what it's like in developing worlds who see mass imports of new goods: both successful and failed products (in their original countries).
We definitely need better filters for it and social networks seem to be lending a hand. We're interested in what our friends think; word of mouth is now word of keyboard. Ratings systems are making great strides as they become more Ajaxy and user-friendly. Amazon has really innovated in this way but I feel like they're not leveraging that as much as they could (but getting better).
It's been interesting to see the Facebook phenomenon really take off in the last few months (especially since this original post).
Anyway, I'm just another entrepreneur building the next hot social media site designed to leverage huge vertical markets... back to work now.
This is all true. However even with the presence of online clubs, people want that physical. People chat with others online with a fantasy of meeting them and that may vary by gender, economic status and geography due to a multitude of factors that play into that. Virtual goods are for sure going to be popular and you can monetize such human desires but to truly create something valuable to people will be to reduce the friction between the online and offline. The biological part of us will be here to stay for a while. What i've just said is applicable to more of a dating thing. As far as knowledge 2.0 is concerned, it'll be interesting to see how people interested in the KNOWLEDGE of others not necessarily the people themselves will create a demand for KNOWLEDGE expression.
The age concept you say is rather implicit don't you think? I mean thats the reason people are capitalizing on the aging baby boomers.
Commenting by HaloScan
