The Question Concerning Social Networks: Existence or Meaning?

Over the past couple of weeks I have been bookmarking (del.icio.us/ealbrycht/socialnetwork) and reading a variety of articles and posts about social networks, with an emphasis on corporate or white label ones.  There is a wealth of material out there; Jeremiah Owyang tracks this area closely for Forrester, for one. What I thought I'd do is synthesize here what, in my opinion, is some of the more interesting advice and thoughts out there.  This isn't a "10 steps to successful social networking" article, but rather an introduction to some ideas about how to approach corporate social networks.

Today, I think that public social networks are pretty primitive things.  I don't like the walled gardens, and the awkwardness of profile and friending processes are laughable.  In the end, for the most part, these different social networks have become cages for pieces of my identity, which then stagnate as I forget about them.  Because once you've built your little home, there is nothing much else to do other than add old high school classmates that find you or join groups that I, invariably, never really do anything with.  I simply cannot imagine that translating this type of environment into a corporate garden would be successful.  And yet, I don't deny that the basic concept of social networking represents a potentially powerful tool for organizations.

From conversations I have had with people, reading I have done, and my own personal experiences, I don't think people will join and participate in brand communities sponsored by organizations, just because they are asked. Nor do I think that they will do it for earning promotional bonuses (free products etc.). For particularly high profile brands there might be some initial buzz value, but I don't think it will last.  Nor do I think that entertainment alone will keep people around.  You can give them games to play and contests to win, but in the end, that will fall flat.  So why do people join social networks?  What is a commonality among successful ones (public or private)?  I think it is that the networks are about something concrete.

There is a wonderful post from a couple of years ago on the concept of object-centered sociality that states "The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people.  They're not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object."  These shared objects can be jobs, dates, photos etc.  Flickr is a social network based on photos.  Del.icio.us is based on URLs.  Upcoming.org is based on events. LinkedIn on jobs. [Examples all from post].  I look at a successful corporate social network, that of Nestle Purina: petcentric.  At its core, it is about people's pets, not the brand.  Brilliant.

This post suggests that, "When it becomes easy to create digital instances of the object, online services for networking on, through, and around that object will emerge too."  Organizations need to ask themselves:  what is their object?

Francois Gossieaux has written recently about "interrupt marketing" and how it doesn't work in social networking.  He states, "It doesn't matter how a person feels about your product; it matters how they feel about themselves in the context of your product."  I would broaden that, saying, "It matters how they feel about themselves and their relationships (perhaps "emotional connection" is a better phrase) with their objects in the context of your product."

Once you know your object, and you have determined that there isn't already a strong social network in place around it (if there is, it is probably better to join and participate in some way vs. trying to create a new one), what kind of social network do you construct?  What kind of activities do you offer?  What do you want people to DO on your network?  If an important aspect of your social network is to market to its users, that marketing has to use some kind of contextual technology that inserts itself into the action stream, into what the people are doing.  Search ads work because people are looking for something, as Alexander van Elsas reminds us, then admonishes us: "There is no room for advertisement when people interact." 

So, what could you do on a corporate social network?  Obviously providing forms of interaction (chat, forums, photo sharing, etc.) are good bets. There are plenty of tips and tool articles out there that can help with that (see my del.icio.us feed).  I have stated before that companies should ask for contributions (ideas, etc.) and demonstrate they have listened. This quote comes from a profile of Communispace in the Boston Globe a couple of years ago:  "Consumers also participate in the online communities because it gives them a feeling of power.  They seem to love the idea of being consulted, and love even more the notion that they are being listened to."  And later in the same article, "The experience of being heard is so rare."

Remember, the activities you provide have to be appropriate to the context, to the object, and to the action stream.  Petcentric, with its "pet" object relies heavily on photo sharing and videos.  Of course!  Pets are cute, people are proud of them, they want to share/brag.  What is your organization's "pet"?  (Perhaps you can think about it another way.  What is unique about your product?  Is there anything that has an almost cult-like status or following?  It could even be an "alternative" use.) 

Another hurdle you will have to leap comes once you have a network and participants in place: participation inequality, which states that 90% of users are lurkers, 9% contribute a little and 1% contribute most. (Whether or not these are the exact figures, I think the basic idea is sound.) This means that for the organization, "Implementation efforts need to consciously manage participation and activity to compensate for a smaller population."  This same conclusion can be read from a different context described by Kevin Kelly in The Bottom is Not Enough.  He writes, arguing for some form of editorial control or leadership: "The reason every bottom-up crowd-source hive-mind needs some top-down control is because of time. The bottom runs on a different time scale than our instant culture."  He continues,

"The systems we keep will be hybrid creations. They will have a strong rootstock of peer-to-peer generation, grafted below highly refined strains of controlling functions.  Sturdy, robust foundations of user-made content and crowd-sourced innovation will feed very small slivers of leadership agility. Pure plays of 100% smart mobs or 100% smart elites will be rare.

The real art of business and organizations in the network economy will not be in harnessing the crowd of "everybody" (simple!) but in finding the appropriate hybrid mix of bottom and top for each niche, at the right time. The mix of control/no-control will shift as a system grows and matures. "

Perhaps the very core of the issue is a choice between existence and meaning. (I was inspired by this quote about social networks, "The existence of relationships is replacing the meaning of relationships.")  The first is relatively easy to create, but the second, quite difficult.  The question is: How can we create a social network that becomes a frequent/habitual part of someone's practices of meaning creation (for his/her life)?  Clearly, SuperSliderFunWalls aren't the answer here.  Then, the community manager comes into play, seeking to nurture meaning for all participants, which will require very special skills. (Here's a hint.)

I will be watching this space in the coming months, sharing further thoughts with you as they take shape.  As always, I welcome your comments and ideas.

Comments

[Dennis McDonald]

I don't think it's that complex. "Social networks" are about relationships and conversations. "Online social networks" involve technology and the Internet in enabling those conversations and relationships.

The important question is what role the company or the association wants to have in enabling the conversations and relationships of its members/employees/customers. Since relationships, technology, and people are changing all the time, this will always be a moving target.

[Yvonne DiVita]

Ah, but Purina takes it a step further... I write a little petblog for them, with help from a veterinarian. Check out www.scratchingsandsniffings.com ... it shows Purina's commitment to pet.

[John Cass]

Your point about walled gardens is well taken. Though I personally think it is a matter of good social interaction design. You have to understand the limits and constraints on social interaction within a social networking website. One element as you suggest, is forgetting to return, which is something I think few bloggers do on their own sites. Bloggers run their own sites, update them, which is why I hope that social networking will become more open source rather than walled into private gardens. What if every blog reached the potential of a social networking website?

[GeekMommy]

Wow... that's really well thought out!

I would wonder, though, if Social Networks are about commonality, how does one explain the vivacity of Twitter?

I honestly have to say that it seems to prove the exception to the rule in that regard - and yet, it's one of the strongest tools in Social Networking right now.
Twitter seems to defy the 'concept of object-centered sociality' and bring many disparate people together. While, strangely, it's competitors (Jaiku, Pownce, etc) don't seem to be able to draw the same level of interaction.

Something to ponder, I suppose...

[Elizabeth Albrycht]

GeekMommy you have an excellent point, one which I have been musing on these last couple of days. Is there an object behind Twitter? One of the big reasons I love twitter is the sharing of links to interesting information - almost like a dynamic on-the-fly social bookmarking service. Of course, it is much more too.

If you think about ambient presence - your "location", your "thereness", your "identity", however you want to define it (something I am not sure on yet) and objectness, lots of interesting issues arise.

It looks like I have found another topic to dig into more deeply and think about - I welcome your thoughts and ideas!

[Lisa Poplawski]

A company's purpose for beginning to dabble in social networking should align closely with the purpose with which they began their own blog. A successful corporate blog---like you've indicated for success in social networking---relies on the company's realization that readers and the audience share a connection through one object. A great example of this is Stonyfield Farms' blog---a corporate blog that doesn't resemble one ounce of the corporate image or motivation. Like you've said, people enjoy advise and discussion about the object that's drawn them together in the first place. Shared by my professor Kelli Matthews in class, the Stonyfield Farm blog (at http://www.stonyfield.com/Weblog/) offers parenting tips for one audience and a company farmer's diary for another audience. This blog has been hugely successful because the company focused on offering advice and dialogue to their consumers---not about the product but about things buyers of the product are interested in! This same concept will need to be applied to social networks. Success will come not by promoting the brand, but by giving buyers of your brand something to talk about, something they will enjoy.

Great post and especially great links to lots of information!! Thanks, Elizabeth!

Lisa Poplawski

[Julie, writer Surefirewealth.com]

It is fairly easy to exist. And it is also fairly easy for other people to exist to us. The meaning part is an entirely different manner. I like how you used social networks to prove this point. I no longer have an account but I must admit that despite the seemingly shallow way some of these networks operate, I enjoyed myself with it.

[Mariana Sarceda]

Social networks, at least this is the way I see them and use them, are virtual spaces where I can get in touch with friends who live abroad, or with colleagues all over the world with whom I can exchange experiences, knowledge and insight.
I agree on the point that brand-driven social networks may have a short existence as marketing tools because the customer is not commited for life to a brand. These kind of social networks may work in the launching of a new product or service, but if all the marketing plan of the company ends here....well, I guess the company is in big trouble.

[Social Network Web Design]

Social networks work because of the people involved in the network and not because of the technology it offers.

[Social Networking Web Design]

Corporate social networks don't have much in terms of longevity in the public realm. People will constantly move to the latest and greatest, whether that's a social network or something else. Social networks aren't always about the people, plenty of people use social networks because of the technology; as more advanced features pop up elsewhere, people will move with it.