MySpace: Promote, Facebook: Friends, Twitter: People

15 June 2009 by Michael Leis, View Comments

In a recent survey for a client, when asked to describe what people used social networks for, the most-used terms were revealing.

MySpace: Promote

It’s ironic that Yahoo! recently shut down Geocities with this term coming to the fore of MySpace users. Can MySpace even be considered a social network anymore? For many artists, musicians, and small businesses, MySpace has becme the new Geocities: making the promise of high traffic and easy-to-create websites.

In testing, it seems clear that in MySpace, friend counts have become meaningless, because none of the people in the liast (or very few) can even be described as friends. They’re all trying to take a fresh piece of real estate to bring people back to their own presence. The categories have lost their meaning, and everyone is spending time worrying about themselves.

Facebook: Friends

The most-used term to describe who’s on the friend list, people look at Facebook as the place to connect with friends in real life, and that is it. They use applications like living social to share their personalities, upload photos to keep people apprised on what they’re doing, and update their status: commenting away in threads to show commonalities in interests.

Facebook, partially because of the strange user experience design choices, is a study in contrast where it comes to how people are actually using it. On one hand, Facebook presents many opportunities to find new friends who have someone in common with you, that you may not know. Take for instance the email alerts when someone else comments on a status update that you have also commented on. That action shows the user that not only do they have someone in common, but that they’ve taken the extra step of making their affinity for that person public in the stream. Yet, there is very little in the way of new friend requests as a result. This reinforces the concept that if you don’t know someone in real life, you’re not likely to friend them in Facebook.

That being said, Facebook generates lots of traffic to external sites when friends link to them in the activity stream. In some cases, referrals from Facebook rival that of Google. On the surface, one could say this occurs because a recommendation from a friend is extremely persuasive, which is true. But I would also suggest that for the largely older-skewing demographics of Facebook who still cling to the perception of anonymity in Internet usage, it’s because they feel free from having to directly associate themselves too strongly to a person while exploring their interests via these links. Site linking is the asymmetrical aspect of the Facebook experience.

Twitter: People

In the survey, Twitter responses were centered around finding people with common interests: there is no expectation set in terms of professional or personal connections. From what we’ve seen in practice, it follows. What was interesting is the willingness to follow active ccounts regardless of whether they are clearly people, clearly feeds, or somewhere in between: as long as there was some common interest.

What has been most interesting in watching use is that people who are very heavy Facebook commenters would seem natural for Twitter, but stay within the friendly confines of Facebook. There’s some kind of barrier that keeps people from making the transition. My only explanation so far is that Twitter works best when used with applications that sit apart from the singular Website experience: this may be too much experimentation over too long a period of time for Facebook users to endure.

What do you think? Please contribute to the conversation by commenting below, talking on Twitter @mleis or joining the conversation at Facebook.com/michaelleis.

If you’re a brand looking to understand your audience behavior in the social space (and you got this far down) feel free to contact me regarding strategic consulting.

Tags: brand, perception, reality, Social Media, strategy, survey

Dennis Schleicher

In twitter
People, companies, and other organizations are very EQUAL. There is a greater amount of democracy between different actors and even between tweets. No matter how much money you spend you still only get 140 characters, so it puts a ceiling on actors who have a higher amount of surplus than others (time&money). And you get such a small narrow foothold in this space that a BIG company can't front any more brand image than my kid brother.
Not sure if that made sense - but -In a nutshell it provides a way for these different actors to come together in a very easy and equal manner. But it works better when you engage.
Dennis Schleicher

Hi Mike, I really like "My only explanation so far is that Twitter works best when used with applications that sit apart from the singular Website experience: this may be too much experimentation over too long a period of time for Facebook users to endure."

2 questions
1- Are you saying that people see/understand twitter as a "platform?" And if so, then what do you think it is that allows to be so successful as a platform, other than just having nice APIs?
2- Any insights as to why do you think they aren't willing to experiment long enough?
mleis

Thanks for leaving the comment, Dennis. What I'm saying is that to many, Twitter as a "platform" is often too abstract for people to grasp enough to use and enjoy -- as opposed to Facebook, which is ostensibly the same service presented in a singular Web experience.

I think that most people just aren't experimenters. Unlike you or I, they're not wiling to even go clicking around to see what happens, to search out and follow people they don't know. It feels creepy to them. It's really a shame though, because unlike any other social network, Twitter really does act as a catalyst for people to make real-life connections -- in ways I've never seen before, anyway.

I'm curious on your insight though -- what is it in terms of placemaking that brings some people together in a very real way in Twitter, while not keeping the activity alive for people just getting their feet wet?
Joan Vermette

I think you mean, you're not choosing the words: your test respondents are. Have I got that right?

As for the distinction, I think we fundamentally agree on that, do we not? The distinction between Facebook and Twitter, at least, is one of in-group/out-group activity (even if that activity is restricted just to following on the latter platform.)

And yes, I agree it's interesting to think about how people seem to be slow to test the boundaries of social media, preferring to stick to the passive mode that is all the old media would/could allow. It's going to take time for people to rise to the Twitter occasion, because the promise of Twitter is enormous -- the idea of speaking directly to leadership, power, and fame. This notion is one we in the Western world have had beat out of us for the last century or more, as people have left small communities where their activities and contributions were not anonymous, and moved to faceless and effacing cities.

The genius of the service’s design is that one can still choose to merely dip ones toes in the water – one can regulate one’s own degree of anonymity oneself at a level at which one is comfortable.
mleis

Yes, not my words, the respondents :)

I'd also agree that a lot of Twitter users enjoy what it portends rather than what it is now: a patchwork of applications built on an API service. Most people that enjoy Twitter can understand this more abstract relationship. But I don't think it closes the power distance, only it's perception.

I'd also disagree with you that people have left the small communities for cities over the last century. Quite the opposite: we've sorted ourselves into small ideological pockets of sameness in exurban hubs. I Feel like social networking, Twitter in particular, does this virtually. Friend groups are their own small towns of people with very similar ideas.
Joan Vermette

Per the US Census Bureau, in 1910, 71.6% of Americans lived in rural areas; by 2000 that figure has dropped to 19.7%. In 1900, 41% of the country's workforce was employed in agriculture; in 2000, 1.9%.

See http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf for the former statistic (calculated from chart on p. 37) and http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm#changes for the workforce statistic.

The second great wave of European immigration to the States is seen by various sociologists to have taken place variously from 1850/1880/1890 – 1920. They all agree, however, that it ended around 1920, and it so it only accounts for a decade of the population distribution change noted above. Immigration since has slowed dramatically. Therefore, I think there's no question that the 20th century meant a sea change in our culture from rural life to urban life, and with it an accompanying radical change in the way that people in this country relate to each other.

The flight to the suburbs reached full force post-World War II. The small ideological pockets thing you're describing I think is the outcome of that wave.

All that only to say that this is the landscape of social change into which we now see social media arising, and I think it’s important to maintain a broad historical view when we talk about the nature of people’s sociability. As for what I was saying above regarding people’s adoption rates of Twitter, I think we’ve been battling this question of openness/anonymity within the American and perhaps the Western psyche for a good century or more, so it doesn’t surprise me that people right now are preferring to just sit and watch even though the capabilities are there for them to do more. It’s certainly safer on the sidelines.

Make sense?
Joan Vermette

Hmm, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you're identifying the object of activities on Twitter as "People," which I think is too vague to be evocative. It's all social media, no - the object of all three of the services you discuss is "people."

But I agree with the distinction you make: MySpace is for promotion, Facebook is for connecting with friends, and Twitter is for meeting folks with whom you aspire to be friends -- whether you've met them casually (as we have met) and wish to carry on the conversation, or you hope to meet them because you admire their work and/or imagine you may be compatible. On Twitter, the objects are peers, near-peers and polestars.

So I think perhaps the title of this article would best be framed in terms of activities for which the three services each are suited instead of a mix of activities and objects of those activities, as you've framed it now. How about: MySpace: Promote; Facebook: Connect; Twitter: Reach out ? Two other verbs that might associate well with Twitter could be "collect" or "entice."

What do you think?
mleis

Thanks for the comment Joan. But I'm not making the distinction: the 600 people who responded to the survey are making it. I'm just trying to apply some insight between the responses and the activity.

I'm not sur reaching out works for Twitter though, unless a follow qualifies as reaching out. While you and I have continued our relationship be responding to each other's tweets, and now here on the blog, certainly this isn't the case for most users, who are more comfortable listening and clicking without responding.

This becomes a whole other topic for discussion: Is social media really all that different from traditional media? It invites a perceived level of two-way communication, but if most people are listening instead of interacting, is it anything more than the future promise of sociality?

In bite-sized servings