"Network Once, Socialize Anywhere" (Subtraction)

This post echoes some key thoughts about the growth of social networks.

Key quote: "This fretting about the overhead of social networks seems especially important if, as some suggest, the path to success for these networks will be exclusivity, the idea that “these networks are only as strong as their members” and that the gatekeepers would do well to “keep the riff-faff out.” It seems like a small leap though from strategically exclusive to enduringly proprietary; if you’re looking to keep unwanted users out, it follows that you’ll also want to lock ‘good’ users in."

Comments

[moehlert]

Lee,

No one ever said the Web was a logical place. :-) I think we can look back from the early Web on and see how there was indeed an initial rush to lock in users with registration and the initial business model rush was towards subscriptions. So as social network companies look for some business models beyond Google's Ad Sense, I don't think it is improbable to at least wonder about attempted proprietary lock-ins.

p.s. Happy New Year!

[lkraus]

Mark, I'm not so sure. I didn't score that high on the LSAT, but the logic doesn't seem to be true. Is this like saying Yahoo had to keep everyone on the web looking exclusively at their website to be successful in the early days of the web? I agree you need good users, but why do you have to lock them in? Can't they just stop by when they want? Plus, my browser (Flock) keeps making it easier for me to participate in a large number of networks with very little effort. Is there a limit, sure, but my guess is that it is nowhere in sight.