The following article discusses how Facebook is expanding and continuing to make improvements in order to generate more money and to compete with Google: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=143423
Facebook is soon “launching its universal "like" button, across the internet today, setting up pipes to gather user data from anywhere on the web. And now that users can add what topics, products or content they like to their Facebook profiles”. In other words, companies will soon have a button users can click that will show up on their Facebook page. This innovation shows how social networking has expanded beyond its own page and now companies are embracing it. This new way of expressing a user’s interest is an evolved form of behavioral targeting. Instead of ads being generated based off what a user had visited (for example, Amazon will email you recommendations of a product based off what you bought), this feature would tailor content based off what a user has “liked”.
Furthermore, Facebook “also launched a documents product with Microsoft: Docs.com. It's the web version of Microsoft's Office suite, designed to share and collaborate online. The site appears to be coming head-to-head with Google Docs.”
What this news shows is that Facebook is improving its site in order to get more money from ads. This news signifies how social networking sites is not only a platform for people to communicate, but is becoming a one-stop website. If this cross-platform idea actually works, what are the implications?
Companies need to jump on the band wagon for this idea to actually be effective. While CNN, The New York Times, and several hundred companies have joined in, Facebook needs to capitalize on the idea of liking becoming “universal”. Of course smaller sites, and personal websites, will not be targeted. If bigger companies do join, then this act alone shows how social networking sites have fully become integrated into culture.
Facebook needs to remember that their users are more important than the companies paying for ad space. While the companies support the servers for the site to be running, Facebook needs to continue to implement improvements in order for users to use their site over other social networking sites such as Twitter and Myspace. To further compete with Google, Facebook should join with other software programmers to release a variety of applications, from Microsoft Office (which is now being implemented), to Adobe for Photo editing. Having a variety of applications would enforce the site as a “one-stop” website, where users can create word documents or polish any tagged photos.
Along with giving access to users, Facebook should allow users to customize their page. While Facebook is trying to create a new form of behavioral targeting, allowing users to add color, embed videos, or even music would also show a lot about the person. The videos of songs uploaded could be used for behavioral targeting, where the site could provide recommendations similar to Amazon.com.
Currently, interpersonal communication through Facebook is only text correspondence. However, the site should allow users to communicate with their friends via video or audio bits. The site should create programs where anyone with a microphone and webcam can easily record a message to a friend. Not only would this replace Skype, an online messengers where people can do exactly that, but would further differentiate the social networking site from its competitors.
If Facebook continues to accommodate to advertisers and its users, then the site will easily take out Myspace, Twitter, and other social networking sites. Furthermore, Facebook would find its own mold on the internet where people would only visit the site to do everything from generating word documents to leaving a message to a friend. Soon enough, Facebook could no longer be branded as simply as a social networking site because the site has become more than a way for friends to communicate. I would not be surprised if Facebook joins up with Microsoft’s “Bing” search engine to directly compete with Google, trying to take away its user base in every way possible.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Social Networking Reached Its Peak?
As I continue to look up information about my topic to become more insightful on the subject, I came across the following CNN article: (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/26/has.twitter.peaked/index.html), which discusses how Twitter has peaked in terms of hits. The social networking site differentiated itself from Facebook and Myspace by capitalizing the popularity of text messages, letting people write brief “tweets,” or comments about their mundane activities in 160 characters or less. Despite Twitter losing hits, Facebook is supposedly the most visited website, surpassing Google in terms of unique hits: (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9171358/Facebook_hits_milestone_tops_Google_for_a_week)
But the saying goes, what goes up must come down. The articles made me wonder if social networking sites have reached their peak and will now go downhill, soon replaced by some other fad. It may be cool to set up a social networking page now to contact with friends, but there will always be people trying to innovate and create something new. Who knows if there will be an even more convenient way to communicate with people in years to come?
The CNN article made me wonder if I should consider Twitter a fad. It became really popular in 2009 because it was sort of like Facebook and Myspace, but now people see that they might as well just use Facebook or text messaging. Twitter’s success, which has reached its plateau, has reminded me of my childhood. During the 90s, it seemed like so many fads came in and out that I was moaning to my mother every week to buy me something “cool”. These fads included Pogs, Pokemon, Beanie Babies, and the over abundance of pop music. Because the article gave me a rush of nostalgia, I began to compare what was “in” when I was a child to social networking sites.
Unlike what was cool in the 90s to now, the popular things now are not tangible objects. I cannot buy a social networking site. Using a social networking site has no sense of ownership, as in I am only given the right to use the site by following the terms of agreement. The reason why I bring up the point that no monetary fee has to be paid in order to use the site is that it seems with other fads people come to the conclusion that spending so much money on certain items is a waste of money after a few months. For example, people spent hundreds of dollars on certain Beanie Babies, thinking they would no longer be manufactured, only for the business to be bought out and continue making the stuffed animals. Whereas people could have put the Beanie Babies on Ebay and sell some for over a hundred dollars (eg. Princess Diana one), now they can be bought for less than ten.
I have come to the conclusion that social networking sites will not die out for this reason. There is no monetary loss in joining one and because the sites are not tangible objects, people can easily close and open new accounts as they please. The only thing a person would be wasting is his or her time.
Besides this point, the other reason why I believe social networking sites won’t die out is that companies have embraced them. They have used the sites as a way to communicate with their audience. My previous blog entry is an example of how companies have incorporated social networking sites to market products to their target audience.
Perhaps, then, its wrong to call social networking sites a fad, especially when I’m arguing how they won’t die out. While the sites may have started as a fad, I believe they have evolved to the point where they have been implemented with our culture, such as phones now coming with mobile Facebook/Twitter/etc… applications. Furthermore, as long as there are people who want to communicate with others, then using a social networking site will be a viable option. The only way in which I see the sites dying out is if they pull some stunt where they try to charge people to access the site, such as Friendster. Wait… What’s Friendster?
But the saying goes, what goes up must come down. The articles made me wonder if social networking sites have reached their peak and will now go downhill, soon replaced by some other fad. It may be cool to set up a social networking page now to contact with friends, but there will always be people trying to innovate and create something new. Who knows if there will be an even more convenient way to communicate with people in years to come?
The CNN article made me wonder if I should consider Twitter a fad. It became really popular in 2009 because it was sort of like Facebook and Myspace, but now people see that they might as well just use Facebook or text messaging. Twitter’s success, which has reached its plateau, has reminded me of my childhood. During the 90s, it seemed like so many fads came in and out that I was moaning to my mother every week to buy me something “cool”. These fads included Pogs, Pokemon, Beanie Babies, and the over abundance of pop music. Because the article gave me a rush of nostalgia, I began to compare what was “in” when I was a child to social networking sites.
Unlike what was cool in the 90s to now, the popular things now are not tangible objects. I cannot buy a social networking site. Using a social networking site has no sense of ownership, as in I am only given the right to use the site by following the terms of agreement. The reason why I bring up the point that no monetary fee has to be paid in order to use the site is that it seems with other fads people come to the conclusion that spending so much money on certain items is a waste of money after a few months. For example, people spent hundreds of dollars on certain Beanie Babies, thinking they would no longer be manufactured, only for the business to be bought out and continue making the stuffed animals. Whereas people could have put the Beanie Babies on Ebay and sell some for over a hundred dollars (eg. Princess Diana one), now they can be bought for less than ten.
I have come to the conclusion that social networking sites will not die out for this reason. There is no monetary loss in joining one and because the sites are not tangible objects, people can easily close and open new accounts as they please. The only thing a person would be wasting is his or her time.
Besides this point, the other reason why I believe social networking sites won’t die out is that companies have embraced them. They have used the sites as a way to communicate with their audience. My previous blog entry is an example of how companies have incorporated social networking sites to market products to their target audience.
Perhaps, then, its wrong to call social networking sites a fad, especially when I’m arguing how they won’t die out. While the sites may have started as a fad, I believe they have evolved to the point where they have been implemented with our culture, such as phones now coming with mobile Facebook/Twitter/etc… applications. Furthermore, as long as there are people who want to communicate with others, then using a social networking site will be a viable option. The only way in which I see the sites dying out is if they pull some stunt where they try to charge people to access the site, such as Friendster. Wait… What’s Friendster?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)