So, following on from my previous assessment of Facebook I have had a further rumination.
I think really, with a lot of the 'new features' that have been rolled out; Facebook really has made two errors. Firstly it does not understand its users; and secondly it does not understand its competition. And in business each of these is a huge flaw in itself.
It seems to think that Twitter is a competitor with the new 'ticker' and subscribe options. Really it isn't.
Twitter has three main types of Tweeters; and then it has readers - people who don't themselves tweet (much) but who just go on for the gossip. The three types are:
Slebs usually very minor celebrities who use it purely for cheap PR. They either spout their own agenda; or they say things purely to attract attention; or they repetitively plug their own show (or whatever) until people are so bored they no longer pay attention.
Anons may have reason for being anonymous or may not. Some use it to put across their own, potentially controvertial point of view with little direct, personal retribution. Because of work or social groupings they want to get their view out there, but not necessarily be attached to the view. Or they may be hoaxers, fakers, impersonators or jokers for either humourous or malicious intent.
Chatterers who use it as a public form of Messenger. It's almost like having a dialogue (or in many cases a monologue) across a pub with almost the world in the middle (whether or not any of them are listening or paying attention is another matter). Most of the posts are either messages to people, or relatively innocuous and innane - perhaps even vapid - background noise about life. Absolutely nothing controversial. Literally 'just putting it out there'.
And Facebook isn't that. Facebook allows you to give a more involved, slightly less frequent, insight into your life to people who may actually give a damn. Facebook allows you to literally build up a profile rather than just excerpts of nonsence. Facebook allows you to share your relevant photo albums and chat and things. Twitter doesn't; and nor does Flickr or any of the other photo sharing sites because those are about getting the image out there, they are not about social iteraction.
So yes, Facebook doesn't understand Twitter. But it also doesn't understand its users either. Facebook has three main types of users:
Integrated - they live their life on Facebook. Or some of it at least. They are on almost daily, keep their status updated and upload photos and videos. They will share links of things they have seen or read and probably get involved with applications and games as well. Some are more involved than others - some cannot seem to leave it alone and berate you with status updates and comment on every photo uploaded; some have a more sensible approach.
Passive - these are curious creatures. They will usually go on daily and have a look around, just keeping up to date with people. They don't let people know what they are doing, they just read. But they do so on a very regular basis - some are on as much as integrated users, just very quietly so. They are certainly more involved than...
Occasional - they kinda got convinced to join, probably because they wanted to look at someone's holiday photos, or because they were getting event invites. They are very reluctant users; popping on only when they absolutely have to.
What Facebook doesn't understand is that of the 1 billion or so people who have a profile on; the majority of them fall into either the passive or occasional category. And it is these people who get frustrated with the rafts of changes that are thrown into the mix. Since the last major change I have noticed how many of my passive friends have been even more passive; simply not using the site. And quite a few of those who had limited integration have dropped down to passive at best, but probably down to occasional users. It is just too much. The site itself now looks a mess: you have Favourites; Apps; Games; Groups; Lists; Tickers and Chat, and people don't want it. They just want the status feed. And even that has been messed up into Hot Topics, Recent Stories and Older News.
Have you seen the Google home page? It is simple. It is clean. It is dominated purely by the search box. Twitter also is very simple - it has a box for you to tweet, and then it has your tweet feed. If you want to appeal to the public at large you have to keep it simple, stupid. And Facebook is really risking becoming a niche site for those committed integrationists.
Facebook seems to be trying to do everything from one site - be Web 3.0 all on its own. And it can't. It is simply diversifying too far from what was its core asset. And when you do that you confuse your users and for confused users it is so much easier to stop being users than it is to stop being confused.
I see the internet developing into a series of monopolies or oligopolies of companies who know what they are doing, such as:
Search - Google, Bing
Video - Youtube
Pictures - Flickr
Entertainment distribution - Amazon (whether physical delivery or streamed)
Auctions - Ebay
Encylopaedia - Wikipedia
and such like. There will be other, smaller websites offering niche services, or favoured by the anti-capitalists; but ultimately once a site reaches critical mass it simply becomes the biggest, most viable site to use for the particular transaction. The key will be establishing the site in that primary position; or in capitalising where a competitor makes undesirable or unpopular changes to the dissatisfaction of their users.
And, were there a realistic competitor, the Facebook blunders would be the idea opportunity.
And this is where Facebook is confused
No comments:
Post a Comment