Like All Things Social, Social Networks Come & Go
Anybody remember Friendster? How about AOL? Twitter? Bingo! I’m sure that last one rings a bell, even to the non-techies of the world. You can’t tune into a news channel these days without hearing the word tweet every few minutes. I know when my 56 year-old minister asks me about Twitter that its’ cool factor is nearing an end and the technorati will soon abandon it for the next big thing. Being of considerable years myself (53), and having spent the past thirty years in the computer field, I’ve observed and participated in this technical upheaval with more than a passing interest. As I’ve watched the crowds moving from AOL to Friendster to MySpace to Facebook I’m reminded of a similar phenomenon of the non-technical social networks, nightclubs. Although I haven’t been a “clubber” for many years, I have kids in their early twenties and their recounts of social behavior don’t differ much from my own recollection of post-pubescent revelry.
Social networks are only cool as long as the tech elite and others of the “in” crowd grace them with their presence, pronouncements and participation. I knew that Twitter had peaked when the mainstream world made Ashton Kutcher’s million follower milestone newsworthy and Mr. Kutcher proclaimed the event to be as epic as landing a man on the moon. Give me a break. Certainly, the “A List” found Twitter, making the most popular tech pundits like Leo Laporte with a mere 50,000 followers seem insignificant by comparison. About the only thing as certain as Twitter’s “king-o-the-hill” status is its inevitable decline to Friendster-like obscurity. It is just a question of how long it will take. That is largely a function of when a cooler replacement emerges and lures the fickle A-listers away. As with all things social on the street, tech-trendies flock to what’s hot in cyberspace. Today, AOL is about as relevant as Studio 54.
Facebook has almost sent MySpace to the waste bin much the same way MySpace replaced its predecessors like Friendster. To me, that makes Facebook’s Mark Zukerberg the biggest goof on the planet. While he may be technically brilliant for his design of the social networking giant, I think he was a complete idiot for turning down the reported $1.8 billion for his 30% stake in a company with only $150 million in annual sales. To put the numbers in mere mortal terms: If I owned a company that had total sales of $60,000 per year and turned down an offer of $720,000, my relatives would have me committed and rewrite my will. Assuming my company had no operating costs (a silly notion), that’s a factor of 12!
Maybe Facebook will will be different and nothing will emerge to displace its’ popularity. For Mr. Zuckerberg’s sake, I hope so but rather doubt it. Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps he has more technical brilliance up his sleeve and Facebook will evolve into something that keeps the tech-savvy enamored and engaged. History paints a very different picture though. Coolness is perishable. It’s almost like everything social is born with an expiration date and through no fault of their own they waste away just because the clock keeps ticking.
Recent Comments