image credit: [AndreaA] (Flickr)
It's hard to believe that the social network space as we know it is today is only a few years old. The summer of 2006 saw MySpace claim the spot as the #1 social network, and a new rival, Facebook, opened their doors to anyone with a valid e-mail address. Over the past 2 years, the two networks have seen some major ups and downs. Facebook, an underdog favorite at the time, was applauded by the web community for opening up their platform and allowing the development of applications. But not that long after came the controversy of Beacon and various other privacy concerns. MySpace, meanwhile, has seen user outrage over everything from reliability and spam to security and child safety.
Although reports vary, most measurements suggest the number of people who visit Facebook and especially MySpace has leveled off over the past few months, possibly even declined. But despite the warning signs of "social network fatigue" early this year, the newswires in the social world and corporate social media plans for 2008 have still centered their efforts around the two industry giants. So the real question is, should they?
Of the $920 million spent this year to advertise on social networks in 2007, 8.2 percent went to niche sites. That is expected to grow to 10 percent in 2008. Niche is big! There are over 300,000 niche networks on Ning alone. We have niche networks being used as tools in the 2008 election. And networks, such as LinkedIn (career) and imeem (music), are growing so quickly that it seems strange to even call them "niche".
Clearly, there is a growing case for the success of niche social. However, how much user base and marketer dollars will it attract? Let's examine the benefits of niche social networks versus niches in big social networks for both the user and the marketer.
What's In It For The Users
NICHES IN BIG SOCIAL
The experience of participating in social network sites like Facebook and MySpace promises users several things above a niche social network. They are more likely to connect with existing friends. Depending on the user's preference they can opt for privacy or they can use content and applications to promote themselves to a larger audience circle. Available content, groups, and applications play to a large audience, so there is surely something there for everyone.
However, it is just that "mass appeal" that makes large social networks less satisfying for many. The interface is not directed for a purpose or put in any audience context. The way a teenager wants to search and browse Facebook is probably fairly different than a teacher or a business. Valuable apps and groups don't necessarily rise to the top of the fold. There is only so much space in the first page of search. The result is mass clutter, everyone trying to reach different audiences but in the same way. And with everyone talking at once, as a user, I am probably not finding the content relevant to me.
Another thing that gets lost in the noise is history. The minute I add a reasonable amount of active users to my account, my news feed becomes fast paced. By logging into the system, I'm not getting an idea of what my friends have been up to in the past week, but what people are up to at this moment in time. The lack of easily accessed historical information makes it hard to build a sense of "culture" around Facebook. It's easy to see why for communities with a purpose, such as the Obama campaign, Facebook might be the way to attract new people, but ultimately the niche social network is where the bulk of event-planning and community-building takes place.
NICHE SOCIAL NETWORKS
By centering the underlying community strategy around a specific "social object" (Jeep, Nike, camping, food) or a target audience (55+, moms), design and functionality can become more customized and more in-tune with the ideal user. The easier a tool is for me to use, the more likely that I am going to use it. Knowing the age of the likely participant can help in making decisions about technology, language, and interface design.
The information architecture of a wine social network could be very different than one of a Nike social network, in which a category such as "reviews" would apply to the former and not the later. Furthermore, the difference between a product-based community and a cause-based community is going to be even more extreme. On a music community, my actions will likely be focused on browsing and matching up with people with similar tastes in order to discover new music. On a political or a career community, my connections to people become far more important than any other activity in the system, and thus I would not want my communications to get lost in the overflowing feed or clutter.
The major downside of niche social networks is a smaller user base and smaller development funds. Third-party application developers are less likely to join and make that awesome mobile wine application that I've been waiting for. And I am less likely to reconnect with long-forgotten elementary school buddies. So ultimately, it depends on the purpose of my interaction. But even then the picture can sometimes be fuzzy...
Would I be more successful trying to organize an online rock band meet-up on my Facebook channel, where I have tons of eyes and ears, but no proof that anyone else has the product, or on a Rock Band social network, where there are tons of people with the product, but with less knowledge of who I am?
What's In It For The Marketers
NICHES IN BIG SOCIAL
The obvious advantage of big social networks for marketers is that there are lots of active, engaged users. The community is alive and healthy, and so there is no fear of investing a huge amount in creating something new only to have people not join. This is truly "fishing where the fish are". Because of this fact, that means that a lot of your competitors are also joining in on big social networks. There are start-ups, big brands, niche brands, and spammers. The field is cluttered and to break through the noise is extremely difficult. Even getting the top listing for your own brand name can be a challenge amognst all the user-generated groups and pages. Sometimes, it's just plain luck.
But because there are a lot of investors clamoring to get their brand onto Facebook and MySpace, that means a lot of money flowing in to develop analytics packages not likely available on smaller social networks. These analytics packages are becoming more robust due to growing demand for social media measurement. However, they, like everything else in this system, is designed to appeal to the masses. There isn't going to be an easy way to extract product-specific information like: What cars do my users drive? What footwear do they prefer? Ultimately big social networks prove more useful in creating awareness than collecting customer insight or inspiring action.
And is the audience really brand-receptive? A participant in a product-focused community might come in with an understanding that they are going to see some marketing. Whereas the Facebook community has expressed annoyance to ads and outright distrust over the Beacon project.
NICHE SOCIAL NETWORKS
The numbers might be fewer in niche social networks, but the messages and activities can become more targeted. The data collected in profiles can become more aligned with the user information the brand is trying to collect. Something can even be said about the need to develop your own analytics package giving brands the opportunity to really evaluate how to measure community success, rather than banking on what data Facebook or MySpace have decided as relevant.
A smaller amount of qualified leads is far better than a large amount of useless ones. But the big dilemma is whether or not the niche community, whether built or joined, will reach a large enough user base to justify that statement?
THE FUTURE: What's In Store
There has been much news over the past few months about the promise of data portability. In one corner we have MySpace embracing OpenID, in the other corner we have Facebook opening up their social graph with Facebook Connect, and in yet another corner we have Google with Friend Connect and OpenSocial. The wheels are in motion for many exciting things including:
1. Allowing users to log into third party sites with their social network ID and access friend information
2. Allowing activity from third party sites to publish back to a user's social network feed
3. Enabling social network applications to be distributed across a series of different platforms, including niche and big social sites
4. Creating a centralized user profile that can be used across social network sites
In the future, whether to join or market on niche social networks or big social networks will no longer be a question. People will be able to bring their friends from one to the other, and applications will be implemented across networks. But at the moment, the effort to make data portability a household name is piecemeal. It is an evolution that is just beginning, and the fact is that marketer's need to make these sorts of decisions now.
So for now, I argue that mass dialogue is not working in the social sector. Marketing efforts must go niche and focus on nurturing brand communities. Whether that community exists in a niche on a big social network like Facebook or as a niche social network like Ning will depend on the brand. Whether it makes sense to join the conversation or build a new community will depend on the loyalty and engagement of the consumers.
The disadvantages of banner ads and traditional marketing campaigns in social media are growing. Finding and enabling and growing that brand community, wherever it may be, is the key to success. The future is niche.
