The benefit comes from the people in the network, not the tool itself. I know of people who have been on Twitter a while who are only seeing its value now others from the industry that are using it.

I think that it is the pulling power of people that make people fly half way across the world for a conference, and also that pulls people into an online network too.

I think Twitter will be increasingly useful for networking as more people in the travel industry start using it.

I too haven’t quite found the optimum channel to do
this for business, though have had success with Facebook, even though as you say, it pushes work and personal together.

Some of the private communities I use in specific contexts, such as the Web Analytics Association, work – but then you lose out on the opportunity of meeting new people in the way I did with you.

I think it will become easier when it becomes increasingly common to aggregate/manage all your different communities and online social networks into one place – then you can really benefit from the cross network analysis of “other people like me”. But still, the work/personal thing will remain an issue I think.

I use Livejournal (which is rather like Bebo) for my personal blog and have made a lot of friends through it. I’d love to use Livejournal-style technology in a business setting, but it needs to be a separate network, i think.

You’ve introduced another interesting concept as well – the role of scarcity in social networking sites.

I appreciate that I am wandering waaay off my original topic here but it seems that a founding principle of the online social network is that supply and demand are in equilibrium. That’s to say, there is always room for one more person to join in.

Now, whether a site is still desirable when you have just anyone turning up is another pertinent issue and generally I suspect the demand side of the market makes the decision about whether to move on to somewhere else. If you are a Hillary Clinton Democrat supporter, for example, I understand that the Daily Kos has ceased to be something enjoyable because of the prevalence of Obama supporters and so you might be tempted to move on.

However, the management of demand by the supply side is something different and, of course, it’s ultimately the model on ‘pay for’ sites. But I suspect that lowering the level of supply within the site itself (rather like restricting a particular toy in a toy shop) has the effect of increasing both the level of desirability of the scare items and the emotional investment made when it is bought. This in turn can enhance ‘real life’ investment or make the user less likely to defect so quickly.

Where’s an economist when you need one?

I heard (I do not know if this is 100% true) that Second Life came up with an advertising concept similar to that of the real world. Create items that you need to purchase to get but are low supply, thus creating a huge demand and making it a game to try and have one. The story I heard was with Pepsi, and that Pepsi paid well to have this marketing spot and that Pepsi sales increased.

That was in no way possible in the previous world of consumer…you just couldn’t get the product to market that fast. If a site listens to the users they can maintain user presence by quickly meeting the needs of the user.

This is one of the ways Facebook and MySpace (and Google obviously) have been so uber successful. Feature content is generated and release practically weekly. The trouble with Facebook is the content at the moment is not easy enough to find and implement.

I think one of the them was to actually say the term ’slow adopter’. Another thing I picked up on was that although rapid migration is not for me, the people who do this perform a useful function as a kind of ‘advance party’ to check out the surroundings. If they like what they see, then the rest of us get to hear about it in due course when it has been established that this new watering hole is a safe and useful place to visit.

I also liked your point about Facebook needing to break out from being a ‘student’ application. I appreciate that I’ve rendered your observation a little crudely but I think it is interesting that you have put some perspective on this and seen that it has the potential to ‘grow up.’ To expect social network sites to remain in their present form is as unrealistic as expecting the PC on your desktop to be the pinnacle of technology from this point forward and to never change or advance from how it is now.

And the point about traffic is also well made – it is the currency of survival and I guess there is a balance between encouraging the early adopters to visit but then retaining making sure that it is still habitable for occupancy when the slow adopters turn up, thereby replacing the lost early adopter traffic and maintining the site’s viability.

As an aside, I came across my old copy of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds recently and have just now wondered whether the migrations we see from hot sites are actually the net’s equivalent of Bubbles!

Karen, do you find yourself abandoning some sites after a while or do you think that previously indispensable sites just whither away?

It’s time consuming to maintain a presence on all thes esocial network sites. For example you if you receive a message through Facebook you can’t just hit reply and start composing your response, you have to look into Facebook.

I am a Twitterer but I try to only write updates relevant to my business. I have added the RSS for my Europe a la Carte blog and Wandalust to my Twitter updates.