14 posts tagged “blog”
Users become more dependent on them for their central data storage.
[+] An ignored project of opening user profiles
A few days before the 512 earthquake in Sichuang, China, MySpace announced its plan of MySpace Data Availability, which was to open its users' profiles. A few days later, Facebook follow suit by launching Facebook Connect. The two companies, after the phase of opening their platforms for one year, have entered a new stage of open user profiles. Their plans were supposed to arouse extensive attention, yet they didn't draw too much attention of the press because it was overwhelmed by earthquake news.
What is open user profile? It is about allowing users the freedom to carry their social network profiles to other websites. One simple example: you can post your photo from your MySpace album on your Yahoo Messenger. Users are able to do so if Yahoo Messenger links to MySpace platform.
Such openness breaks the barriers between websites even further. As far as small- and medium-sized websites are concerned, open platform is about social network websites inviting them in to develop applications, while open user profile is about opening user profiles for them to do applications from the outside. The former is a centralized system with a social network website at its core, and the latter concerns exchange among websites on relatively equal terms.
What has been opened includes not only user registration data (e.g. names and addresses), blogs and photos but also users' friend lists - so that you can see if your MySpace friends log on the same website. Users can carry not only static data but also living relationships. The Internet has got to a point where the rules of the game have been constantly overwritten.
[+] Why open user profile?
Some people may think that these social network websites must have gone crazy to unconditionally open millions of their user profiles, and most important of all, the social network of users, they have accumulated for years. It is within users' discretion if they want their profiles open and to be accessed from other websites, yet should social network websites allow their users such an option that makes their user profiles available to other websites?
From the viewpoint of users, many of them have been fed up with filling personal registration data repeatedly. Web 2.0 websites in particular would ask you to provide loads of information of interests, hobbies and things, upload photos and most annoyingly, set up friend lists and invite your friends to join. Users may think: why can't I just use my MySpace friend list?
To streamline user registration process, small- and medium-sized Web 2.0 websites even encourage you to use the same ID you use to log on bigger websites. They, on one hand, access big social network websites' open platforms and develop small widgets to be embedded in big websites; on the other hand, they link to these social network websites' open profile plans so that users can carry their profiles with them.
It looks like small- and medium-sized Web 2.0 websites are getting more dependent on big social network websites. Indeed, the trend of opening up - both the platform and user profiles - has been pushing smaller Web 2.0 websites to lean on bigger social network websites. Smaller websites will find it harder to survive and get more attached to large social network websites which control the valuable and critical asset of user profiles.
[+] Demand for central storage of personal data
So, don't social network websites worry about small- and medium-sized websites stealing the data? Firstly, Westerners have high respect to users' privacy and it is a serious issue to access personal data without the owner's permission. Yet, even if the small- and medium-sized websites don't steal but just access and use the data normally, users may at the end turn to stick to them instead of the social network websites where they are from. Are these big websites not concerned?
The core of social network websites has been users' profiles and social relationships. Look at the illustration below that shows the four layers of the concept of social network websites. We can say that it is feasible for website operators to have third parties develop applications for them as long as they have good control of the core. As a matter of fact, users prefer to store their data in one single place, so social network websites will be taking up the role of data centers.
Imagine there is one place on the Internet where it is safe for you to store all your personal data. You can user your own discretion to access this data from other websites to save the effort to repeatedly fill in the same data, and when you move house, you only need to change your contact address once at this once place and the data at other websites will be automatically updated. Such convenience is beyond understanding in the Web 1.0 era.
No small- and medium-sized websites will be able to steal user profiles from big social network websites, and the significance of social network websites will not be reduced whatsoever. In fact, as social network websites are opening their user profiles to more other websites, their users become more dependent on them for their central data storage. The more you open, the better chance you have in the competition - this is the true meaning of online openness.
At the same time, what problems there will be when social network websites are becoming a personal data platform?
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (3)
Next : Openness, where is it going to take us? (5)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (4) - 2008/11/30
How Did Tablet PC End up in Failure - 2003/11/30
After open platform comes the matter of profit share.
It is predictable that the open platform would change the existing dynamics of the industry. For example, we have seen many third parties developing applications for the social network websites in China - 51.com and Xiaonei. They can of course do the same thing for bigger players like Baidou or qq.com if they decided to open their platforms. Yet, is it possible that 51.com and Xiaonei develop applications imbedded in Baidou and qq.com?
Moreover, what if 51.com and Xiaonei develop applications to be imbedded in each other's websites? In that case, which is the big brother, and which is the little one? The relationship will become so complicated that in the end there will surely be many tangible and intangible clauses and terms made to prevent competitors from cutting ground by using imbedded applications. However, as far as social network service providers are concerned, to what extent should they open their platforms?
Some social network websites make it clear in their contracts with third party developers that applications in specific areas (such as recruitment and travel services) are not to be opened because the big brothers want to do it themselves, now or later. These areas are not supposed to be touched by little ones. Such cherry picking mindset is rather paradoxical - can this be called open?
In fact, social network websites need not to be afraid of opening themselves, as long as they get a good hold of their core value. The internet was born to be open, and online service providers should embrace this reality. They should open themselves except for their core. Yet, eventually what is the core value of social network?
[+] Only the core that should not be opened
From the surface, the tangible products of social network services are blogs, photo upload, friend lists and so on. Yet we should know clearly that the value of social network underneath these products lies in two parts - data storage and social relationship. The former is users' tangible asset and the latter the intangible.
A social network website's user may store blog articles s/he has been working for threes years and photos for one year at the website. Guess if s/he would run away from that website? Many people see the glamorous part of social network service providers but hardly their efforts in providing basic data storage functions. To be a platform operator or a big brother in social network services, data storage is the basic work, which needs to be under full control.
In addition to basic data storage, the intangible asset of users' social relationship needs to be taken good care too. The key for social network services to become sticky and irresistible for users lies in interpersonal interaction, which allows users to know what their friends are doing online easily. As long as social network service operators have god hold of users' social relationship, they don't need to be afraid of opening up.
In other words, it is OK to have third parties to develop applications except in areas involved in basic data storage or in ways intended to steal or transfer user's social relationship. This can be compared with the opening up of state-owned enterprises. It takes thorough consideration to decide which parts are about basic applications that should not be opened and which parts can be opened in moderation.
[+] Five tasks for open platform
After open platform comes the issue of profit share. A social network website operator should help third-party developers revolve problems and earn profits in the following areas:
1) Promotion. A social network website operator should provide a mechanism through which new services or applications can promote themselves while those not favored by users can be naturally weeded out.
2) Advertising revenue. For instance, a website can work with Google Adsense, a popular online advertising solution to web publishers in China, and let third-party developers keep all of the advertising revenue they bring in instead of sharing with them.
3) User payment. Users may be willing to pay for applications such as games, and social network websites should provide a solution to help application developers with user payment.
For the points mentioned above, 51.com has taken the initiative to provide solutions. 51.com opens its virtual money API to third-party developers, and by working with the sales channel of prepaid game cards of the game developer, Giant, users can top up easily. This is an attractive advantage for developers.
4) Basic web hosting. For developers to start offering their services at a lower cost, provision of basic web hosting may be necessary.
5) Investment or acquisition opportunity. A good application can be a good potential investment target; especially if it can be applied in a number of various social network websites and accumulate a huge amount of users. By provide funding opportunities at the initial stage, the website operator can help a application developer to grow and reserve a good investment opportunity for the future.
Open platform unveils a new competition for users. Social network websites wish to grow bigger, but at the same time they are worried to lose their turf. The top priority is to know yourself well. Your best chance lies in opening up yourself to the outside but preserving your core, and for this you need a good profit share system. At the end, you may even need to open up your user data to others to ensure lasting growth.
Yet, why do social network websites need to open their user data which they have made every effort to gather?
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (2) Next : Openness, where is it going to take us? (4)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (3) - 2008/11/23
Mobile TV Market (2) the Subtle Role of Telecom Operators - 2007/11/25
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (3) Scarce Resources - 2006/11/26
Google's Choice (2) Lessons for the Software Giant - 2005/11/20
VoIP (1) It's a Fool Not to Make Telecom Money - 2004/11/28
Why open platform? The root cause is to address the problem of inactive users.
[+] open platforms for big brothers only
The idea of open platform is about a big website releasing its API and allowing others (individual users, small groups or small or medium-sized websites) to write programs in accordance with its API standards and embed the programs in this big website for its users. For website application developers, this mode can be called "follow the big brother."
Why open platforms? The fundamental reason is to solve the problem of inactive users. Social network services are driven by pressure of interpersonal relationships, so in the beginning users would feel compelled to log on the services. After a while, the pressure wanes and about two thirds of users would quiet down. One way to resolve this problem is continue to offer new applications. Yet it is too slow for a website operator to develop applications solely on its own, so it can only open its platform and let others join.
There are several key points in the definition of open platform mentioned in the first paragraph. Firstly, only the major players of the industry have the power to attract others to join. The open platforms of 51.com and Xiaonei.com, two independent social network websites in China, can only work well when they are turning into major players. Yet, keep in mind that the most powerful open platform would be that of Tencent (qq.com), a major Internet Instant Messenger Service provider in China, which can afford to wait for its best chance.
Why do companies follow the big brother instead of striving to be a big brother? This is because the market conditions three years ago could support a startup to grow into a big player. Now it has become difficult for startups - many of them can't even secure financing. Attaching to a major player for a chance to survive is straightforward thinking. Therefore we see a process of industry consolidation.
[+] Benefits for followers
Secondly, applications, after all, are for users of major websites. It is necessary to figure out what kind of applications major users would need. News for Sina, search for Baidu, C2C trade for Taobao, - major websites have their distinct product positioning. In a word, big websites of different types would have open platforms of different kinds; so small players must have different ways to work with them.
Social network services websites have no specific product positioning, which, however, give unlimited space for imagination. They are most powerful in spreading information. Although this type of websites offers specific functions such as blog, photo album, friend list and communities, their actual core product - relationships and networking - is relatively abstract. For applications to be successful, this core must be taken into close consideration.
Thirdly, followers must have benefits. The odds may be poor for a small developer to grow into a big brother, but at least it must be able to support itself. A big brother cannot make smaller developers keep working with it if it does not take care of them. Unless the big brother is the one and only player in the business, otherwise small developers can always turn to other big brothers.
Contrary to the real life, followers on the Internet enjoy certain freedom. They can join different camps at the same time. Developers certainly would like their applications to be used at many occasions without restrictions and make them good money. It would be a lot of trouble if one has to follow different rules (APIs) when joining different camps. Wouldn't it be a lot more convenient if all big brothers have the same set of rules?
[+] Battle for open standards
So we've seen the emergence of a standard that all big brothers are supposed to follow. This is the Open Social standard advocated by Google - a universal standard for open platform. If all big brothers abide by the standards, life would be a lot easier for small followers. They can join different camps freely, and someday they may even become big by being able to benefit from working with many big players.
This scenario is very much like vertical and horizontal alliances in the era of Warring States in China. Google's performance in social network services is only average. But if you look at the list of Open Social partners, you'll find that Google, with this alliance, looks like ready to contend with Facebook. However, what is Googls's intent to develop a standard for all to use, free of charge? What benefits, after all, will it be able to reap?
Overall, the core of Google is search. Google would wish that its Spider and Adsense could reach where there is traffic on the Internet. Nevertheless, social network services websites are very special - they have heavy traffic, yet they, particularly personal profiles, can only be access by logged-on users. Search engines have trouble indexing web pages of these services.
So Google has to open them up, and Open Social can be seen as a product of such thinking. Actually, baidu.com can take the same approach and come up with an open platform standard that suits Chinese social behaviors. It can encourage other social network services providers to adopt this standard, and independent players such as 51.com and xiaonei.com are very likely to join.
Why? Because for independent social network services providers, it would be too risky to rely on a third party standard and too inefficient to develop its own one. The solution then is to "compatibility with all standards." For them, the point is to attract more developers to come up with more applications to stimulate user activities. It does not matter which standards they choose.
In a standardized and transparent Internet world, what can website operators do to retain their users?
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (1)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (2) - 2008/11/16
Mobile TV Market (1) Cell Phone plus TV, the Dream of Everybody - 2007/11/18
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (2) Public WiFi is Not Enough - 2006/11/19
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (1) Living in the WiFi City - 2006/11/12
Google's Choice (1) Lessons for Portals - 2005/11/13
A Word of Advice for Small Online Stores - 2004/11/14
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time.
[+]The history of SNS
Last month, AOL's purchasd Bebo, the largest social networking site in Britain, for USD 850 million in cash. That once again highlighted the value of SNS (Social Networking Service). In the United States, Bebo is the No.3 social networking site, behind MySpace and Facebook, with more than 40 million users around the world.
Further back, News Corp acquired MySpace with USD 580 million in 2005; Microsoft paid USD 240 million for merely 1.6% stakes in Facebook. The first deal seems to be too hasty for MySpace and too juicy for News Corp. What, indeed, is the most attractive aspect about SNS to investors?
SNS is really a confusing concept when mentioned together with dating sites, community sites or Blog. Even SNS operators do not view themselves as dating sites, community sites or Blog sites. While those sites have been in place since the Web 1.0 time, or at least the end of that time, SNS focuses on inter-personal relations, and therefore is a mixture of all above.
Finally, it seems that only ambiguous terms such as "personal space" could differentiate SNS from those traditional concepts. In terms of functionality, SNS enables blog, photo album, friends, community (or group) as basic functions. With the intentional guide of the operators, users could visit the blogs and photo albums of others, eventually activating the social networking function.
In terms of social networking behavior, SNS depends on the migration of offline personal relations to online platforms to combine with those of others to build a larger relation network. While using the service primarily to interact with acquaintances, users might meet strangers for deeper communication intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in larger social communities. Hence, interpersonal relations could be maintained by paying attention to the activities of each other.
[+]How to convert page views into revenue
With more than 40 million users around the world, Bebo is worth USD 850 million. In China, the largest social networking sites, e.g., Tecent Q Zone and 51.com, have more than 100 million users, yet none is deemed to be worth that much. What, indeed, is the commercial value of the social networking sites? At the present time, it seems, the value lies primarily in being purchased.
Thanks to the high interactivity among its users, social networking sites have far more page views than conventional portals. What's more, each user would keep an eye on the presence of his/her friends, resulting in a much longer average online time. Many SNS users log onto the site as soon as they get off work/class, and remain connected until they go to sleep. How to convert the addiction into revenue?
There are 3 possible ways: 1) through Internet advertising; 2) by providing users with fee-based value-added services; 3) by offering e-commerce services in the communities and collecting commissions from transactions. In the foreseeable future, any social networking site is expected to reap revenue through all of these 3 approaches. The only difference lies in the revenue proportion because of different primary users of each SNS site
One of the most distinct features of SNS is its distribution by word-of-mouth. An article by a common person on MySpace or Facebook would get widely spread through his friends, or friends of friends. Such effect is what advertisers have been dreaming for, as distribution by word-of-mouth is the most cost-effective approach.
In the Web 1.0 time, however, this kind of viral marketing was only a result of sheer luck, rather than deliberate planning. Without a platform to operate on, most advertisers had to pay for the views of their ads, allowing their budgets to be washed away by the visit traffic of the portals. While the focus of Internet advertising in Web 1.0 time was target advertising, it would be viral advertising enabled by SNS in the Web 2.0 time.
At the 2008 Annual Conference for the New Economy hosted by iResearch, I gave a speech titled "The Key Word for Marketing in Web 2.0: Viral marketing". You can find and watch the video at: http://v.iresearch.cn/data/20080425/79812.shtml
[+]Impacting the traditional Internet advertising model
However, the business model has trouble facing advertisers, who generally accept it as a cost-effective approach. For example, one million clicks at a portal or one million users' interaction at a social networking platform, which one do you prefer? For online advertisers, the answer is the latter. The question is, however, how do you charge them for the one million users' interaction?
Currently, SNS is still not able to compete with portals by means of CPM or CPC. With surprisingly good results but no billing method available for SNS, there has appeared a weird phenomenon of "free interaction for ad exposure or clicks purchased". Unable to generate income from its most valuable part, SNS is not yet ready to compete with portals for users by means of CPC.
For advertisers, word-of-mouth-based distribution is the most cost-effective marketing method, as well as one of the reasons for them to move their budgets from portals to SNS. In addition, there's not yet a unified standard in the industry for billing by results. An event might have one million participants, however the extent of involvement varies substantially. There is not a simple and intuitive measurement like CPM or CPC.
Currently, advertisers are still testing SNS marketing, while SNS operators are exploring new billing methods. Therefore, there's a huge potential. Eventually, it becomes a process of negotiation between sales reps and advertisers, and the final result depends on who is going to convince whom. The criteria for advertising effect in the Web 1.0 time is no longer able to keep up with the market changes, but the Web 2.0 criteria are yet to be developed.
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time, as SNS will become a platform enabling word-of-mouth-based distribution among advertisers. Share and recommendation by friends would enable higher market awareness and better marketing effect. What we don't have yet is a set of criteria to measure the marketing result, as CPM and CPC, which derived from traditional media, are obviously out-of-date.
- Read More
Prev : Initial Experience of Widget's Profit Model
- Today in History
Glimpse into Profit Model of SNS-based Advertising - 2008/05/11
3G Time Comes (8) Who Are First Users of 3G? - 2003/05/18
Each time the Widget site receives a "delivery call", it is expected to generate revenue.
[+]A new term: Widget
Widget is another popular new term after Blog and SNS. So far, there seems to be no proper Chinese equivalent to it. Literally, it can be translated into something like "small tool", or "fancy things", which somehow sound weird and cannot explain its functionality and impact.
On the sidebars of many blogs, particularly independent blogs, we can often see many fancy things, like a beautiful clock, or a weather forecast column, or news headline updates. These fancy things, which occupy small spaces on the web page and offer a variety of functions, are one kind of Widgets.
Of course, there are Widgets that can be downloaded and installed into your PC or cell phone. You also can download Widgets from many portals, including Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! and install them onto MSN Space, Google Personal or My Yahoo. These, however, are beyond the scope of this article, which only focuses on independent sites to offer Widget service like http://Widgetbox.com.
Why, then, do most of Widgets used by independent Blogs, rather than those empowered by large blog service providers (e.g., MSN Space)? The reason is most blog service providers do not allow bloggers to add Javascript into their blogs, while most Widgets were written by Javascprit code to be embedded into blog web pages.
In addition, it takes considerable expertise to insert Widgets. An ordinary Internet user would have to do a lot of learning before being able to put Widgets on his/her Blog. Most individuals who build their own Blog sites are familiar with such expertise. However, such difficulty is not yet to become an obstacle to the infiltration of Widgets across the Internet in many countries. There have emerged a lot of sites that offer Widget services.
In China, however, Widget is not so popular, mainly for two reasons: 1) given the Internet environment in the country, it is hard for an ordinary Internet user to build his/her own Blog site. In the United States, from applying for the domain name to leasing a host to activating the blog system to making the payment, everything can be done online. 2) Many international Blog service providers begin to allow embedded Javascript, which increases the possibility of Widgets being used.
[+]Operation model of Widget service
Widget service operators provide Widgets with diversified functions. To embed the Widgets onto their own Blogs, Internet users need to copy the corresponding Javascript onto their own Blogs. When the web page of a Blog is viewed, the Javascript code was triggered to retrieve the corresponding Widget from the service provider site and send it back to the web page where embedded.
This is the underlying mechanism of Widgets. A site offering Widget services is like a large warehouse, which sends a shipment whenever it receives a delivery call. Eventually, the goods are displayed in stores around the street. The problem is that nobody is going to visit the warehouse itself. Hence there appears a paradox of business operation: the sites of Widget service providers themselves do not have high traffic.
The traffic have gone to thousands of Blogs. The bandwidth budgets of the Widget service providers are used entirely for the transmission of Widgets to Blogs. According to my own experience in Widget service provision, Blogs that rank top 30% in terms of the total "deliveries" consumes 90% of the delivery calls, which is close to the proportion of the traditional 80:20 rule.
The website I build to offer Widget service is: http://www.rankwidget.com.
The function of this particular Widget is to show the Alexa ranking or the Google Pagerank of the Blog web page where it is put. I have operated the site for half a year now. At its peak, my site provided services to about 50,000 websites, delivering 200,000 times each day. (because advertisement was introduced later, the volume dropped to one third of the original level, with about 60,000 times delivered each day.)
Such niche market-targeted Widget cannot expect to have a lot of users, so 200,000 delivery times per day is a fairly satisfactory figure. The problem is that the site (rankwidget.com) has very low traffic itself - with less than 1,000 page views each day. We cannot expect to have many visitors to the "warehouse". The question is: how do operators of such an emerging application make money? After all, the bandwidth cost is a tangible expenditure every month.
[+]How do Widget operators make money?
You can take a look at a real operation of the Widget on: http://english.digitalwall.com. Open the web page and move to the bottom left corner, where your browser would bring out a pop up ad window behind your browser. When you move your mouse onto the Widget, a "bubble ad" appears. These are the operation models of the Widget I have tried. (Now the site no longer has bubble ads.)
With the 60,000 page views of the Widget site, the pop-under ad window ads would be displayed 2,500 times (most browsers have default pop-up ad blockers, which would significantly reduce the number of display time), resulting in a click rate as low as 0.2%. With the CPM or CPC-based billing approach widely adopted in the United States, I, as the operator of the Widget site, will end up in starvation.
The mindset is simple: each time a Widget site receives a "delivery call", it is expected to generate revenue, as each time there's a bandwidth cost. Hence advertising becomes a model worth trying. However, as the Widget brings disturbing ads, many Blogger prefer not to use it.
The Internet is really an unreasonable business environment. Users don't care about what operation cost you have. When I used pop-under ad windows, I had to face tides of fury of many Bloggers. Later on, I replaced it with a milder model: bubble ad, which was a big innovation (it seemed that nobody had tried it before), but the income was far away from satisfaction.
I am still exploring profit models for the Widget. In this field, I can be counted as one of the pioneers worldwide. With the thriving of SNS, many sites are following the lead of Facebook along a path toward Open API. In the future, the focus of the Widget is expected to extend from Blog to SNS. How to help this emerging service to find a profit model has become an interesting topic.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (4) Apple's Strategy
- Today in History
Initial Experience of Widget's Profit Model - 2008/05/04
Why the user churn rate of Web 2.0 websites is so high?
[+] Users' typical Web 2.0 experience
Mr. X is an ordinary white-collar worker. He uses the Internet to search information and contact customers at work, and after work he may spend some time on the Internet for leisure. The Internet is a medium he uses frequently in his daily life, but it is not particularly important in his life. At least he is not a person who hangs on the Internet everyday.
Recently though he has been getting emails with subjects like "you have been added to somebody's friend list" and the like. Clicking the hyperlink he found that it's by a friend on MSN. How could you decline a friend's invitation? So he signed up that social networking service.
By this way, Mr. X has joined Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, LinkedIn and a bunch of local Chinese language websites. Registering at these websites is a lot of pains. Every website asked him to fill in his profile, upload photos and even contribute his MSN contact list.
At first he was worried that if these friends would visit his personal blog, and it would be impolite if he didn't call at theirs in return. Such relationship pressure was such that he spent two hours after work to reply these messages online for a period of time.
(Interestingly, he didn't know that his friends were tied up on the Internet for the same reason.)
First it was acquaintances, then a bunch of strangers, who added him to their friends list. In the beginning it was fun and nice to socialize with these people online, checking out their newly updated blogs and photos and leaving messages to each other.
After about three months, Mr. X started to get bored socializing with these people online. As the number of friends kept growing, he could not but spend more time on the Internet visiting these websites. At the end two hours a day was not even enough.
He finally decided to quit such Internet services that he had been addicted to when he had almost reached the verge of breakdown. What was the meaning to spend so much time on this stuff? Life should not be like this, and he had to get things back under control.
[+] Typical experience of Web 2.0 website operators
All Web 2.0 websites operators are asking why the user churn rate is so high, and there is seemingly no way to remedy this problem as if it is inherent in Web 2.0 websites. New businesses planning to ride on the force of social networking, which continues to wane, are declining.
These Web 2.0 websites are like a big sieve, trying to capture a large number of users at a time; yet after three months, it always turns out that only half of them remain as effective users, and the rest simply disappear. The size of users may seem big but it is not substantial at all.
For a Web 2.0 website to enjoy growth, its social networking expansion needs to be faster than its user churn, so that, overall, its scale would be increasing. Yet what about when the growth of user numbers slow down?
Social networking websites MySpace and Facebook have shown strong performance and they are yet to hit the growth ceiling with the whole world as their market. (MySpace should reach its growth limit sooner than Facebook as the former has more users.) Therefore, seeking to expand foreign markets seems to be a solution to sustain growth.
Nevertheless, an inherent problem remains unsolved.
Another amazing effect of Web 2.0 websites is that, heavy users are very committed. They are very active and they remain so for a very long period. They visit the websites and stay there everyday.
From registered users to effective users to active users, the number of users continues to get smaller. Is it normal? I would say yes. In terms of online community, it's just the way it is. Just as I mentioned years ago, online communities are where "people of similar attributes gather to warm each other. And these people are the so-called "heavy users," such as active bloggers.
The characteristic of Web 2.0 is high interactivity, which means highly demanding for users. Those who are willing to interact with others and write blog articles are not normal people. They have stronger achievement motive and desire to express themselves, and they find their stage at some community website and feel a sense of belonging.
The question is, while these heavy users are having fun, what are the ordinary netizens doing?
[+] People can get sick of Web 2.0
As to those who quit some Web 2.0 website, do they turn to similar services of competing websites? Some of them (well, the heavy users) do, but for most people who leave, they just won't touch such kind of services and they leave forever.
Only a few people who, after quitting Facebook, would turn to MySpace. Most people would just quit social networking services (SNS) for good. It's the same for blogging. Only a limited number of people would migrate from one blog service provider to another and continue writing. Most would simply stop blogging.
Quitting a website is totally different from quitting a kind of service. For example, we know very clearly the difference between "turning to sohu.com from sina.com because of getting tired of the latter" and "quitting new websites for good."
Woops! It turns out that people can lose interest in Web 2.0 services.
Woops! So what's next when all netizens have become users of my Web 2.0 website?
If market development is like a chess game, then Web 2.0 websites that have been so popular for the past couple of years are entering the endgame phase. These websites operators may appear successful, but in fact they are getting uneasy. How to get away from the doomed path of Web 2.0 websites is an inevitable challenge.
Surprisingly, you may find the solution in Web 1.0.
- Read More
Prev : Mobile TV Market (3) Terminal Manufacturers & Content Providers Next : Web 2.0 Finale (2) Websites With a Specific Culture Can't Grow Big
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Finale (1) An Inherent Problem Unsolved - 2007/12/23
The Fourth Generation of Internet Marketing (2) RSS Tracking - 2006/12/24
Dream of "Digital Furniture" Store - 2003/12/28
The Internet in the future will become a place for group therapy.
[+] Emotional products in the physical world
There are many ways to sell "happiness." One is to write a book on "happiness" (hedonics), turn it into some kind of study and sell it in bookstores. Or, you can package it in a mineral water advertisement and represent the bottle of water as an indispensable thing when families and friends get together happily.
In a fiercely competitive car market, a car dealer seeks to boost sales by presenting its car as "the only car that equipped happiness." In a trendy sitcom, the leading actor would win the heart of thousands of female audience by calling," I swear I'll bring you happiness."
This is the power of "emotional products," Marketing experts in the traditional business world have long noticed that the key to a consumer's purchasing decision, sometimes, is not the function or price of the product, but something that can trigger certain memory or emotion deep inside the mind of a consumer.
For those who buy the book/mineral water/car/trendy sitcom DVD, do they then live happily ever after? No. More precisely, their feeling of happiness reaches completion right at the moment of consumption. Emotional products that cannot achieve such effect would definitely fail.
Certainly you can say that emotions are added value to the above mentioned products; they are not the products themselves. Yet after ten years of development of the Internet, we begin to see that "emotion" per se can become a product and has the potential to change the look of the business world.
Yes, the dawn of emotion economics is upon us. In the past, "It" is the added value of some products; now "It" will become a product and will revel "Its" value through the form of Web 2.0. Strong emotions will become a kind of belief, so the reference for emotion economics will be religion.
[+] Internet from physical to spiritual
I sort out the characteristics of traditional Internet, Web 2.0, and Web 2.0 Next in the following chart. Simply put, the mission of the Internet will evolve from "carrying information" to "carrying emotion."
From eCommerce to emotion-centric websites, ordered from left to right of the chart above, we can see that during these 10 years, the Internet has evolved from more physical to more virtual and from material to spiritual.
Though eCommerce is an important business of the Internet, 70% of the operation, such as warehousing, logistics and payment processing, is done in the offline world in a way similar to that of mail order or brick-and-mortar retail stores.
Information processing is a critical issue in Web 1.0. The lessening of the problem of product information asymmetry has led to the emergence of eCommerce. Users can compare prices online with just a click, and they can easily find product information or even other people's experience of the product before making purchasing decisions.
Web 1.0 media have moved a lot of content online and even produce their own in order to reduce the cost of acquiring information. Too much information however creates the problem of overload. Then there is the search engine that provides precision to help filter undesired information.
In this phase, the trait of the Internet as a "tool" is very obvious. People use the Internet to make their life more convenient, with a focus on how to "improve efficiency." As a result, many traditional business models are gradually replaced by the Internet for better efficiency.
[+] Web 2.0 Next: the emergence of "emotion centric websites"
Blog ushers in the era of Web 2.0, empowered people to publish their own work - the so-called "individual publishing" - for the first time. There is no problem for us to download information anymore; now it's time for us to upload and express our voice.
Such characteristic then starts to push Blog to the way of Social Networking. People of similar interests and tastes are gathered and get to know each other through well-designed guidance. Content on Blogs only provide an excuse for people to start a talk.
Well, the kind of blogs mentioned above are only those that are focused on content sharing. The number of bloggers is increasing, and it is impossible that every one of them is good at writing or photography. As a result, a lot of bloggers are just letting off their feelings of these days. Normally there are only a few words on the Blogs.
Yes it's about emotions. So what to do next is to lead the people who have similar or opposite emotions to get gather and allow their emotions to vent and thus reach completion through some kinds of rituals or activities.
Just like the one who buys "the only car that equipped happiness" - his desire for a happy family reaches completion at the moment when he pays for it. It is easier for us on the Internet than in the physical world.
What kinds of (good and bad) emotions and desires do people have? They may include:
- Hope. (It's said that among all living beings, only humans will have hopes.)
- Happiness. (Longing and expectation for happiness that one lacks or desires.)
- Hatred. (To smooth it away through some kind of ritual.)
- To be loved, cared and blessed (and thus gain strength).
- To know if there are other people in the world who have similar weird thoughts or particular experience or so on.
- To enjoy solitude (while keep in touch with the world!)
- To fulfill the desire and enjoy the excitement to peep and to be peeped.
- To satisfy the sense of vanity or accomplishment (or to find motivation to catch up) through comparing with others.
- To do good and help others (everyone wants to do a little good as long as s/he has a chance.)
- A secret whim to "kuso" or to do non-sense reckless doings (and enjoy the pleasant sensation to break the rules and customs of the society).
- Greed (and jealousy and desire to monopolize that comes along.)
- Innocence and the desire to be like a kid. (This is why Little Prince is so popular.)
- The hobby to collect things (We are all more or less obsessed with collecting some things.) and fetishism.
- Hesitation when faced with choices and desire to pry into the future. (This is why fortune telling is so popular.)
- ...
The more subtleness of human nature you observe, the more you can grasp the essence and spirit of emotion economics. What will people get gather for, and what kind of emotion will they pay for its completion? Through creative packaging, the items listed above can be developed into interesting and colorful "emotion centric websites."
Simply put, the Internet in the future will become a place for group therapy.
- Read More
Prev : The Spirit of Web 2.0 New Media Lies in "Inter-personal Communication"
- Today in History
The Next Step for Web 2.0 (1) The Dawn of Emotion Economics - 2007/08/26
The Web 2.0 Revolution (2) the Emergence of New Media - 2006/08/27
The Web 2.0 Revolution (1) the Root Cause is Cost - 2006/08/20
Envisioning China's 3G Market (1) 3G Will Not Increase ARPU - 2005/08/28
PDA in Siege (2) Bottlenecks of the Smart Phone - 2004/08/22
The meaning of "new media" is about giving up traditional broadcasting media and enabling interactive, inter-personal communication in a world that is turning into an intimate global village.
[+] Social networks become a new channel for branding
In the earlier stage of online advertising, website operators would ask advertisers to pay for 1.3 million exposures. Soon the CPC (cost per click) model became popular, and website operators started to tell advertisers to pay for 1.3 million clicks.
In the case of traditional advertising, it is aimed to produce an impression of the brand on you by repetitive exposures, so that you'll remember to buy this product when you do shopping in a store. In the earlier stage of the Internet, online advertising followed this thinking, and advertisers were told that the branding effect existed even if users did not click on the advertisements. Although it does not sound very persuasive, it still sells to big brand advertisers having huge budgets.
In spite of the growing popularity of CPC model, which has taken a good share of the market of medium and small advertisers, advertisements sold on the basis of exposures still can pull the money out of big advertisers' pockets.
Now we are entering the era of Web 2.0, yet major brand advertisers and website operators still stick to the old-fashioned concepts and 1.0 mindset. In fact, online marketing has entered the era of "pay for 1.3 million users' in-depth participation."
The point here is "inter-personal communication," which is exactly the strength and spirit of Web 2.0. Simply put, traditional advertising is about "I play and you watch," while Web 2.0 advertising is about "I tell you, you tell her/him, and the brand quickly spreads in the social networks."
[+] The Pepsi case
Here I'm going to share with you a recent case, which is classic in Web 2.0 marketing. The event in this case lasted for one month, attracting 1.3 million users to register, 120 million votes in total, and 6.8 bulletin board messages posted by users.
This event was the annual online event of Pepsi, which was called "Your Picture Appear on a Can." That is, contestants submitted their pictures and got selected by consumer votes. Those who garnered the highest votes can put their pictures on the Pepsi can.
The competition was divided into two stages. At the first stage, Pepsi together with five participating websites held tryouts respectively. One participating website, 51.com, attracted as many as 1.3 million users, which was more than twice as many as the total of the other four websites, to join the competition.
Such contrast was largely because that 51.com is completely a Web 2.0 website, which is characterized by real-time interaction. Therefore we need to look at the difference between this particular website and other traditional blogs websites.
First of all, 51.com is a kind of Social Networking Service, including blogs, photo albums and online communities. Users write their online diaries while reading others', and they can set up their own "friend list."
[+] How brands spread in a Web 2.0 website?
Not like traditional blog websites, 51.com does not emphasize on content. For many blog websites, the first page after logging in is the user's own article, but for 51.com, the first page tells you who have visited, who on your friend's list are online or have posted a new article.
This increases user interaction on 51.com. The system will inform you about who visits your article shortly. If you link to a visitor's blog and leave a comment, the system will inform that visitor about your visit, which may trigger another visit to your blog. This is how spontaneous personal interaction begins.
Because of such real-time interactivity strengthened by immediate system alerts about your friends' activities, users of 51.com almost get hooked on the website. This makes 51.com a robust platform for "inter-personal communication." An online campaign can spread very quickly on this platform.
In this Pepsi campaign, 51.com first pushed the news of this campaign through various channels to draw people in. For everyone signed up for the competition, there would be an article with a big picture "Vote Me for Pepsi Star" automatically produced by the system on the front page of the contestant's blog.
The posting of this new blog article would trigger a notification to those on the blogger's friends list. When these people came to visit, they would learn about Pepsi's new event. Some of them might become contestants and thus set off another round of notification....
[+] Interaction and alliances among social networks amplify the effects of communication
As such, the spread of inter-personal communication takes place in 51.com with a terrifying speed. Here we see the manifestation of "Six Degree of Separation," which is a popular theory normally associated to social networking, particularly for a business purpose.
At the first stage of the Pepsi star competition, there were also other participating blog service providers. Yet they did not take the advantage of real-time interaction; instead, they relied on the traditional method of one-way broadcasting, which is much less effective in spreading the message and drawing in more users.
Most interestingly, there were quite a few voluntary activities going on among the user communities of 51.com, which was beyond expectation. Here are some examples:
1) Those who did not join the competition tried to canvass for their friends who were contestants on their blogs. This helped increase exposure of the event.
2) Users of 51.com can start their own groups. Some group owners can be very powerful, as the size of these groups can reach some tens of thousands under good management. Group owners could ask members to vote and canvass for them.
3) Groups can form alliances. For example, First Alliance of 51.com has as many as 2 million members. Each group within the alliance could select its own candidate to compete for representing the entire alliance, with the support of its 2 million members, to compete in the Pepsi contest.
[+] Web 2.0 marketing is about inter-personal communication
Many people argued that such competition was nothing more than beauty contest. However, to everybody's surprise, the winner of 51.com tryout was a monk nicknamed "silly hermit." In fact, his picture has been on the Pepsi can before you read this article.
Yet it is not that surprising. Firstly, 51.com with 80 million registered users of various kinds is a small society of itself. Moreover, users' voluntary concerted action as shown in the above-mentioned example can be applied in many aspects.
For those participated in this event through joining the competition or voting or canvassing for contestants, together their friends within six degrees of separation, the brand of Pepsi will remain imprinted in their mind for a long time. What Pepsi got in this campaign was 1.3 million heavily engaged users, which had much greater effect than 1.3 million banner clicks.
Did you notice that the model of Web 2.0 marketing is basic inter-personal communication! Inter-personal communication works very slowly in the real world, so we need mass media such as television to do mass communication.
Yet, because of the birth of Web 2.0, the cost for inter-personal communication has dropped substantially and the efficiency has increased. Therefore we see a very paradoxical thing that marketing communication will go back to the basic model of inter-personal communication from traditional "broadcasting" media of mass communication.
These days we hear a lot of "new media" things from the media and people in the industries. What this term really means is about giving up traditional broadcasting media and enabling interactive, inter-personal communication in a world that is turning into an intimate global village.
- Read More
Prev : From Idea to Business (2) How to Estimate Your Income and Cost? Next : The Next Step for Web 2.0 (1) The Dawn of Emotion Economics
- Today in History
The Spirit of Web 2.0 New Media Lies in "Inter-personal Communication" - 2007/08/05
The Good Old Days of ECommerce - 2005/08/08
Think again on how relations are built and maintained.
[+] Challenges for social networking websites
The only thing that matters in Web 2.0 is relations and the build-up and maintenance of relations. However, to expect that relations will happen just by giving users relation-building tools is going to cause troubles. We need to have good understanding of human nature.
The most striking examples are some social networking (or business networking) websites like Linkist or OpenBC (currently Xing.com). These services, based on the well-known Six Degrees of Separation, are aimed to fulfill the needs of business people to extend their networking.
I know you and you know your friends, and these friends have their own friends. So by following these relation chains, I should need six intermediaries at most to get to know anyone in the world, according to the theory of Six Degrees of Separation.
People who have tried such services may be excited about their ability to help you get in touch with a huge number of strangers, who are your friends' friends, within a short time. However, when the number of people on my contact list of one of these services exceeded 200, I quit it.
A year or so passed, I found that there were only two or three names on my list remained active, and most of them rarely used the service. Undoubtedly, social networking is in great demand for business people. There must be some reason why these people became indifferent to the service.
[+] Think again on how "relations" are built and maintained
Think about your daily business life. You should see that "social networks" are build upon interests, which would normally exist where there are business relations. Take a look at your business cards holder or address book: those you contact most often should very likely be your clients or partners because you have common interests with these people.
Think about the various kinds of business gatherings you've been to. How many business cards you've got there are of any use to you in making business contacts? Some people would spend time and efforts to scan and file business cards (the so-called digital business network management), but at the end of the day the only thing they can do was forward jokes to these people once in a while.
Let's face the reality! When the relations between two persons would not last if they can find no business to do with the other. When accosting somebody, you would need a reason. The biggest problem for social networking websites is users can't find good reasons to start a talk and maintain relations with others.
Business people are very pragmatic. They will not spend time in building connections that are meaningless to them. The people you meet in social networking websites are practically total stranger who do not have any business to do with you, so your relations are doomed to be short-lived. Frankly, business people are already too busy managing their social networks in their off-line life.
Some social networking websites discover that their users have become lukewarm, so they develop tools like social bookmarking, which allows users to submit and digg news articles or videos for others to view and make recommendation. It indeed brings pleasure to some people during their boring working hours, but how much it can help establish relations is a question.
[+] Contact methods, a sure way to relationships?
10 years ago I was as a well-known "social butterfly" flitting from one industry gathering to another exchanging business cards. Now when I attend this kind of event, I would just sit quietly in some corner and leave unnoticed when it's over.
It is of no use even if you get 100 business cards in such circumstances because you don't have any business to do with them. Even if you keep these business cards very carefully and you do make a phone call to one of these names, s/he may never remember where or when s/he has met you. Is this the kind of relations you need?
If you want to meet certain people, you can always find someone to introduce you instead of attempting to meet them in public occasions. On the other hand, those who want to do business with you can always find some way to find you. The only thing that matters is whether there is any business to do or not.
There is also a scenario in such gatherings: you can always see some unimportant people busy exchanging business cards with big shots. Do you know how important people deal with the business cards stuffing into their hands? No, you don't want to know.
What will you do with the business cards of these big shots? Will you forward jokes to them? No. Will you talk about business opportunity worth of some thousand US dollars? No. Will you call him/her for some chitchat? No. Add him/her to your MSN, but are you sure it's not his/her secretary who is replying your message?
[+] Business networking: no business, no relations!
Same things happen on social networking websites where there are people busy in collecting business cards and knowing big shots. To a certain extent, social networking websites are very much like virtual business cards holders - though you may have as many as 700 contacts, none of them is in good use.
The variety of users on the Internet is practically the representation of the scenario you'll bump into in any typical public events in the business world. The kind of social contacts happening in such public occasions are not very helpful in establishing and maintaining relations if there are no business opportunities involved.
Yes, it is a bleak truth. Technology evolves but human nature remains the same. Web 2.0 entrepreneurs may create perfect websites sometimes, but they tend to forget that "Web 2.0 business is driven by human nature,' and all functions need to address to the wants and needs of the humanity.
Presently, social networking websites allow users to categorize and manage their connections, enable them to get in contact with certain persons by means of search functions or though common acquaintances and provide online forums for exchange of opinions. The point is this is never the way business people establish and maintain their relations.
If social networking websites cannot assist users to "establish" and "maintain" relations, and they are but virtual business cards holders with no storage limits. Such contacts are not connections. Our observation is that, for the very pragmatic business people, "no business, no relations!"
[+] Bottlenecks of friends making services
Social networking services can be divided into the following categories - business networking, friends making, interests communities and dating websites. Among these friends making websites may be familiar to you for such websites have existed since the time of Web 1.0.
Typically these websites would have a search engine for users to enter criteria such as gender, age, locations and so on, along with advanced search functions to filter results based on specific terms like education, personal interests and hobbies. They are to provide friends making service with very specific targets.
Yet as we all know, friends making websites are constantly faced with the problem of retaining their users, so they need to budget for "buying" new users by means of advertisements. Website operators are very clear how much they need to spend to acquire a new user.
This is the destiny of friends making websites. Singles come to these websites to look for their Mr./Miss right and leave when they get the contact methods. There are even more people who invest two months leave disappointedly with no gain.
Typically, a user would first register at these friends making websites, enter their personal information such as interests, occupation or even income level, search for someone "with photos uploaded to the websites" and then attempt to start a talk. How likely can s/he succeed in building up relations in this way?
[+] Sharing common feelings is the first step to build up relations
When you search for a female aged 25-30 in the bustling downtown area, you would have some idea about what kind of figure and look she should have in your mind. When you finally find one, you may just come forward and ask to make friends with her. Yet this is not a very effective approach and you are very likely to be rejected.
Yet a tougher situation may be what you should do if you get a green light from her. Many men are hesitant to accost women not because they are afraid of being turned down but because they don't know "what to do next if they succeed." This is the problem friends making websites need to work out.
You need a reason to accost a stranger. Advanced search engines may provide users with specific results from, but at the end they still need to know "what they should do to make the first move." It does not promise a happy ending when accosting someone simply because you know what she looks like, her birthday, age, interests and occupation and so on.
This is why many friends making websites are thinking about providing Blog services. These operators find that matching service won't work by just relying on external criteria, which alone are not enough for developing relations.
In fact, personality may be a stronger factor when in comes to relations building. The key is how to present the personality of each user. Blog services may be a good idea - let users share their diaries online! You may be able to find something in common to start a talk with others by reading their blogs.
"Sharing common feelings" is the first step for users to build relations with each other and a good way to maintain relations.
[+] The issue of relations building for traditional online services
A friend who's running an online learning website for years asked me about Web 2.0 the other day. He sensed that this should be a trend and he was thinking to introduce online community features to his website. In addition, friends in the e-commerce business also wrote me about the same issue.
Still, we need to look at "relations!" What kinds of relations are there between the shoppers on a B2C shopping websites? Is it necessary to build up relations? What would lead to the first contact between them? What kind of relations would there be? Can such relations last for long?
"Relations" are the key that demands our attention when talking about Web 2.0, including online learning websites. As a matter of fact, online learning service providers may think it a good idea to build up online learning communities for their websites. Yet we are yet to see successful examples for such communities.
Similarly, we need to ask is there any need for students attending to the same class to establish relations? On what circumstances do they feel the need to do so? What about forming relations with lecturers? How long can the relations last? Only when the linkage between these questions is found can we expect the emergence of online communities.
The same logic can be applied to many other scenarios. For example, do the people looking for similar kind of jobs on job search websites have the need to establish relations? Do those who watch the same video online feel the desire to form relations? How can they do so and how the relations can be maintained?
Not all Web 2.0 services will have to provide social networking features, yet it is true that the establishment and maintenance of relations are the basis of Web 2.0. At the end of the day, it is surely helpful to spend more efforts in figuring out how relations come into being and what lies behind relations.
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Think Again (2) Upper-class Society and Lower-class Society Next : Web 2.0 Think Again (4) "Private Property" and "Class Inequality"
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Think Again (3) A Reason to "accost" Someone Online - 2007/06/03
People are the only thing that Web 2.0 is trying to sell.
[+] Web 2.0 is not about either media or content publishing business
Many Web 2.0 operators have wishful thinking about what the Web 2.0 spirit stands for. For early players starting as Blog service providers, they are still stuck with the Web 1.0 mindset. As to the new entrants to the market, they may be too obsessed with the idea of user generated content.
First of all, Web 2.0 is not media, yet many Blog service providers are doing "content publishing" business. Traditional news websites have editors do publishing; Blog service providers leave the work of content generation to bloggers.
Take Blogchina, one of the earliest Blogs in China. It has been stick to the pattern of inviting columnists to generate content for users for all these years. The website stills see content as the core of its business, which is nothing different from Web 1.0.
Isn't Web 2.0 the so-called grassroots media that should encourage users to participate in content generation? How can it be irrelevant to content? My point is, in Web 1.0, content is for browsing, while in Web 2.0, content is a tool for building relations.
In other words, in Web 1.0 era, the product is information. Whether for a news website or search engine, everything is centered on "how to cope with information explosion." Whereas in Web 2.0, the product is "relations" and the question is "how to cope with weak relations" and "how to deal with relations explosion."
To put it simpler, what Web 2.0 is trying to sell is people. In Web 1.0 era, we need content experts to help us run our websites; in Web 2.0, we need sociologists to enlighten us on how people interact in the virtual society.
[+] Anyone has the desire "to be recognized"
In 1999, the Internet company, I worked for hired a guy majoring in library science to handle search engine classification and an editor (who used to work in the press) to take care of content channels. At that time, Internet companies needed such specialists to process information, which was the main concern then.
In Web 2.0 era, the ultimate purpose of website service is centered on "how to represent an individual." Speaking of individual human beings, we cannot but talk about their needs. In his theory of "Hierarchy of Needs," Maslow, a famous psychologist, contended that people have five layers of needs: physiological need, the need for safety, for love/belonging, for esteem, and for self-actualization, from the lowest to the highest in the hierarchy. The first two can be seen as basic needs (for survival) and the last two are social needs.
If we apply this idea to the Internet world, we'll find that services such as Blogs or even online photo albums are to satisfy basic needs only. That is, Blogging and uploading photos are more like some kind of announcements saying, "Hey, I'm here," rather than "individual publishing."
Web users need a place on the Net to announce her existence, a place of her own, and a peaceful haven of her soul. This is a place where she can save her everything, every record she has produced including photo albums, diaries, and messages, everything that proves her existence to the world.
Here comes the problem. Most bloggers are lonely bloggers with very few visitors to their Blogs. They keep sending out messages, "hey, I am here," but rarely get attention. They just linger on and on in solitude.
[+] The next stage of Web 2.0: building and managing relations
Many Blog service providers have noticed such problem and moved on to the next stage - social needs. All of us wish to be recognized and accepted. How operators should guide their users to know each other? Users need a cue to start a talk, and all the content can be the cue to start the talk.
In the US, there is service like MyBlogLog to allow bloggers to see who have visited their Blogs. In China, Blog service providers have turned such service into a basic function so that every bloggers can know who their visitors are.
By consciously guiding people to establish relations, Blogs have gone beyond the extent of individual media. Bloggers may go visit their visitors' Blogs, and by this way the bonds between users start to build. Good Blog service providers should try every way to allow such bond to form.
Some Blog service providers push good Blog articles to the homepages through referencing by other users or editors. Such doing is nothing different from content publishing in Web 1.0 and can create only at most 5% famous bloggers.
It is the responsibility of Blog service providers to "give everyone the chance to be noticed naturally," which is the secret why Mixi in Japan and 51.com in China can come to where they are today. They have realized that Blogs have little to do with content publishing since long ago. Blogs are the basic layer, on top of which social networking takes place.
What Sina Blog (blog.sina.com) does is create few famous stars by taking advantage of bandwagon effects. But at the end of the day, only very few become stars, and most bloggers remain unnoticed. Stars are tools to generate content and traffic, so such websites are not Web 2.0; they are Web 1.0 content websites.
[+] "Pure sharing" never exists
It may be a bit abstract to apply Maslow's theory, but it does provide a good framework to review different types of Web 2.0 websites and gauge their potential. Simply put, the hierarchical layers of needs must be satisfied according to their order. Shortcuts are not allowed or it will lead to bottlenecks.
There are a lot of Web 2.0 websites designed to build a mechanism for users to "share." The content to share include bookmarks, news, events, gourmets' comments and shopping discount, etc. Yet there are only few people come out to share.
It might not occur to these operators before that sharing does not happen naturally. People tend to think of themselves prior to others. So, website operators must first seek to fulfill users' basic needs to sustain themselves, and think about the issue of sharing later.
Take the function of social bookmark (like del.icio.us in the US) for example. It has to be a tool for organizing information first, then for sharing information with others, and lastly, for guiding people to interact.
Online bookmarks are not about enabling everyone to dig a URL so it can be the headline on the homepage, but a tool for building connections among people. Bookmarks, along with the tags, collected by users attached are very much "description about themselves." The point is not about what the content is, but who they are as represented via the content.
It would be less difficult for users to build relations once the description about these "people" is available. Web 2.0 website operators can create more opportunities for people with similar or different attributes to get to know each other by making use of Tags and the method of Data Mining. Therefore, as we can see, social bookmarks are yet to enter the next phase.
[+] Next-phase issue for search engine
The business methods mentioned above are to cope with the problem of "weak relations." However, another problem - "relations explosion" - also deserves our attention. When you join more Web 2.0 websites, the management of the relation chain will also become more difficult.
I once said that in Web 2.0, the interpersonal communication cost would decline. Yet as more Web 2.0 websites introduce the idea of relation chain, the cost to find out a certain type of people or even a certain person has become very high.
For example, if you want to find someone in the U.S., you may need to go to social networking websites like MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, and thousands of other Web 2.0 websites. Even finding a certain type of people, such as enthusiasts about the Chinese Ming dynasty, can be difficult.
The ability to search among relation chains is the challenge the next-generation search engine should address. The issue in Web 1.0 is the high cost to get precise information in a time of information explosion, which has been successfully resolved by search engine. And now, relations explosion is the next issue to be settled.
- Read More
Prev : The Mist of 3G in China (4) The Way to Survival for SP Next : Web 2.0 Think Again (2) Upper-class Society and Lower-class Society
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Think Again (2) Upper-class Society and Lower-class Society - 2007/05/27
Web 2.0 Think Again (1) It's All about Relationships - 2007/05/20
Brief Study at Portable Multimedia Player (PMP) - 2005/05/29
