The Guardian reports MySpace had 124 million unique visitors in February, shrinking 2%, according to the marketing research company comScore.
Meantime, Facebook grew nearly 17% to reach 276 million unique visitors month over month. It is now double the size of MySpace, the one-time heavyweight of social media.
Twitter, the Wall Street Journal reports, counted 9.8 million users worldwise, up from 6.1 million just the month prior. That's astronomical growth.
So, why is one site catching on so fiercely while another is losing its grip? And what does it mean to communicators?
For me, the answer lies in the user experience and in the idea that there's a theoretical limit to the number of social networks a person needs to maintain.
I'm a firm believer in good design, both in functionality and form. Facebook has a clean, simple interface that is plain but not unpleasant. MySpace, on the other hand, is an ungodly mess, difficult to read and next to impossible to pretty up without a lot of html coding.
Unless you're a band trying to share music and tour dates, MySpace also lacks the rich functionality to keep each visit fresh and interesting.
Facebook has invested heavily in the user experience. I just checked in on my profile, and saw at a glance a client's weekend camping trip photos, an 80s song lyrics challenge, a request for my birthday -- which is coming up April 9 so felt compelled to respond, links to articles, and so much more.
User experience explains why people are attracted to Facebook and leaving MySpace, and it compounds on itself: as more people leave, there's less reason for others to stick around. Looking at Twitter, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Twitter applications to enhance the user experience, it's incredibly simple to join and connect with people, and the site just made an enhancement to its functionality today: See Twitter Blog: Replies Are Now Mentions. As I told a reporter doing a story for Rhode Island's WPRI.com, it's the functionality that makes a site matter to the user.
I also believe that the mass market has a limited attention span for these networks.
If the average person can get their social needs met from one mainstream site like Facebook plus one niche site for their particular interest, like Twittermoms or Flickr, then they're going to stick with what is most convenient, productive and relevant for them.
It's the same principle to me as Dunbar's number: a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. The number is somewhere between 150 and 230.
If there's a theoretical maximum for social relationships, then it follows that there's a similar maximum for social media websites.
For instance, I have neglected accounts with BrightKite and FriendFeed. I ignore Plaxo requests but continue to invest deeply in LinkedIn. These are examples of some of the sites that have fallen outside my theoretical maximum, for now.
When it comes to social media survival, MySpace would be wise to borrow a page from Google's successful strategy--and quick: keep it simple, make it easy, and create a rich user experience if you want people to give you their time and loyalty online.
No comments:
Post a Comment