There’s no doubt that social media is entering the “fatigue” phase. Friendster begets MySpace begets FaceBook begets Twitter, how does one keep up? With dozens of social media outlets competing for various inputs, profile updates, content management, etc – is there any wonder why people are tossing in the towel and walking away from their profiles?
I wonder if this fatigue is also a trend? Could withdrawal be a reasonable response to over-consumption?
Part of the lure of social media is to get in on the ground floor first – before sign-ups reach critical-mass. To be there first carries a certain caché, so too do the number of the friends in your network, your profile’s number of views, number of internal links, peer accolades and so on. In fact, these little “ego hits” have been referred to as “crack” by those discussing social media’s addictive nature. Although, the trend seems to suggest that participation is very addictive at first and over time the ego hits are exponentially reduced as your one voice in the network is drowned by hundreds of others offering mundane facts or perspectives on varying topics in relentless detail.
So what does the future of social media look like?
I believe that you’ll find long-term sustainability within social networking’s niche subgroups. Flickr’s photography enthusiasts are passionate about groups like ““Portrait,” “The Canon DSLR User Group,” and “The Unofficial JPG Magazine Group“. These groups are truly about photography and sharing with an eye towards the goal of getting better at the craft. Simply put, the groups help users improve their skills while connecting them to people with similar interests. This is a genuine interest, which extends beyond the simple act of participation on a web site.
Beyond photography as a hobby subset on Flickr, you can find other like-minded groups connecting through very real passions. “Field Guide: Birds of the World” is a fantastic community of amateur ornithologists who share their love of birds via photography. They use the group as a reference for their own bird watching expeditions, and even encourage tagging their photos with the proper scientific Latin names. This particular niche is being served in a very real way, and will continue to grow at a steady sustainable pace with dedication.
Compare this with currently popular FaceBook groups like “Everytime Nickleback Is Played, God Kills A Llama” where the novelty of joining the group wears off the second your friends see you’ve joined – you can see why interest may dissipate after a few weeks. They’re not sustainable groups because they have no substance.
The subgroups with followers dedicated to interests beyond the network itself – that’s the social media trend to watch. Once the novelty of belonging to the greater social network wears off, there had better be some substance for connecting if you expect people to remain engaged.
Tweet This!
Print This Post
12 Responses to “Social Media Fatigue”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
This syndrome you describe is not without an already well-established precedence on the internet: it befell Usenet as well. Usenet was and is chock full of useless newsgroups that were established as a lark (ie: alt.pavetheearth) that were only amusing because their existence was amusing, not their content in and of itself. Of course Usenet also has many newsgroups that persevere to this day despite the dilution, spam pollution and rise of the web, indicative of the content that they provide.
This kind of phenomenon is also well documented outside the digital realm. Restaurants are a good example: fadm gimmick restaurants rise and fall overnight while staple restaurants seem to live forever.
Do you amuse me, or do you serve me?
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I serve you chris…
he he he
I miss Ponderosa.
c
April 4th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I am a secret bird watcher. Don’t tell anyone – I’m going to check out that Flickr group.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:49 am
very well said.
Thats why ning has a great future.
I believe we are slowly moving from the mass to micro-communities that will have greater control over their members and marketing messages directed at them.
happy easter
A.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“This syndrome you describe is not without an already well-established precedence on the internet: it befell Usenet as well.”
Ah, Chris… A like minded angel… but that’s not what I came here to post…
Dissipation IS the natural order of all things media; especially now in the age where access to distribution is quite easy. I mean, really is not what MAY be happening to MySpace, Flickr and YouTube not just what is happening [or has happened] to CBS, NBC and ABC…
That audience is fragmenting into smaller chunks based on more specific needs provided to them by ’boutique’ content providers.
Funny enough, I saw this happen to the Internet Porn industry over a matter of months, right before my eyes while working for one of the BIG 5 back in ’98…
eh, hem… Rather than ‘fatigue’, which I’m sure you’re personally feeling right now Collin; I’d call it more a ‘sorting-out’ period. The groups within Flickr et al, are solidifying and becoming there own ‘something’ within their host larger networks. It will be interesting to see just how well these ‘larger networks’ will fare this fragmentation… Lets follow this up the pipe…
I may be confident that the management of MySpace, Flickr and YouTube would be savvy and nimble enough to massage their ‘babies’ through this transition; HOWEVER, I am less confident in the management of New Corp, Yahoo and Google to do so given the folks who own the ends of those leashes… It will come down to, paragraph 56.32.11.2 section A, subclause -6B5a to see who gets to make the call the first time ad revenues [or subscription revenues in the case of Flickr] stumble for a quarter.
In the end, if any of those networks above falter, no matter, the audience will find another venue; as you have pointed out… some already have.
[On another note, I'm still trying to work out that response to convince you that content, indeed, has no value :-]
April 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Consumer control, brand democratization, content liberation and this time… personal relevence to a collective experience. Hmmm… These factors put together are too big to ignore in any calculation of repeating trends. I do love insights from the past to factor in however.
thanks again for the input Gord.
ps.
It is my position that consumer content is at least equal to the value of professional content (even if that value is nothing.) when building brands, messages or equity in a social media platform. We have the numbers in this medium to measure and distribute the wealth fairly… that is a major cornerstone to my work here.
If Viacom gets pay-per-view on YouTube, so should everybody who posts. Even better, Viacom should pay for the privilage to be next to public contributed videos. But that is for another post.
collin
April 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“Consumer control, brand democratization, content liberation and this time… personal relevence to a collective experience. Hmmm…”
First of all; to me, thats just goblty-gook with respect to the topic of your post here on “fatigue”; or the sorting and dispersal that naturally takes place when ‘any’ medium reaches the mass-market tipping point.
“It is my position that consumer content is at least equal to the value of professional content (even if that value is nothing.) when building brands, messages or equity in a social media platform. We have the numbers in this medium to measure and distribute the wealth fairly…”
Do you have numbers on the revenues being generated by the more popular Social Networks? It would be interesting to see exactly what this wealth you want fairly distributed is?
…on your last point; is Viacom getting compensated for the content they bring, OR the assumed “built-in” audience that comes along with this content… Of course, we may find out that giving money to Viacom was indeed based on p-retty poor assumptions.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
One model for content to be re-imbursed is a percentage based one. If the site does not make profit clearly there is no expectation to share. If the site sells for 1.65 Billion… Somebody made a profit.
collin
April 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Asi
Thank you for putting me onto Ning!
I had not yet heard of it and intend on exploring it further.
All the best
Collin
April 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
If the site sells for 1.65 Billion… Somebody made a profit.
Investment, is NOT revenue; moneys exchanged for the sale of YouTube were for an exchange in property [and, I can guarantee you that the owners of that property realized nowhere near the full dollar value of the investment].
Profit is not really a term relevant to that type of transaction…
With respect to ownership; there is no argument over who owned YouTube as this would have been well documented in the ‘corporate’ papers. Unless, YouTube had some form of ‘exchange in stock options’ with the folks posting content, then they have no argument or entitlement to the sale of the property…
Back to revenue sharing… before people start complaining, perhaps they should have negotiated a revenue sharing agreement with YouTube BEFORE submitting their video of a dog riding a skateboard… As you know, Viacom did.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Thanks for the feedback gord
collin
April 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
ning is indeed pretty interesting…