Read this fascinating post by Jyri Engeström. I want to know what you think.
In it, he argues that “the social networking services that really work are the ones that are built around objects.” [my bold here and below].
Namely, Flickr is about photos; Youtube is about videos; LinkedIn (when it works) is about jobs, etc. “…the term ‘social networking’ makes little sense if we leave out the objects that mediate the ties between people. Think about the object as the reason why people affiliate with each specific other and not just anyone. For instance, if the object is a job, it will connect me to one set of people whereas a date will link me to a radically different group. This is common sense but unfortunately it’s not included in the image of the network diagram that most people imagine when they hear the term ‘social network.’ The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They’re not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object.”
I very much agree with this and I do believe that this is one reason why some social networks fail. They may start off right, namely by inviting a group of people with similar interests to congregate online, but the “relationship” part of it is, it seems to me, just one criteria for who might be interested in checking it out, but NOT something that will keep someone involved just on its own.
I am on the Technology Section Council for ASAE and we are planning on setting up an online community, initially for technology-related ASAE folks. Now, we have the audience (which of course can be divided up into various subgroups with different interests). One reason our audience may want to come and have a look is to meet other association technology people. But that can’t be the objective of the community. It sounds like a valid objective – but once these people meet each other, then what? There have to be “objects” within the community that will engender relationships. Maybe the object is “help” – like a helpdesk or discussion forum. Maybe the object is “news” like a one-stop-shop for relevant news feeds, or a blog to discuss particular issues. Maybe the object is a project, or several projects. Or all of the above…
When we’re thinking about the functionality we want this community to have, I think it will be crucial to identify what social objects will make our audience want to interact in our community rather than anywhere else.
The other side of this coin is that when you recognize the objects that keep people involved in a network, you realize that it’s totally OK and even desirable for people to be equally active elsewhere, for other reasons, and that does not detract from the viability of your social space.
Thoughts?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=502294c4-ef9f-413e-9cc4-d4a8535c4439)
- Bit.ly URL for this post:
- http://bit.ly/5sG698
5 responses to "On Object-centered Sociality"
{ 5 comments }
Funny – I had this tee’d up to write about as well. (Birds of a feather, eh?) I agree that recognizing the need for an “object” is an important step towards success with social media initiatives. Probably no surprise, but I tend to think of “learning” as a key object. This can encompaass things like “news” and “help,” but needs to be be “curated” at a level that takes it beyond mere information flow. (‘Cause who needs more information these days!!)
I wrote a bit about this before at Learning
as a Key to Social Media Success. Alas, I did not convince Ben (see comments)
Great post, Maddie. – Jeff
As always, awesome.
I ran into this after I started SNAP. Sure it was a great idea right off the bat, but it got away from me and now I’m trying to build in that key object to help people get engaged. SNAP naturally draws people in, but the content has to be there to keep them engaged. Also focusing around and object helps keep your brand in tact and your content connected.
But it’s also true that “An idea repeated with wisdom obtains a great impacts”, so marketing and our own subjective perception have a big role..
From Chris Uschan via A-list:
“Hi Maddie – I completely agree with this post. A group of people needs something in common (an object) to be the basis for the gathering.
We’re association people, right?!? So think about a conference (take ASAE).
Do you think people might just buy an airline ticket, pay a reg fee and fly to some major city to just “network?” They might fly to vegas to party, but to just gather with like people, I don’t think so.
There has to be a reason (or an object). At the meeting it could be a workshop or an educational session. Both objects create the basis for the discussion. Now take away objects… what’s left? It’s a dinner date with no meal at some location… so why are we here?
The object is needed or the conversation will most likely turn to “the weather” (which Tony Soprano calls that the lowest form of conversation BTW) and then the network dies.
When I look at LinkedIn, I see a resume board… connecting people. The bio area allows us to show our selves. 10000000s of people are on in, but is it a real good social network or just an online roladex? I never really used LI to talk with people… it’s kind of passive. Now add the Q/A to LinkedIn and it becomes something — The Q/A is the object!
So as a supplier to associations (meetings), we believe that social media and networks can be successful, but only if you wrap that around something… like a recorded session or the online program (attendees creating discussions about a session before the event).”
— chris
I think the fundamental issue is that there has to be a reason to bring people together. This is why every time I hear someone say, “Let’s start a socnet (or community of practice)!” my first question is, “Why? Is there any sort of organic desire for these people to find each other?” If the answer is, “No – but everyone else is doing it,” I say, save your pennies/energy to spend elsewhere.
Comments on this entry are closed.