Facebook: agenda setter or over-hyped?
Here's an interesting juxtaposition. Richard Holway points to Mark Zuckerberg from FaceBook topping silcon's list of agenda setters. Facebook represents the zeitgeist of this decade, towards social networking, with all the implications that has for influence.
Except that The Economist has today published a sceptical article on Facebook, questioning Facebook valuations and its role as a one-size-fits-all social network. There's also an interesting (if brief) examination of whether social networks exhibit network effects of their value increasing with usage (aka Metcalfe's Law). It argues that smaller communities are valued more highly, since they represent members with similar interests.
This contrast in views is relevant to discussions on influence, in two ways. Firstly, it helps inform the debate on how, or whether, Facebook and other social media can enable or enhance influence. Is the value of a social network based on its popularity or its focus? Can we predict which social networks will be populated by most influencers?
The second point on influence is that I'd consider both Richard and Tom Standage at The Economist as influencers on the adoption of technologies. Who's right? Who carries the most weight with technology adopters? Who's opinion will sway valuations? How can you assess the influence of two heavyweights with countering opinions?
Answers on a postcard, please...
Except that The Economist has today published a sceptical article on Facebook, questioning Facebook valuations and its role as a one-size-fits-all social network. There's also an interesting (if brief) examination of whether social networks exhibit network effects of their value increasing with usage (aka Metcalfe's Law). It argues that smaller communities are valued more highly, since they represent members with similar interests.
This contrast in views is relevant to discussions on influence, in two ways. Firstly, it helps inform the debate on how, or whether, Facebook and other social media can enable or enhance influence. Is the value of a social network based on its popularity or its focus? Can we predict which social networks will be populated by most influencers?
The second point on influence is that I'd consider both Richard and Tom Standage at The Economist as influencers on the adoption of technologies. Who's right? Who carries the most weight with technology adopters? Who's opinion will sway valuations? How can you assess the influence of two heavyweights with countering opinions?
Answers on a postcard, please...
Labels: Facebook, influencers, Richard Holway, The Economist
posted by Duncan Brown at 1:56 pm
2 Comments:
Metcalfe's Law may be right, but you can't form a small community of similarly focused individuals (i.e. your network)unless you have a large pool of people to pick from. Imagine if you had to chose ten friends as your core network. Would you rather do it through a small pool of the entire cast of all the seasons of Survivor or have your pick of thousands that are available on FB?
FB also happened to be at the right place at the right time and was reaching out to the community of influencers effectively. The value of their network is that it's both huge and has a good group of influencers that constantly create buzz about it.
I think the important point abot "Agenda Setters" is that it is about setting the agenda, steering the conversation etc. This is of course hugely overlapping with, but I would still say different to, influence
Post a Comment
<< Home