WhiskeyBravo

Without intending to do so, I conducted a small experiment this weekend, and uncovered a “dirty little secret” of social networks, size matters. OK, I grant you this might seem self evident, but what surprised me is HOW it matters. In terms of exposure and the “long tail” I believe size is a detriment.

The great promise of social sites such as Flickr, YouTube, and Digg to name a few, is that “anyone” can publish something for the world. The cream will rise to the top, etc. Generally, this is true, But I’ve noticed (and I’m certainly not the first) that one of the strongest features of all these sites, “friends” is also a major limiting factor in promotion of the long tail. We’ve all read the stories about how much of Digg content is generated by just a few users. Does this mean that no one else is submitting these same stories? Certainly not. Many stories are submitted that quickly fall into obscurity only to have the exact same link be submitted by a “Big Digger” and quickly climb to the front page. This is simple fact. There is too much information on Digg, users cannot hope to monitor everything being submitted, so they latch onto a few “trusted sources” and they review what those sources choose to submit.

Similar issues surround Flickr and YouTube, only here the problem has is slightly different because the content is not the same (usually). A photograph is a frozen moment in time witnessed only by the photographer. A home video is equally unique. It seems reasonable that a huge network will have a significant number of people who will be interested in the same things as you, so it is logical to post things that you want to share. But will those people ever see what you did?

Here is my unintentional experiment. I was taking video with my digital camera of my son and his friend snowboarding in the back yard, when one of the boys had a rather humorous spill. In order to share it with the boy’s family, I posted the 8 second video on YouTube. It seemed to take a very long time before it was available, so I also posted it to Spymac, a much smaller network trying to form itself into a social media destination. The YouTube experience was fascinating. The videos come in so fast and furious, that I don’t think my video was on the “newly posted” page for more than a few seconds. When it was there, it was not ready for viewing. Then poof, it was gone. It got a single view, from the parents of the boy. On Spymac, the video lingered in newly posted for much longer, managed to get 30+ views and even a couple of comments. Where was the long tail more effective?

So you could conclude that the larger the network, the LESS LIKELY someone will discover your content if you are not well connected. This is supported by my experiences with Flickr, which I have used periodically for about a year. I rarely reach double digits in views, compared to hundreds or thousands for any photo taken by popular photographers. Yes, I accept that their pictures are generally better than mine and that this could explain the majority of the difference.

So, How is this “friend filtering” different from an editor? Well other than the fact that you chose your friends, I submit that is not significantly different (after all, you choose what paper to read, what news show to watch). Social networks have grown so large that users CRAVE editing. They are in effect saying “Please, show me what is interesting!” This isn’t good or bad, it just is. Let’s not pretend that the average person will be exposed to quality content just because it is available. Marketing, be it direct or indirect, will always win.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website