Social Media: Communities Based on Trust Are Stronger

A Lesson in Why Facebook Is Growing and MySpace Isn't

Posted by Judy Shapiro on 06.26.09 @ 03:30 PM

Judy Shapiro

But I wanted to get beyond the tech-pundit autopsies and see what lessons I could apply to our own company, Paltalk, a video-based community. Despite all the press covering MySpace, from its sad launch of MySpace Music to its recent traffic decay (ComScore reports it lost 5% of its U.S. unique visitors in May), I searched for a single, simple answer that could explain this decline precisely -- frankly in the hopes of avoiding making similar mistakes. Despite my efforts, I failed in finding any analyst who provided the "silver bullet" answer I had been seeking until, that is, I met up with the 16-year-old son of a colleague who happened to be in our office one day.

This fresh-faced young man came in with his expected teenage uniform -- jeans, T-shirt and PC. He was quietly but intensely doing something on his computer when I started to talk about how we use our Paltalk Facebook group and I must have snagged the young man's attention because he lifted his head in interest. Seeing an opportunity to learn from him, I started to ask him what he thought of Facebook. "Oh," he said, "all of us in school are on Facebook now. Yeah." And then he added on his own, "We all stopped going to MySpace. No one ever uses their real name on MySpace."

That 16-year-old accurately put his finger on the heart of the problem: MySpace has failed to find ways to help users establish connections born of a trusted bond. As a result, MySpace became a haven for spammers and the trust-decline spiral began.

Before you skeptics reject the simplicity of this answer, consider MySpace's fate with that of Facebook and the answer becomes easier to fathom. Facebook started as a way for college kids to connect with their trusted peers (trusted only in the sense that they went to the same university, but hey -- trust is fluid depending on the context). These students already shared a bond, they were already part of an existing community and Facebook provided the platform that let people bolster these sticky connections. Further, as Facebook grew it was able to attract a mass audience because it expanded by staying true to its very DNA -- its ability to let people make trusted connections. It was a killer strategy and a risky move, but it is now paying off just as, paradoxically, MySpace seems to be feeling its way through the digital dark.

If one tests this theory to see how it stands up in real life, we see this principle operating at many of the most successful social networks out there. For example, LinkedIn thrives as a professional network because you invite "trusted connections" and video-based communities achieve a higher level of trust than a text chat community because one can see who one is talking to. These are just a few different strategies to achieve a similar goal -- create ways that let people bond with each other and within communities.

The take-away from the MySpace experience is that in the community-building business, communities based on some level of trust are probably "stickier" and more valuable than a community with little or no trust.

~ ~ ~
Judy Shapiro is senior VP at Paltalk and has held senior marketing positions at Comodo, Computer Associates, Lucent Technologies, AT&T and Bell Labs. Her blog, Trench Wars, provides insights on how to create business value on the internet.

14 Comments

  By neiludavis | Atlanta, GA June 26, 2009 06:15:19 pm:

Even though it's a social network like any other, I think that many people used MySpace at first for promoting music. A large part of it was to get bands' names out there. And for consumers to be able to interact with them, this was great. But simply as a keeping-in-touch tool, Facebook wins out, mostly because, you're right - it can be much more personal than MySpace or many of the other social networking tools out there.

Permalink

  By nickntime | LA, CA June 26, 2009 06:40:09 pm:

That is really true even though I never really thought about it that way... Now I know why I like some communities more than others. makes sense

Permalink

  By Gene w. | Atlanta, GA June 26, 2009 07:07:38 pm:

Judy -- I think your simplistic answer is intriguing but not the whole story. I agree that Facebook has a core trust component, but Myspace lost control of the user experience and that also caused thier decline.

But on the whole, I agree, trust propelled Facebook and lack of trust contributed to Myspace decline.

But I appreciate the "keep it simple" approach.

Permalink

  By msalup | Coral Gables, FL June 26, 2009 08:33:08 pm:

You hit it on the head

Permalink

  By surojit | New Delhi June 27, 2009 04:33:39 am:

It's a very factual insight Judy! For sure, the erstwhile trump card 'nothing real, it's online' mindset is now giving in to the 'nothing online, if it aint real'. It is an eventuality. More so, with times and situations now becoming too artificial in real life, I guess it is becoming just an additional headache for most of us to stay unreal online.

Permalink

  By ahmadthesixth | Riyadh, NY June 27, 2009 05:19:00 am:

That's a great observation. I have to say though that from my perspective, Paltalk's platform doesn't foster trust just by having video. Watching a video does not in fact mean you are watching the person, many of Paltalk's videos are recordings (some are illegal recordings). But the real concern that keeps me from using Paltalk (I advocate against it) is that it can be a secure venue for child predators and gay and religious bigots to operate or spread their hate. Paltalk has a long long way to go before it weeds out its insult-room legacy and become a trusted community for all, which is a shame it has great aspects that remind me of mirc and aol chat in the internet's beginnings.

Permalink

  By MarcoP123 | Philadelphia, PA June 27, 2009 09:19:11 am:

You're absolutely right, Judy. I've been discussing this issue with my peers and clients for months now, but you stated it much more succinctly -- actually, in one word, "trust". In my interviews over the past year with teenagers, they were almost unanimous in their reasons for disliking Facebook. Basically they said that MySpace was for little kids and adults trolling (kids and others) for sex, and the teenagers wanted no part of either. Younger kids initially gravitated to MySpace because access was easy (e.g., you had to at least be in high school to sign up for Facebook). But then anyone signed on to MySpace immediately started receiving spam "friend" solicitations, many of which were of a sexual nature. Moreover, quick searches on MySpace quickly and regularly turned up deviant sexual sites. And the kids didn't like it - they prefer Facebook because they know they are with their peers, people they trust. I do strategic consulting work for Domus, Inc., a Philadelphia based full-service marketing communications agency. I also have some musings (on Facebook and other topics) on the Domus blog site.

Permalink

  By MarcoP123 | Philadelphia, PA June 27, 2009 09:20:22 am:

You're absolutely right, Judy. I've been discussing this issue with my peers and clients for months now, but you stated it much more succinctly -- actually, in one word, "trust". In my interviews over the past year with teenagers, they were almost unanimous in their reasons for disliking Facebook. Basically they said that MySpace was for little kids and adults trolling (kids and others) for sex, and the teenagers wanted no part of either. Younger kids initially gravitated to MySpace because access was easy (e.g., you had to at least be in high school to sign up for Facebook). But then anyone signed on to MySpace immediately started receiving spam "friend" solicitations, many of which were of a sexual nature. Moreover, quick searches on MySpace quickly and regularly turned up deviant sexual sites. And the kids didn't like it - they prefer Facebook because they know they are with their peers, people they trust. I do strategic consulting work for Domus, Inc., a Philadelphia based full-service marketing communications agency (http://www.domusinc.com). I also have some musings (on Facebook and other topics) on the Domus blog site(http://domusinc.blogspot.com).

Permalink

  By JudyGShapiro | new york, NY June 27, 2009 11:22:53 pm:

Thank you for your comment about how digital communities can be haven for all kinds of behaviors that are unacceptable. I agree. The issue of digital trust is a complex one that requires imaginative solutions. One must recognize, for instance, trust and security are actually quite different requiring diverse yet totally interdependent approaches. And while video interaction can contribute to trust because it is far more difficult to pretend to be a 16 year old girl if you are a 45 year old man, it is by no means an answer unto itself.

The core concept I am advocating is that we learn to transform online trust from something we do to avoid digital harm into something we can expect in a next generation web. I am advocating that we learn to create the trusted digital society of tomorrow our children can feel safe living in. The launching pad of this new era of trust is what is now being erected in the next generation internet, referred to as Web 3.0. I reject that name in favor of the Trusted Web in the hopes that injecting trust as a proactive expectation of the internet is a right our children should have.

This is why Paltalk, as one of the technology founders of social networking (we have been in this space for over 10 and profitable since 2004), is taking a lead in helping shape this new digital trust within the community, social networking segment. Other innovative companies will be contributing to this effort spanning security and technology companies of all kinds.

People joining together to make a difference is what trusted communities are all about. And trusted communities are something all of us in technology, education, government and business need to build together.

The ties that bind are the one based on trust. Let's help shape what that means in the next generation web – The Trusted Web.

Judy Shapiro

Permalink

  By SonnyBavaria | Geretsried June 28, 2009 07:05:56 am:

Well said Judy, I agree totally!

Re: the comments of Ahmadthesixth >

Yes mIRC did and does well and most if not all of todays communication programs are based on IRC-clients, but not to talk about the bad security, in those old days of communication in the Net anonymity was a normal fact and one was never sure if the person on the other end was Anne in New York or Peter in London. All this has changed, today we have in most communication programs audio and video and actually no hiding is possible unless you expect that a video recording is answering your questions.... And coming back to Paltalk which sure is an outstanding program in todays communication in the internet. As all data flows there is getting proxied, it would be impossible for any hacker to find ones IP.. a hacker would get only the IP of the Paltalk Proxy server which would be no use then.
This is one of the reasons major companies use that program for internal video conferences and staff training in lockword protected rooms.
I myself used it daily to keep in contact with audio and video with my son working in Dubai for more than a year.

greetinx
Sonny

Permalink

  By HarveyMasser | oakland, CA June 28, 2009 01:55:40 pm:

I think your notion of changing our trust expectation on the internet has real power. It's thought provoking...

Permalink

  By kevin.sonoff | PORTLAND, OR June 29, 2009 11:39:16 am:

Hi Judy. Great Article. It's interesting to note that one of the first online communities built entirely on trust is eBay. The entire foundation of eBay's existence is in its members trusting one another and, with some blind faith, rely on strangers to follow through on online sales/purchases. Most eBay members have a good sense for the larger community that they are a part of and act accordingly.

Kevin Sonoff
Digital Marketing Buzz
http://www.digitalmarketingbuzz.com

Permalink

  By JudyGShapiro | new york, NY June 29, 2009 12:41:17 pm:

Great insight and accurate on eBay. When I constrast that to Craig's list -- we see the difference. That's not to say there is only one model for trust since Criag's list does provide real networking capability.

But my point is that trust is a function of context and people need to be able to make those choices for themselves rather than be wholly dependent on the site for trust and security.

Permalink

  By nickkinports | Chicago, IL June 30, 2009 01:07:41 pm:

Judy,

This is an interesting article; it speaks to an article/visual I recently wrote regarding the inverse correlation between revenue from advertising and relevancy. I think trust is a big part of relevancy.

http://admaven.blogspot.com/2009/06/social-networking-paradox-daily.html

Nicholas E. Kinports
Digital Integration Manager
Blog: http://admaven.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/admaven

Permalink

Comment:

Note: Comments submitted to AdAge.com are posted automatically and will include the user name with which you registered. Ad Age reserves the right to delete comments that are insulting or personal in nature. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion. Comments are restricted to 500 words or less.