DISQUS

Ben thanks for a great framework! For the Service part, how about JetBlue's use of Twitter? here's my take, I met Morgan earlier this year while speaking at a conference.
=>http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=215

You may want to consider Threadless, too (the guys I intro'd at TechCocktail). They almost redefine things as the whole enterprise is on their website, and they are grafting in retail.

Cheers- Chris

Ben, thanks for a good overview. Another dimension you haven't mentioned is how Facebook and MySpace are approaching global expansion. Facebook, although it has been criticized for its approach to building international sites, is expanding far more quickly by crowdsourcing the translation of its site. In country after country, Facebook is taking the title of "preferred social network" from MySpace, which sets up expensive offices and handles the expansion in a more traditional way. Facebook is showing its Web 2.0 DNA: by crowdsourcing, it launches "good enough" translations *and* builds communities of enthusiasts in each country. When a country site is up, it is always able to double back and offer a better iteration. MySpace may be disadvantaged because it has not changed with the times; adoption of Web 2.0 is spiking. It occupies an interesting position; people love it because it enables multidimensional self-expression, but it's hard to look at; it loads like a dog. It can definitely still play a role, but new management will have to execute aggressively and decisively to increase its relevance. You had better believe Facebook is working on a music offering; it's the chance to kill off a major rival. Cheers-

Jesse, thanks for a pithy and useful brief on Friendfeed's value prop as a way to build community around RSS feeds (including Twitter). Look forward to looking around (here thanks to @guykawasaki) Cheers- Chris

Dave, the thing I try to keep in mind is, "What's my strategy or intent for a given network?" And, how does it fit the ecosystem? If I can't answer that, I don't give the network any attention. It usually boils down to: with whom can I connect about a certain interest in the new network? Be there with purpose.

Dave, the thing I try to keep in mind is, "What's my strategy or intent for a given network?" And, how does it fit the ecosystem? If I can't answer that, I don't give the network any attention. It usually boils down to: with whom can I connect about a certain interest in the new network? Be there with purpose.

Chris, thanks for an extremely valuable point: I bought my domain in '94 and have been working in tech since. I know so many CIOs and other techies who don't have their domains or permanent emails, and I've never understood that. It's fundamental to being on the grid; it'd be interesting to study how many millions are lost each year because a former colleague tries to reach out with an oppy, and the transaction cost can be prohibitive when you lose touch. Since I really can't expect someone to have their own domain, the next best is school emails. Thanks for mentioning the tools you use; I'll check them out, too. Cheers-

I love the idea, but I think it would be interesting to abstract away from it.. this is PR-focused so wouldn't apply to a lot of people, even though the implied process would. Cheers

Al, thanks for a very useful summary for me.. I'm looking for an app that will help me view/tweet to multiple accounts, from Powerbook & iPhone

A better headline for this article might have been, "Facebook Likely to Supercede LinkedIn as Advertising Vehicle." When I read "Biz Networking," that seemed to say that more business networking happens on Facebook than LinkedIn. That has nothing to do with advertising revenue. You should qualify that statement and define what you mean to say. It certainly is not true for the enterprise executive demographic. It may well be true for certain types of "business networking" among certain demographics.

Although it's open to interpretation, looking at social networks only from the aspect of the advertising aspect of their business models is too limited at this stage of the game. I have been a power user of LinkedIn for a couple of years, and I believe that their business model will increasingly shift toward enterprise process innovation. LinkedIn's audience and community are completely different than Facebook's. It's more focused (you could say limited). But, when it comes to attracting enterprise executives to participate in social networking, it's the leader in the U.S. Facebook is out of reach for most Boomer execs because it's too Web 2.0. LinkedIn is trying to monetize that difference.

As a solid Facebook member for almost 2 years, I believe it is far better fit for a B2C advertising aspect of its business model. It reflects a far greater range of popular culture than LinkedIn.

IMHO, social networks only use advertising revenue as a default setting when they can't figure out another way to make money, and they're in good company. Look at mobile; everyone is struggling to monetize attention, and advertising is the flogged horse.

But look more closely at *business* networking. Look at Faceforce. LinkedIn and Facebook will have the chance to monetize eyeballs in the enterprise. I am openly calling on LinkedIn to become the Swiss bank of executive profiles (see <a href="http://www.executivesguide-linkedin.com/blog/?p=71" rel="nofollow">Faceforce.com Pioneers Enterprise Social Network Vision, Exposes Massive LinkedIn Opportunity: profile information will usually be superior than enterprise, so enterprise social networks should invoke external profile information, and LinkedIn profiles are enterprise-ready, unlike Facebook's.

I am watching social networks' business models with a lot of peripheral vision. Since Web 2.0 is about relationship, it will go in many directions. Within the next two years, business cases will begin emerging in earnest, and business models will run with them.

Another angle (many would argue heretical): social networks facilitating connections and taking a piece of them. Let's say that, in two years, LinkedIn has dozens of testimonials by SVPs of BusDev of the deals they made, facilitated by LinkedIn. LinkedIn could monetize that in a less objectionable way (to many) than Jigsaw, for example.

Lastly, the thread that Facebook is "business-level competition" for LinkedIn is true when one considers ad spending. But you make a broad statement that you don't back up fully. I'd like to hear more about your analysis.

I perceive LinkedIn and Facebook as very distinct venues that complement each other nicely. From a member perspective, they do compete heavily for the young Gen X and Gen Y category. Boomers aren't doing serious business networking on Facebook. LinkedIn is all business; Boomers don't integrate fun online with doing business the way Gen Y does. Gen Y does go to LinkedIn but as an afterthought, and without much commitment. As Gen Y assumes more influence, Facebook will undoubtedly see more business networking. But the players will all be different in the years ahead.

Nick, thanks for this, you've sold me! Will establish acct in Plurk, at first as a back-up to Twitter. I hope the latter doesn't become a case study for how to attract people, then underdeliver and fail. Cheers-

nick thanks for keeping us in the loop. as for me having an iPhone themobile expc with all these sites is pretty awesm so "mobile" takes on a diff context. "is it mob or is it iPhone" (bad try to invoke the memorex spots of the 70s/80s) This may not be irrelevant as apple currently is #3 mkt sh USA and trying to expand glob w 2.0 model. What do u think of fb mob on iPhone?

Nick, thanks for this blurb. I too have been frustrated with Twitter downtime, but it hasn't been crippling on more than a handful of cases. I typically tweet about 6x/day, so not a power user. I did open a pownce account and intend to use that as a back-up, but I keep going back to twitter because 1) everyone's there, 2) they seem to have a good attitude about it, which doesn't fix the prob but appeals and, most important, 3) the interface. On the iPhone, it's so tight and simple and it's fun to use. I was disappointed when facebook changed their interface to twitter; some months ago, they (don't know the technology but my impression was) would "cache" what you wrote on facebook and feed it to twitter when it was back up, giving an asynchronous effect. That was great when twitter was down; you could continue to tweet on facebook without missing a beat! I'm surprised that no one has hacked something like that.

Anyway, I think they're still in the zone, but if problems persist, a fast follower can do them in. For most people, change costs will serve as a deterrent for a while, but the tipping point approaches...

Cheers-

Thanks for posing a great question. As virtual and actual worlds converge, we need to ask these things because said convergence proposes a new synthesis. Since you asked, I don't believe it will be clear cut for criminal groups because, in the U.S., I don't believe one can be condemned just by a mere association with a group. One in innocent until proven guilty of a crime. I'm uncertain of the law regarding "banned" groups. I would be shocked that affiliation itself would be a crime.

Regarding online, probably mere affiliation would not be grounds for prosecution, but the amount and type of activity would probably be taken into account. How many posts, replies and on what subject? How do they map to offline criminal activity?

Just my two cents!