Just thinking…

I was driving around thinking….

In my last fabulous post I was trying to make a point that, in Social Media, the more features (or crap, depending who you are) you add doesn’t mean the more people you attract.  Facebook, who I use, has taken this approach to the nth degree (a real mathematical concept, but not equative to the “nth degree” or “n dimensions”) and lo, though they have a gazillion people,  I really wonder what the rate of change has been since day 1 after the latest release. My bet is that they might be gaining users but at a slower pace and that they are starting to see less repeat visits going on 30/60/90 days.

Am I wrong FB?  Tell me.

And, If you’re one of these people that are not returning, or stopped using them, let me know that too (and why!)

So this brings me to the “just thinking” part– could we quantify the “stickiness” (I know a totally 90′s dot-com term but I couldn’t come up with a better one) of a social media app?  I’ve tried to ask around to people that I respect and it seems that the general consensus is not really. It just clicks and sticks. Like Pet Rocks.

The 70's phenomena the Pet Rock

I refuse to believe this. I can admit this could be my Moby Dick, but there has to be the “7 +/- 2 chunks“ rule to Social Media. Given the set of people attracted, their needs and the known technological variables one can introduce (features) there must be a range of “stickiness” that can be estimated. Only so many “connections” and features that one can deal before  a site loses value to the end-user. 

Working much like the coefficent of friction, which gives an indication how slippery a surface might be (ice on steel would be close to zero,whereas rubber on pavement is over 1, more like 1.7) the higher the number would indicate how sticky or  attactive a feature or site would be. It would have to be a range as people are not black or white in choices, nor 1 or 0, but all grey matter (I know… nice joke.) Lumber jacks want and need different features from show girls, unless you’re from Monty Python.

Perhaps we test successful sites and come up with a range of success– given that set of people, this worked wildly well. Think of this phantom sticky-coeffient (“sticky-co” for short?) as a litmus test for new features and if, in testing, yours doesn’t make the successful sticky-co range, then you probably got a dud in the making.

Look even as I’m typing this I’m having second thoughts. But I sometimes like to throw things out there and, well, see if it sticks.

So go ahead, weigh-in. Collaborate. Tell me I’m on to something or not.  I can take it. Tell me you’d be interested in it if it does exists.

This is what I think about while driving.

One Response to “Just thinking…”

1. Scot Duke says:

   April 14, 2009 at 7:59 PM

   First of all FB does not have as many members as they want you tho think. OH, they can validate a count of profiles, but that does not equal Real people per profile.
   There was a study done a few years ago that showed that the number of abandoned profiles on FB and profiles set up by BOT’s was well over 60%..probably higher now..but that is not the point here.

   What makes sites like FB popular and what makes ‘apps’ popular to large numbers of people is all based on something rather basic.
   Offline gatherings…
   Yep.If it was not for college kids having “keggers” on the weekend FB would have never been started and held its popularity. The same thing with popular apps that get popular with people. Most of the apps are introduced as part of some offline activity where Real Live people get to see other people Real reactions. that sticks (to use your phrase) with them and they carry that relationship online where the viral social media starts.
   The key to anything online being “sticky” is how it is presented and the more popular ones all have some offline group or gathering that used it or developed it as part of their normal social gathering..
   At least that is what I have found is how most of popular stuff out online has gotten popular.