The Brooding Savage

What E-mail can learn from the Social Network

Today I received a note from a friend who was getting divorced.  The note came by way of Facebook, and included some tawdry details regarding sexual proclivities and compatibility.  First I wondered why anyone would feel the need to share such intimate details.  Then I wondered why share this info via Facebook?

The truth is, I have come to enjoy communicating with friends via Facebook.  Overall, I find the site annoying.  It’s constantly sending spam to my inbox about new contests that friends are joining, or applications they’ve downloaded.  “Viral” it turns out, still retains it’s older, medical connotation on the site. Unchecked, viral can make you ill.

But once on the site, I find their messaging system refreshing.  Forget the News Feed, the Wall, and other Widget applications.  They constantly bombard my profile with useless information.  But Facebook has by far the best messaging system that I’ve seen, and there are lessons to be learned for both other Social Networks, and for email providers, too.

I’m no great fan of Social Networks in general – but I do have profiles on Myspace, Facebook and LinkedIn.  I was not surprised to read last week that time-on-site for MySpace declined in December by about 24% year-over-year.  I had always wondered how users could spend so much time on Social Networks – and the answer is, they can’t.  (For more details, check out Peter Kafka’s article in the Silicon Valley Insider.)

E-mail is faster and more direct. The experience is generally richer and more robust. Given the array of communication tools available, why would one choose Facebook to communicate their most important information?

From the "Everything Old is New" File

Anyone over 35 should recognize Facebook’s message interface for what it is: Message Boards.  Remember those?  Message Boards were the Web’s killer application in 1993.   Before Chat, before Instant Messaging; Message Boards allowed groups of people to hold a running conversation spanning time and distance.  Email was like an announcement; boards were a conversation.  Someone started a topic, you posted a reply, and the thread continued.   

Message Boards didn't die – they were killed.  Chat and Instant Messaging made Boards seem obsolete.  Why have a conversation that required days or weeks, when new technology allowed the talk flow in real time? All the major portals still have boards; and in most cases they're as silent as a tomb.

Facebook has added an important component.  Boards were typically open to the public, but Social Networks have added an invitation-only aspect, which makes the conversations seem personal.  Facebook messages are not just conversations, but they are personal conversations.

Here then is the critical distinction between Facebook messages and e-mail. When I'm sending invitations to my high school reunion, I use e-mail; but when I want to catch up with those old friends, I use Facebook.  Social Networks are about ongoing conversations.  Email is about direct-to-the-point communication.

When my poor divorced friend sent me his Facebook note, it was not just to tell me about his new marital status. Unlike e-mail, it was  an invitation to a conversation.  I was expected to reply.  One can even surmise that he was looking for advice or a shoulder to cry on.

Web 2.0 Busineses and Marketers Take Note

Companies wanting to build the next killer Web 2.0 application should keep the distinction in mind.  If Web 2.0 is about personal conversations, businesses should be asking “how can I better serve and encourage these conversations.”  I want this conversation to be more immersive and two-directional.  It’s personal, so allow me to ascribe personal components to the experience.  I should feel like my friend and I are in a room together, sharing an intimate conversation.

Email service providers can take a lesson, too. ESPs can improve on Social Networks if they can identify the personal relationships between their customers, then build applications that encourage and support intimacy.  Meanwhile, ESPs should acknowledge that good ol’ basic e-mail is about delivering information.  Their core products should embrace this, and provide a clear distinction between messages that are announcements and those that are invitations to personal conversations.

And finally, marketers need to look carefully when trying to infiltrate Social Networking sites.  These communications are personal by nature – and there will be backlash against marketers who use this space for purely commercial purposes.  Advertising on Social Networks is under-performing generally, and has seen significant user backlash because users view ads as an intrusion on their private interactions.  On the other hand, marketers who actually want to build conversations with their customers may be able to leverage this space to create a new kind of customer relationship.  In that strategy, Social Networks hold an untapped wealth of marketing potential.