3 ms·
With social the product is always the network. If nobody uses it, the product is not better at all. It just has some nice features that would be good if a real
by pathseeker 8y ago
With social the product is always the network. If nobody uses it, the product is not better at all. It just has some nice features that would be good if a real product was there (the people).
I know it seems pedantic, but you cannot grow a social network with just a platform, despite how amazing it is. This fails time and time and time again.
You need a story that sets it apart from existing stuff that brings in people. Whether it's some disruption narrative, paying shills (a.k.a influencers), or whatever, that's what's required.
- stdbrouw 8y agoThis feels like a deliberate misinterpretation of the parent comment and therefore, yep, pedantic. It's obvious from context that they're talking about the product qua UX and features, not about the product as a whole including its user base.
- nailer 8y agoSure, but FB had a smaller network than Myspace. Instagram once had a smaller network than Flickr. They grew the network through better UX (ok it's hard to say now with their MS-Word style shotgun blast of icons, but FB was once miles ahead of MySpace).
- pathseeker 8y agoNo, FB initially grew because of exclusivity of the network. I only signed up because it was for college people only at the time. I didn't care about the interface at all, just the content and who was posting that content. It was absolutely not "myspace with an improved interface".