4 ms·

What I find most interesting in all of this is how they're positioning the product. From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are

What I find most interesting in all of this is how they're positioning the product. From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are targeting a much younger demographic, probably ideally around age 17 and heading off to University. A system that will keep someone who has never been away from home in touch with their family, their old friends and their new friends - something to make them feel more in touch and connected. Basically target the demographic that Facebook was originally built for. Google tried a similar messaging system, as many suggest (Wave), but they positioned it for the enterprise/business customer. Perhaps the wrong demographic, maybe Facebook gets it right?

nickbarnwell 16y ago
>From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are targeting a much younger demographic, probably ideally around age 17 and heading off to University. This is correct. I am the only person I can think of in my school that uses email as their primary means of contact. May have something to do with my largest customers being email addicts, but I prefer it to SMS or phone calls. >Google tried a similar messaging system, as many suggest (Wave), but they positioned it for the enterprise/business customer. Perhaps the wrong demographic, maybe Facebook gets it right? I always thought of Wave as targeted towards developers and their ilk, and were hoping for something similar to the adoption and creation of mashups that they saw with Google Maps. Unfortunately, they didn't provide any easy way to do this and the product tanked, but it was great when I used it. It didn't help that their was no way to receive notifications other than going to Wave itself; maybe something like email would've been a help...
joe_the_user 16y ago
There's delicate balancing act involved in deciding how much interaction and how much commitment you want to have and to allow on a social networking site. Targeting, youth, a group happy to send each a hundred messages a day, can keep others away from you (and I suspect that there's point where the even youth "graduate" out of the ultra-social-ness involved in making a hundred messages a day). I think Facebook succeed by being something you don't have to use much. I joined Facebook at much for the contacts who almost never use Facebook as for the people who are always on it. The thing is that the people who are always on Facebook can actually drive the light-users off. Facebook now filters people's post so you don't notice the hundred-posts-a-day-guy. But Facebook won't be able to filter messages similarly because both send then receiver need some way to be sure important messages get through. (hmm, it occurs to me Facebook was able to dodge "The Spam Question" earlier but now it's bitten off this big problem - ie, the problem of deciding what's a real, important message from someone across the world from you - something non-teenagers have to deal with semi-regularly).
ewjordan 16y ago
From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are targeting a much younger demographic, probably ideally around age 17 and heading off to University. This is a dangerous game, targeting the youth - they're not very sticky, and it's hard to lure the next generation in when the last generation is sitting there making your service look uncool. If anything, I'd say going after the kids is most effective for a new service, because it will pull the adults in later; going the other way is tough. My generation saw the cycle play out twice already, with AOL and MySpace: "Wow this is cool, check it out!" to "Sweet, everyone's on here!" to "Hmm, my sixty year old aunt twice removed just sent me a message...that's kind of strange" to "Really, you still have an account there?". Now, maybe Facebook will be stickier because it's reached such critical mass, but I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on it - the behind-the-times folks are almost all signed up and spamming friend requests to everyone they know, parents are insisting that their kids friend them, and a lot of the early adopters of my generation are getting disgruntled, wishing that they weren't forced to use Facebook just because everyone else does. I can't help but wonder if there might just be a natural ebb and flow from one new social network juggernaut to the next, as the last winner begins to suck more and more due to its unchecked growth...

nickbarnwell 16y ago

>From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are targeting a much younger demographic, probably ideally around age 17 and heading off to University. This is correct. I am the only person I can think of in my school that uses email as their primary means of contact. May have something to do with my largest customers being email addicts, but I prefer it to SMS or phone calls. >Google tried a similar messaging system, as many suggest (Wave), but they positioned it for the enterprise/business customer. Perhaps the wrong demographic, maybe Facebook gets it right? I always thought of Wave as targeted towards developers and their ilk, and were hoping for something similar to the adoption and creation of mashups that they saw with Google Maps. Unfortunately, they didn't provide any easy way to do this and the product tanked, but it was great when I used it. It didn't help that their was no way to receive notifications other than going to Wave itself; maybe something like email would've been a help...

joe_the_user 16y ago

There's delicate balancing act involved in deciding how much interaction and how much commitment you want to have and to allow on a social networking site. Targeting, youth, a group happy to send each a hundred messages a day, can keep others away from you (and I suspect that there's point where the even youth "graduate" out of the ultra-social-ness involved in making a hundred messages a day). I think Facebook succeed by being something you don't have to use much. I joined Facebook at much for the contacts who almost never use Facebook as for the people who are always on it. The thing is that the people who are always on Facebook can actually drive the light-users off. Facebook now filters people's post so you don't notice the hundred-posts-a-day-guy. But Facebook won't be able to filter messages similarly because both send then receiver need some way to be sure important messages get through. (hmm, it occurs to me Facebook was able to dodge "The Spam Question" earlier but now it's bitten off this big problem - ie, the problem of deciding what's a real, important message from someone across the world from you - something non-teenagers have to deal with semi-regularly).

ewjordan 16y ago

From what I understand they're not targeting die hard email users, they are targeting a much younger demographic, probably ideally around age 17 and heading off to University. This is a dangerous game, targeting the youth - they're not very sticky, and it's hard to lure the next generation in when the last generation is sitting there making your service look uncool. If anything, I'd say going after the kids is most effective for a new service, because it will pull the adults in later; going the other way is tough. My generation saw the cycle play out twice already, with AOL and MySpace: "Wow this is cool, check it out!" to "Sweet, everyone's on here!" to "Hmm, my sixty year old aunt twice removed just sent me a message...that's kind of strange" to "Really, you still have an account there?". Now, maybe Facebook will be stickier because it's reached such critical mass, but I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on it - the behind-the-times folks are almost all signed up and spamming friend requests to everyone they know, parents are insisting that their kids friend them, and a lot of the early adopters of my generation are getting disgruntled, wishing that they weren't forced to use Facebook just because everyone else does. I can't help but wonder if there might just be a natural ebb and flow from one new social network juggernaut to the next, as the last winner begins to suck more and more due to its unchecked growth...