Sometimes not all chickens or eggs are equal and its not just the amount of each but the specific identity of which chicken or which egg... If that makes any se

Sometimes not all chickens or eggs are equal and its not just the amount of each but the specific identity of which chicken or which egg... If that makes any sense. Not sure if a sports example will fly on HN but here goes: So, let's say you wanted to create a platform/network for High-School athletes to connect with and get recruited by college coaches. The Athlete can post highlight video, stats, info, etc to gain exposure. Coaches can view these, interact with and find athletes that usually would not be on their radar. With that as an example you can see where the “general” network externalities model assumptions fail. (where simply the number of and not the individual identities of other adopters matter) In recruiting there are the athletes who are actively recruited and need not compile their own game film and make/post highlights because coaches have long had them on their radar and will acquire these things on their own. They do not need the network as much as lesser athletes and may actually be hurt by it. Then there are the majority of high school athletes that may have the talent to play at the next level, be it Div I or III, or even at non scholarship offering institutions. For these athletes an “Identity-specific” network externalities model is more congruent. In this model each user's benefit is a function of the identities of those who adopt. A lesser athlete's benefit derived from the network would be positive/increasing when an athlete of higher status adopts the network, and negative when someone of lower status adopts. Then when you to the sport-specific recruiting differences, football/basketball vs lacrosse/soft-ball,.also hockey and baseball being a whole different animal with the inclusion of pro team scouting into the high school athletic experience. Anyways, just a thought, another layer to contemplate