We all* know about bars/clubs/etc. that went from being THE place on X night to closing up in a matter of three or four years. The local paper (Cleveland) feat

We all* know about bars/clubs/etc. that went from being THE place on X night to closing up in a matter of three or four years. The local paper (Cleveland) featured an interview with a club owner who was closing up a location that, only three years earlier, was a favorite spot of LeBron James and was packed several nights a week. Instead of complaining about his change in fortune, he proposed that this is the natural cycle of the club scene. As places get more popular, they become less exclusive and convey less social status on their patrons. So, those people with the most social status are courted elsewhere, and the masses again follow. The cycle repeats. Freakonomics noted that baby names are usually introduced by wealthier folks and later adopted by poorer people. At that point, they are shunned by the wealthy. Is there a reason that social networking sites should not exhibit similar patterns? Quite a few articles have been written about how the cool kids went to FB first. Are we simply witnessing the expected? * Even if you hate going to these places, you probably are still aware of them.