Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are growing massively worldwide. As the citizens of the social web become more addicted by the day, non-believers are increasingly concerned about the strange behaviour of family and friends. New terms like 'Twidow' (a Twitter widow) are being coined to describe the impact of their obsession.
One comment made on Twitter (by@Monibing) sums up the skeptics' point of view: "If you walked out into the street and started shouting random comments at strangers you would be deemed insane. But if you do this online it's called social networking".So the question remains: is social media basically a fad like Yo-Yos and Hula Hoops or will it become embedded in how we live - and maybe even help bring us closer to nirvana?
The short answer in my view is somewhere in between.
There is no question that many social sites have failed to live up to their initial, over-hyped expectations. Second Life is a good example (more on that later). But other sites such as Facebook are thriving.
At a recent talk I attended given by highly regarded child psychologist Louise Porter, the thought occurred to me that the staggering success of sites like Facebook may be a result of their fulfillment of a fundamental human need.
Louise presented the diagram below (which has a strong correlation with the widely studied and accepted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).
Louise described that after survival and emotional safety, children looked for belonging (connectedness, empathy, acceptance) and autonomy (choice, mastery, self-efficacy). Belonging is connected to fun, and autonomy to self-fulfillment. Both branches build the self-esteem that all humans long for. Some children had a stronger need for belonging, while others had more need for autonomy. One branch is typically stronger than the other. Louise also suggested that the basic needs of children and adults are one and the same.
It struck me immediately that the self-esteem tree was the best visual representation I had seen of the 'value proposition' of the social web. I wondered if any dotcom venture capitalist firms had ever been presented with this image, as a reason to invest in the next hot social media property?
It would not be difficult to plot the many successful social web brand logos onto this tree, each having affinity with a different branch.
Social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter are clearly the "killer apps" of connectedness and belonging. It is the legend of Facebook's early years that when it was introduced to US college students, it rapidly achieved almost 100% uptake. People just had to belong, or risk being a social outcast.
The social web provides autonomy through empowerment, and the ability for people to easily build their own personal brand. People can unleash their influence on the most powerful companies (and feel great about it!) through reviews, recommendations and referrals. Companies such as Amazon and Zappos have learned to harness this power for their own commercial gain.
Finally, back to Second Life. This much-hyped digital "Garden of Eden" most certainly provides belonging and autonomy. So why has it bombed, relative to other social networking services?
I think it's because the "time cost" and learning curve related to belonging and mastery of the site is way too high. Second Life adds back the complexity of the real world, while the simplicity of Facebook strips it away. Facebook empowers and connects the mainstream, while Second Life alienates and disempowers all but the most committed and "in the know" users.
So what does all this mean for your brand?
If you empower customers and facilitate their connection with each other, they're likely to become your advocates. If you interrupt and get in the way of their search for fun and fulfillment, you may be creating detractors who have the power to terrorise your brand online.