MySpace
I read a technical article recently that detailed the steps to take in order to eliminate a MySpace profile. I had not considered my account in some time; it's under a fictional character's name and the picture is a cat - I only opened an account so I could follow my nephew's activity. Anyway, the gist of that article was many people have outgrown the use for MySpace. MySpace was the premier social network for years. However, Facebook is superior and I found a detailed analysis showing the assention of Facebook over MySpace occurred in the middle of 2008 and trends to separate further.
I thought about the reasons why the change is user and what MySpace got wrong. The coding on Facebook seems better - users could block individuals and applications fairly easily. It was also easier for MySpace users to create profile pages with multiple annoyances; loud music, offensive imagery, quirks and entire sections can be made illegible by coding quirks or background imagery. In contrast Facebook looked smooth and the majority of pages were designed for viewing ease. Using the W3C HTML validator I found 195 errors & 113 warnings for the MySpace homepage. In contrast facebook has 43 errors and no warnings. The availability of third party applications on Facebook spawned a vast array of free games, that's possibly the main advantage over MySpace (one game, Farmville, has more users than the oft referenced Twitter).
The demographic base of users tends to be older on Facebook, which arose from it originating as a college alumni network. So the network that once was used to share embarrassing college party pictures has grown to become the network used to share funny pictures of your children. Grandparents seeking access to the site their children quickly post picture of their grandchildren followed.
Why did MySpace not capitalize on it's dominant share? I think it was the coding flaws in MySpace, slow pace to change or upgrade, and the competition finally provided a superior social networking website. It's hard to not wonder if the change in ownership in 2005 from a smaller group to one of the world's largest media conglomerations: News Corporation (parent company to 20th Century Fox films, Fox television channels, The Wall Street Journal, and HarperCollins books, among its many holdings). CEO Rupert Murdoch is quoted at the time of acquisition; "God knows what we’re going to do with MySpace. We’re just discovering what this thing can do." Conversely, Facebook remains privately held with the originally founder still calling the shots. That recipe almost guaranteed MySpace would freeze in 2005 and be slower to evolve whereas Facebook would update as often as the computer programmers at the helm decided. What likely happened is a frequent business mistake - following the path of success to it's logical conclusion. Managers at corporations are rewarded for delivering results, such as the growth of MySpace from 2005 through 2007. However managers are not typically rewarded for challenging a successful strategy and freezing operations simple invites competitors to provide a better level of service since the frozen company stopped pursuing improvements. Online this can be only days, due to speed and breadth of information transfer in the consumer base. MySpace might consider itself lucky to have not been obliterated by multiple social networks filling multiple niches. MySpace had changed and almost all adaptations appear incarnations of Facebook features mimicked. It appears the management decisions are to not risk existing structures despite their flaws and bolt on features that users appreciate in other sites. Looking from the outside in this is all conjecture but I cannot help but think MySpace's new owners either lacked the technical awareness to pursue enhancements or lacked the fortitude to challenge superiors (like Murdoch himself) on the need to develop upgrades. Resources, time, and money are required for developing enhancements and it is probable the corporate structure simply did not weigh the benefits greater than the costs. The net result is a Facebook replicate with inherent flaws remaining and nothing to suggest a return to prominance.
I thought about the reasons why the change is user and what MySpace got wrong. The coding on Facebook seems better - users could block individuals and applications fairly easily. It was also easier for MySpace users to create profile pages with multiple annoyances; loud music, offensive imagery, quirks and entire sections can be made illegible by coding quirks or background imagery. In contrast Facebook looked smooth and the majority of pages were designed for viewing ease. Using the W3C HTML validator I found 195 errors & 113 warnings for the MySpace homepage. In contrast facebook has 43 errors and no warnings. The availability of third party applications on Facebook spawned a vast array of free games, that's possibly the main advantage over MySpace (one game, Farmville, has more users than the oft referenced Twitter).
The demographic base of users tends to be older on Facebook, which arose from it originating as a college alumni network. So the network that once was used to share embarrassing college party pictures has grown to become the network used to share funny pictures of your children. Grandparents seeking access to the site their children quickly post picture of their grandchildren followed.
Why did MySpace not capitalize on it's dominant share? I think it was the coding flaws in MySpace, slow pace to change or upgrade, and the competition finally provided a superior social networking website. It's hard to not wonder if the change in ownership in 2005 from a smaller group to one of the world's largest media conglomerations: News Corporation (parent company to 20th Century Fox films, Fox television channels, The Wall Street Journal, and HarperCollins books, among its many holdings). CEO Rupert Murdoch is quoted at the time of acquisition; "God knows what we’re going to do with MySpace. We’re just discovering what this thing can do." Conversely, Facebook remains privately held with the originally founder still calling the shots. That recipe almost guaranteed MySpace would freeze in 2005 and be slower to evolve whereas Facebook would update as often as the computer programmers at the helm decided. What likely happened is a frequent business mistake - following the path of success to it's logical conclusion. Managers at corporations are rewarded for delivering results, such as the growth of MySpace from 2005 through 2007. However managers are not typically rewarded for challenging a successful strategy and freezing operations simple invites competitors to provide a better level of service since the frozen company stopped pursuing improvements. Online this can be only days, due to speed and breadth of information transfer in the consumer base. MySpace might consider itself lucky to have not been obliterated by multiple social networks filling multiple niches. MySpace had changed and almost all adaptations appear incarnations of Facebook features mimicked. It appears the management decisions are to not risk existing structures despite their flaws and bolt on features that users appreciate in other sites. Looking from the outside in this is all conjecture but I cannot help but think MySpace's new owners either lacked the technical awareness to pursue enhancements or lacked the fortitude to challenge superiors (like Murdoch himself) on the need to develop upgrades. Resources, time, and money are required for developing enhancements and it is probable the corporate structure simply did not weigh the benefits greater than the costs. The net result is a Facebook replicate with inherent flaws remaining and nothing to suggest a return to prominance.
respond or e-mail this post:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home