data.insights.ideas

No comment.

May 04, 2008, 2:07pm

Totally a ZOMG for Facebook Chat.

April 18, 2008, 2:03pm

The communicative power of the Wall.

April 14, 2008, 3:02pm

When I wrote my senior thesis in college, I focused on how Facebook was changing the way we communicate on the Internet. I wanted to show how the once Harvard-only social network made rippling effects across the world, specifically in German-speaking countries. (FYI: I was a German major). Traditional (in the Web 1.0 sense of the word) news sites like derStandard.at (Austria) and Spiegel.de (Germany) provided simple mediums of communication from the publisher to the reader. These sites started to add forum and two-way functionality to their services, even utilizing Digg tools like user ratings. These “new” services did a pretty good job at evening the playing field where the publisher and reader were, at times, on the same level. Reader content was valued at the same level of publisher content.

Last night, Facebook added to their arsenal a site-wide Instant Messaging client, the Web’s synchronous communication friend. If you think about the internal history of the site, you’ll get an interesting picture of what Facebook was and what it wants to become (the De facto Web portal?):

• Wall: Having the ability to display publicly visible information and commentary on a friend’s profile page proved invaluable; however, this feature falls into the asynchronous communication.
• Messages: Like email, I can send a friend text and hyperlinks to images, videos and more text. At its heart, this forum of communication is asynchronous.
• Comments: All across the site, within Notes, Posted Items, Groups, Photos, etc, Facebook offered parties to comment on items. Once again, commenting is asynchronous.
• Instant Messaging: I use IM every day either with a designated desktop client or web-based client. For the first time (that I can recall or read), a social network is deploying a site-wide instant messaging service, and for the first time, a social network is offering synchronous communication or perceived synchronous communication.

Facebook Chat is really interesting for various reasons (especially when one takes into account the methodology presented by researches, John E. Newhagen and Sheizaf Rafaeli in a 1996 paper, “Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet”):

• The (non)-linearity of FB Chat: Compared to the Wall, Chat has some level of linearity built into it, that is, individuals typically wait for cues or signals to respond to one another.
• The sensory appeal of FB Chat: Chat sits in the bottom right corner of your browser window, allowing you to view Facebook at the same time. Additionally, your newsfeed (apparently) can be streamlined into your chat experience to create an almost physical presence with the person you’re talking to.
• The packet switching methodology of FB Chat: Just like Facebook’s other vehicles for communication, Chat allows participants to share hyperlinks and newsfeed items.
• The interactivity of FB Chat: In terms of interaction between friends in a virtual space, Chat may take the cake as prime feature and functionality of interactivity. Even the “poke” couldn’t reach this peak.

From a communications research standpoint, Chat fulfills all the right needs. I think from a monetization POV, Chat in addition to international ad-serving networks could become a beacon of hope for purebred social networks to come. More on that tomorrow…

April 07, 2008, 7:49pm