WTF is Online

 Growth

click to view animated image

I have spent a good amount of time looking online for an accurate and fact-based forecast on social media properties. Unfortunately, most of what I have found is conjecture, trends and/or opinion-based information with little or not historical or empirical data to back it up. So how do you forecast something that doesn’t have much of a history or hasn’t even matured enough to build a model around? You start by looking at what has gone full-circle and then step back and look at how the current properties trend against historical data.

Let me put this into context; I am not going to actually forecast specific dates, times or outcomes of companies. I will give you access to the data for your interpretation, opinion, feedback and maybe your predictions.

My numbers are based on Google Insights. I opted to use this method because using the number of subscribers, page views or unique visitors can all be misleading (yes, I know, so can Insights). But I am a member of almost every single one of these sites and I regularly visit only about five of them. I also wanted a metric that skewed away from geeks and I know we don’t type URLs, search terms or sites into Google to find something and a lot of lay-people do.  Debate-away but it is a solid trending metric, although from a single search engine.

Here is what I noticed, it’s fairly obvious, from the data; which all started when I noticed the similarity between the Technology Adoption Lifecycle (developed by Joe M. Bohlen, George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers at Iowa State University) and companies like Digg, Meebo, Bebo, Hi5, Friendster and the once behemoth MySpace.

1.  Social networks are not the only online properties that tend to follow the Technology Adoption Lifecycle. I selected a few major properties to see if they trended similar to social networks and although most of the ones I selected did not follow the bell-curve, they did have similarities (coming up…)
2. The Technology Adoption Lifecycle, for unsustainable companies spans between 5 and 7.5 years. “Unsustainable” is a subjective term and can be debated, as can why or how they became such.
3. The Technology Adoption Lifecycle standard curve does NOT apply to those companies providing a value-added service as long as they remain competitive or host content that is of value to it’s users.
4. Sustainable companies seem to have a 30-40% drop from peak and then plateau into a sustainable, longer-term business.
5. There are a substantial number of companies continuing to climb or who are at their peak, including but not limited to:
   • Engadget.com
   • Mashable.com
   • Google News
   • Foursquare.com
   • YouTube.com
   • Yelp.com
   • Twitter.com
   • Facebook.com
   • Tumblr.com
   • Reddit.com
   • StumbleUpon.com
   • LinkedIn.com
   • MailOnline.com
   • GoWalla.com (they may be on decline but I think it’s too early)
   • MyLife.com (current business model seems to put them in decline but too early to tell)
6. A double-peak is possible (see Google Orkut, likely a result of globalization)
7. Size doesn’t matter; MySpace is the most obvious example but it isn’t the user-base that determines destiny. The product, user-base, value added offerings and demand are also large factors.
8. It’s still early. I tend to think that social networks will ebb and flow in 7-10 year cycles. No teenager wants to use or be on the same social network as their parents but everyone tends to hold on to those things that work and tend to improve to their liking.
9. Jumping the shark is bad but not devastating – sites that drop 30-40%, usually due to something they did or had done to them, either results in finding a niche or dropping off the map.
10. Google Plus is too young to start planning for its future. I love Google Plus but I also know that it’s too young to forecast it’s future at this time. Let’s talk when it turns one.

 SustainingClick to view animated image

Declining

click to view animated image

For those of you who enjoy doing math in your spare time, feel free to hit WolframAlpha and plug in your normal distribution forecasting estimates to predict the future or longevity of your favorite social network or sites.

I have been an internet professional for over 16 years and I have learned that the growth and maturity of the internet is cyclical, often predictable and continually becoming more refined. The longer the internet exists and is a part of our culture, workflow and method of communication, the less we tend to ebb and flow between what is new and shiny and the more we tend to attach to what works and is  ’standard’ among us.

Much like our dependence on Microsoft; online, we have come to accept some inferior solutions for our online experience simply because the masses have adopted them. Fortunately, and unlike our operating system and office productivity bond, our online bond seems to have a much looser grip and tends to be largely a generational and (content) hosting preference.

Download an excel doc. containing some of the chart data.

Before I start let me say that I agree with both the FDA and FTC (the big Fs), that companies need to improve their disclosure and honesty in packaging/labeling. I also completely agree with their initiative for bloggers and websites to disclose when they are getting free or paid samples from companies (as an endorsement or not) so readers know that there was a gift or transaction involved in the post.

Let me also disclaim that I am currently employed by one of the companies effected by these broad-reaching initiatives, although our upper management and lawyers have kept me out of it, thankfully.  This is not a company-sponsored, encouraged or sanctioned post.  This is my opinion and my opinion only.

Here is where the existence of social media is in serious jepeordy:

FTC.gov Online Endorsement Guidelines

“The Commission intends to treat endorsements and testimonials identically in the context of its enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act and for purposes of this part. The term endorsements is therefore generally used hereinafter to cover both terms and situations.”

FTC Warning Letter to 17 Companies

One of the 17 companies was specifically targeted for pure customer testimonials on their site (I wonder who’s lobbying was able to do that, only one of the 17?  Hmmmmm).

Let me restate.  I completely agree with fixing all of the mislabeling and dishonest labeling and hope that all companies will be honest about what they are putting in products we buy.

Here is where social media will die…the first time

If a consumer can be held liable, as the FTC says, for anything they say if they are given a product either for free or paid.  Then any comment you make after going to any big-box store, your local grocer or an event where you try a sip, taste or freebie will make you completely liable for anything you say about it.  What happens if you go to dinner at a friends house who forges steal for a company that makes pots/pans that made the perfect meal you just ate, do you need to disclose everything you ate, the brand of ingredients and everything associated with it or you might get sued?  The short answer is no.  But the issue is a very slippery slope and both the FTC and FDA are starting to hop on the slide.  Yes, I’m being ridiculous but my point is, there is a very fine line between keeping companies and the online community honest and making it impossible for everyone to do anything online for fear of the big F’s coming after them with unlimited consumer funding (because we all know they don’t care about how much it costs…us).

The second death of social media

The minute the big Fs (or big pharmaceutical lobbyists) are able to stop consumers from being able to voice their OPINIONS or FEELINGS is the minute we can all stop believing or hoping.  You see a testimonial is not scientific, it is not studied, researched, scrutinized or proof that anything will work, cure, save or solve any problem.  Testimonials are OPINIONS and FEELINGS by someone who had an experience with or about something.  Often times, testimonials are simply the only hope we have because research and corporations (pharma, usually) have failed or priced things out of reach and we have no other hope. For the big Fs to say that all humans treat testimonials with the same weight as medical research is presumptuous and an insult to everyone’s intelligence. I’d like to see how the study was done, who funded it, who lobbied to have the study done (who funded that) and exactly what the study questions and options to answer were. It’s quite easy for companies and/or the government to create survey’s, studies or research that produces the results they (or lobbyist) want.  It’s MUCH harder to produce a product that someone purchases themselves or tries at a friends house or in a big-box store, grocery store or at an event and believes in it enough to tell others…without compensation!

Compensated or implied-compensation testimonials are something totally different. I agree those should be disclosed. I’m talking about a pure testimonial, comment, post or article. If free sampling in stores or anywhere else can produce testimonials that hold both the consumer and company liable…how long will they last?  Who wants to get sued by the big Fs every time they do sampling because someone may find they liked the product or had a great experience with it?

I find the general premise of the FTC & FDA actions spot-on. The scope, reach and potential power of these actions is what I find disturbing.  So far I’m going to have faith that they’ll do the right thing and that they won’t over-reach either of their bounds and destroy social media for everyone.

I wouldn’t wait for my testimonial though. I’m going to hold out and see what the data and their track record show because  this is the health of the internet we’re talking about and nobody is lobbying me.

DISCLAIMER: The internet, myself, or any of you will not, would not, might not and/or can not become healthy by reading this. None of the claims made here are made by me, supported by me or  encouraged by me. This is for research and educational purposes ONLY, eating this article will not prevent anything, will make you gain weight and may force you to seek medical attention.

DISTURBING CONTRADICTIONS

Major Contradiction by the Big Fs Shows A Concern For Lobbyists NOT Consumers

Why aren’t the Big Fs submitting the same complaints to their own sister agencies making similar claims encouraging consumers to buy/consume these products (and these aren’t testimonials, some aren’t even  study-based) ?  Here are just a few examples:

1)  Department of Health & Human Services (referencing a CDC study): “Eating lots of fruits and vegetables is important for healthy weight and prevention of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. And kids get better growth with enough fruits and vegetables.”  http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/12/20091202a.html

2)  Center for Disease Control (there are pages of supporting studies and statements on this site): “Epidemiologic evidence supports an association between diet and several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and several types of cancer (1-6).”  http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2006/apr/05_0146.htm

3) U.S. Department of Agriculture: “Fiber, fruit and vegetable consumption may help prevent cancer…The consumption of vegetables and fruit has always been seen as health-promoting. Historically, particular fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent or cure ailments ranging from headaches to heart disease. Studies spanning several decades have shown that people who eat a wide variety of vegetables and fruits have a lower incidence of many types of cancer than people who do not.”  http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=10899

4)  The U.S. Surgeon General: “In contrast, consumption of fruits and vegetables in place of high calorie foods may reduce the risk for obesity and help sustain weight loss because the body’s sense of fullness at meals is partly regulated by volume. Fruits and vegetables contain few calories and are bulky foods, so they have a low caloric density and are more filling than fast foods.”  http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/obesityvision/obesityvision2010.pdf

5) U.S. Public Health Service (part of Department of Health & Human Services): “It is estimated that as much as 50 percent or more of cancer can be prevented through smoking cessation and improved dietary habits, such as reducing fat consumption and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption.[7], [8] Physical activity and weight control also can contribute to cancer prevention.[9], [10]”  http://www.usphs.gov/corpslinks/pharmacy/phpharm/hpcancer.html