Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Wherefore art thou Friendster?

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070601/features-how-to-kill-a-great-idea.html

So, with all this discussion we've been having (and I imagine, will continue to have) in class about social networking, it got me to thinking: what ever happened to Friendster? Remember, the original social networking site? (Or at least the first one available to the masses, if I recall correctly). I realize I am behind the curve in researching this, as Friendster has been an afterthought for a while now, but still, I was curious. So I decided to do some detective work.

As we all know, thanks to Google, "detective work" is pretty easy these days. So, I went to Google, typed in "what went wrong with Friendster?," and found the article above (click on the link to read it). It's called "How to Kill a Great Idea" and was written by Max Chafkin for the June 2007 issue of Inc.com - and it's fascinating. Again, some of you may already know the story, if so, my apologies. But even though this isn't a current article, it's well worth reading.

When I first started thinking about what might have caused the downfall of friendster, I assumed it was likely a technical issue - that they must have just missed the boat on some kind of software that sites like MySpace and Facebook were able to capitalize on. But upon reading the article, I learned that it was not solely a software issue - while that was a part of the problem, there were a whole host of complications that added up to one big bust - in fact, the article refers to it as "the biggest tech flop since the bubble burst."

As the article outlines, there were two main issues that led to the downfall of Friendster: software issues and management disputes - particularly, conflicts between Jonathan Abrams, Friendster's founder, and the Venture Capitalists who provided the seed money. But there was a lesser, tertiary issue that was a complete surprise to me. Chafkin explains it better than I can, so check this out (direct quote from the article - Chafkin's words):

"Scant attention was paid to Friendster's users. Lunt remembers marveling sometime in early 2004 at how Friendster's traffic would mysteriously spike at 2 a.m. Intrigued, he started looking at the site's log. Oh, my God, he thought, everyone is from the Philippines. He worked backwards, looking for "patient zero"-- the first American to "Friendster" a Filipino. He found Carmen Leilani De Jesus, a 32-year-old marketing consultant and part-time hypnotherapist from San Francisco, the 91st person to join Friendster. She was directly connected to Abrams as well as to dozens of Filipinos, who'd in turn connected to thousands more. In fact, more than half the site's traffic was coming from Southeast Asia.

"From a business standpoint, the revelation was devastating. Friendster, it turned out, was paying millions of dollars a year to attract eyeballs that were effectively worthless to its advertisers. Says Abrams: "We needed to make a tough decision"-- either spin off the Asian business or become the No. 1 Filipino social network. But because the Filipino users had come by way of their American friends, there was no easy answer. If Friendster cut the cord to Asia--either by drastically cutting back on engineering resources or by kicking the Asian users off the site altogether--it risked damaging its American user base. The Carmens of the world might look for a less restrictive site."

And indeed, as Chafkin goes on to say, that is exactly what happened. By the end of 2004, after less than a year in business, MySpace had surpassed Friendster. Amazing how that one connection to a Filipino user ended up putting Friendster between a rock and a hard place, contributing to its demise, right? It's something I never would have considered and found that incredibly interesting.

Anyway, I highly suggest that you check this article out if you don't know the story of Friendster. Well-written, incredibly revealing, and entertaining. And in case any of you are worried, Jonathan Abrams, the founder of Friendster, is doing just fine, thank you very much. He owns a bar/lounge in San Francisco and has a new web venture called Socializr.

I remember right after I graduated college in 2003, sitting in my apartment in Chicago and listening to my friend Joel tell me how cool Friendster was, and how I simply had to sign up. The next day I spent 5 hours working on my profile and connecting to friends (I was unemployed at the time) and thinking "Joel was right, this Friendster thing is really great!" Amazing how much things can change in a mere 5 years. I can't even remember the last time I checked my Friendster profile. Speaking of which, maybe I'll go do that right now...except that I just got a new friend on Facebook. Sorry, Friendster. You are so 2003.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Working the network

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/14/working_the_network/?page=1

So I noticed that Geoff commented on this article from www.boston.com on his blog (http://geoffreytorrance.blogspot.com), and without being redundant, I wanted to contribute to the conversation by adding a few comments of my own.

In the discussion about employers' use of social networking sites to evaluate potential employees, we generally hear about how an employer rescinds a job offer because they found inappropriate pictures on someone's facebook page, or a disparaging remark on someone's myspace profile. We tend to react by commenting on how silly it was for that student to leave potentially damaging information on their page, and that he/she should have known better. But I think there's a flipside to it that we don't talk about enough, and it's as follows:

Not only does access to these sites allow employers to weed out potential employees, but it also allows me, as a facebook/myspace/linkedin user, to weed out potential employers. My reasoning goes like this: if I know that a company has assigned someone to execute a virtual stakeout on me and creep around my facebook page, or google my name and see what they find, is that a company I really want to to work for? Or if I learn that a company has rescinded my offer of employment because they discovered a picture of me (gasp) consuming a beer, is
that a company I want to work for? Probably not. I mean, aren't we by definition commencing our relationship with a lack of trust? When I go to an interview, my hope is that a company will make a decision about me based on what they see on my resume, what they glean from our conversation, and what they learn from my personal and professional references. If they feel they need to investigate further, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work.

Given, each side is entitled to do some research, within reason. If I am interested in a company, of course I'll likely try to talk to some people who work there, get some insider info on what it's like to be an employee there. The equation is unbalanced though, because I can't snoop onto the company's facebook page - because either they don't have one, or it's not going to reveal all that much. But they can certainly check out mine.

The caveat here is that if you're a professional, you of course need to be reasonable and make intelligent decisions about what you post on your facebook/myspace page. Those kegstand photos from that frat party in college? Probably leave them out. And the pics from spring break in Cancun? Maybe leave those off too. But if what I share on my facebook page is reasonable by my estimation, and an employer doesn't want to hire me because of it? So be it. That's not the kind of place I want to work anyhow.

Case in point: in the article on boston.com, the following story appears:

"In searching the site recently for new hires for his growing sales staff, Evan Gotlib quickly clicked past a guy who posted a photo of himself in jeans and T-shirt. 'I'm not going to hire that guy - he didn't take the time to put himself in a tie and a shirt,' says Gotlib, advertising director for IdealBite, a site that delivers daily eco tips to users."

So here an employer is making a decision based on very surface level information they found on a LinkedIn page. For all they know, this guy could be the next Bill Gates. But because they made a judgement based on his photo, they'll never know. And my guess is that Mr. jeans and T-shirt probably made a calculated decision about what to wear in his LinkedIn profile pic.

I don't intend for this to sound too much like a rant - I realize I'm going on and on here. My point is that there's a balance to be struck. I want to work for a company that recognizes that I'm a human being with a life beyond the office, and that I might, in addition to making widgets, indeed want, and need, to have fun once in a while. That's the kind of environment I'm looking for. And if an employer rejects me because they caught me doing just that in a facebook photo, well, I know the relationship was never meant to be in the first place.

Testing...

Hey everyone, this is Jonah and this serves as my test blog....