The Web 2.0 Audience: Who Are We Building For?
by
on March 05, 2008,
My favorite Web 2.0 pundit, Drama 2.0 , wrote a guest article for Mashable that's generated an interesting debate about the Web 2.0 audience. In the article, Drama 2.0 asserts that Data Portability is all about the techies. While eventually, it may end up being used by the unwashed masses, the only people clamoring for the ability to port all their data from one app to another are people who are power-users of any app to begin with. In other words, tech is becoming an inbred population that has lost site of who most application users are.
The commenters are even more vocal, especially when other services are brought up, like Passpack. I've made no secret that I'm a huge fan of Passpack. The last time I bothered to look at my number of log-ins I have saved there, I was at over 75, and those are only the userids and passwords I use for services I've signed up for to review here at Profy. I keep none of my personal log-ins or banking information there. Do I think I'm a typical user? That's doubtful; I think most average Internet citizens use far fewer applications and log into far fewer sites than someone who writes about it.
But Drama 2.0 makes an excellent point; the enormous amount of press coverage of Data Portability started with what? An incident in which Robert Scoble was trying to port contact information for over 5000 contacts out of Facebook and into Plaxo. Most people don't have nearly that number of contacts, nor change or add sites with the frequency of people immersed in Web 2.0, so the assumption is that it's not something that the regular folks would want or need, right?
I used my personal brand of scientific testing; asking “regular” web users. My college-student sitter has over 300 contacts on Facebook, and I think the majority of college students have similar contact lists. What if she wanted to move networks? Would she rather start from scratch, giving her the power to weed through that freshman roommate she'd rather forget?
The simple answer was no. She wants the ability to easily move that data to a new service if she were to move. Her rationale? People are inherently lazy. They want to be able to move quickly with the least amount of work possible. They may not be Scoble, adding service after service, but they know that people move services all the time. Wasn't there a huge migration from MySpace to Facebook? Won't a lot of college students be adding LinkedIn once they enter the workforce?
Of course, the other perspective comes from those who have no interest in it. As a cousin of mine (a recent college graduate) responded, “If you can just transfer your friend list then there is really no point in leaving facebook. Finding your friends and adding them is part of the fun.”
Yes, a lot of technology is being built for, and reviewed by, people whose lives revolve around tech. But in a lot of cases, we either underestimate or overestimate what the “average” user. Just like tech addicts, they have different feelings about Web 2.0, and want different features from it. One commenter on my Jooce review felt the app wasn't ready because it didn't provide detailed information about file types and sizes. But does everyone want that data? Unless I'm cleaning up my hard drive, I don't look at the detailed view of my documents. Tech will always filter down from the techiest down to the least tech-oriented users, but assuming what those users want without actually asking is the biggest folly of all.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
major
raj
Svetlana Gladkova
CopyrightLawSucks 
kwarren84 
Michael Fidler 
Jaime A. Restrepo 
Yolanda
Drama 2.0 is right… Much of Web 2.0, especially the “infrastructure” initiatives, are big techie circle-jerks where something being “cool” is more important than “useful” or “profitable”. Concepts like “useful” and “profitable” seem to be things that Web 2.0 companies like Twitter feel are antithetical to the whole Web 2.0 experience… Said experience will soon be akin to swirling down the drain, complete with flushing sound as the money runs out.
_”I think most average Internet citizens use far fewer applications and log into far fewer sites than someone who writes about it.”_
Indeed. There was a study done last year. It seems the average Internet goer has 25 accounts requiring a login, and just six passwords that they reuse and spread across those sites. But they do type a password 8 times a day — which is a major hassle.
You’ve got 75+ logins. Personally I have well over 200. No doubt it’s the business we’re in.
@Grendel, I think you’re generalizing. There are plenty of companies out there who’s top priority is usefulness (profitability doesn’t happen without that), thus we’re dubbed “utilites”. We don’t get the limelight, but we’re out there and our goal is to make life easier for people.
Do we always get it tight the first time? I’m sure not. But it’s a process, and the tech elite help products through that process with feedback and enthusiasm. “normal” people will benefit from that a little further on down the line.
- Tara
PassPack Founding Partner
Thanks for the plug Cyndy. I think you should ask several follow-up questions to your college-student sitter:
1. What’s the core value she perceives in Facebook? Her data (i.e. friend lists, etc.) or her friends (i.e. the ability to socialize online)?
2. If she moved to a new social network and was able to easily transfer her data, would the data be of much value if a significant number of her friends did not move to the new social network as well?
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t necessarily find fault with the data portability “vision,” but beyond the fact that it just doesn’t make sense for most companies from a business standpoint, I think that technologists are failing to make the distinction between data and interaction. While some services, like Plaxo, are essentially data warehouses, the most popular Web 2.0 services, like MySpace and Facebook, are essentially online platforms for social interaction. For these services, a fairly decent argument could be made that the network effect is probably their most valuable asset even though the data is often perceived to be a “goldmine.”
The data/content that gets stored on a social network is primarily of value to end users because it is a focal point for social interaction. Even if you can move that data and content to another service with the click of a button, you are not reasonably going to be able to easily move the people who provide that social interaction.
At the end of the day, I think data portability is overrated not because the vision doesn’t have some validity but because technologists fail to recognize the core value proposition of Web 2.0 services to mainstream users.
@Tara I totally agree! I’d be lost without you guys! And like I said, those are only my “work” log-ins. I don’t have any of my personal passwords in there (as I like to keep my personal and professional Web profiles separate to avoid confusion), which are memorized.
@Drama Actually, she and I had an interesting conversation about Facebook in particular when she was home. She’s studied abroad, and it’s definitely all about the social interactions and ability to keep in touch with people. I think it’s more about the ease with which you can move to a new service, whether as a replacement or a supplement (as in adding LinkedIn once you leave college for the business world). You may not want to link up new professional contacts to your Facebook account with your kegger pictures, but you probably want to bring your college friends into LinkedIn to keep that contact current for professional needs. Let’s face it; NotchUp got the attention that it did simply due to everyone dragging in (and subsequently inviting) their LinkedIn contacts.
I will send her a note, though, and see if she’d like to comment for herself. There’s nothing I like better than getting the young’uns’ feedback on what the old folks think is valuable to them.
I am Cyndy’s sitter and to answer your question…I use facebook to keep in touch with friends from high school that I haven’t seen in a long time, with friends I met on a study abroad experience in New Zealand who are in very different time zones, with co-workers from previous jobs, and etc. It is easier to leave messages online and look at some pictures to see what these people are up to, and I have found it is the easiest way to communicate. Also– I probably just wouldn’t move to another social network if my friends were staying with facebook becasue I use it solely for keeping in touch with my friends. I am satisfied with facebook and leaving for another would be pointless. :o)
Thanks for posting Rebecca!
Cyndy: looks like Rebecca’s comments are in line with my argument. Users aren’t going to say that they don’t want the ability to transfer their data to other services easily if presented with this option but I’d imagine that most of them would, like Rebecca, also say that the primary value they receive from services like Facebook is the social interaction, not the data. Without the former, the latter is often entirely useless.
Thus, “data portability” looks good on paper but has far less application to real world usage than its proponents would like to think.
@rebecca Thanks for stopping by!
@Drama I don’t think any end-user thinks in terms of data. Only developers think in terms of data. If they were to rename the group “People Portability” or “Friend Portability” I think they’d get more traction from the end-users.
Let’s face it; odds are something will replace Facebook that people migrate to. The social network du jour will continue to evolve and change. I think that, much like we currently import email contacts to social networks, we’ll want to continue to move that information around as new things come into play. Without some amount of portability, you are essentially locked into a service even if you want to move with little hassle. I think there is a value to it for everyone, whether you are Scoble or Rebecca. Is it a NEED? No. But like most features, it’s something that would be nice to have.
Cyndy: nobody can offer “friend portability” because you can’t control where people are going to go and which services they’ll decide to use most heavily. I can’t force my friends to stop using Facebook and to socialize with me on Virb instead.
Technology can enable the transfer of data from one service to another with one click but actually getting consumers to use a new service is not a technology problem.
I don’t doubt that large numbers of users will eventually migrate from Facebook to “the next big thing” the same way that they migrated from Friendster to MySpace. But let’s also look at “data portability” from a pragmatic business standpoint: popular services like Facebook have a distinct competitive advantage because their users can’t easily migrate away with all of their data/content. The company hasn’t raised ~$300 million at a $15 billion valuation so that it can provide users (who get to use Facebook free of charge) with an easy way to leave the service. As I said, network effects could very well be the most valuable assets popular social networks have.
Asking a company like Facebook to give its users an easy way to leave the service with everything that the service provided to them is just not realistic. Of course, many of the Web 2.0 kool aid sippers are idealists whose ideals often reflect a socialist train of thought even though many of them, ironically, are more than happy to take money from VCs to build their startups.
@Drama What do you mean “could very well be”? Network effects are the ONLY value of Facebook and the like. If your friends aren’t on there, it’s just an address book, and who needs a web site for that? If you don’t know who your friends are when you get to the other site, well… were they really your friends?
Whether and to what extent Facebook has figured out how to turn that $300 million into something that makes enough money to justify ANY valuation is another issue, but that’s just my general cynical nature.
My biggest problem with Data Portability is that it’s sucking up time and resources from things that could actually be useful to me. For example, I’ve been excited to try a Mac version of Particls since I heard about it on here, but it’s dying on the vine while Chris Saad wastes his time trying to herd cats into a standards bag…. All this while the cats are actually somewhat intelligent and know that their enlightened self interest is to stay out of the standards bag.
@ Drama I may have had a few sips of Kool-Aid, but I think that the companies who move past that “all your contacts are belong to us” mentality and take more of a synergistic approach to their users are going to be the ultimate winners. I’m still deciding what I would want portable. My LinkedIn contacts don’t match my Facebook contacts which don’t match my email contacts, which don’t all match up to my IM contacts. And then there are the folks I follow on Twitter who don’t pay me the time of day but I hang on their every word (j/k).
It would be nice to have those data sets in little compartments if I’m joining a new service where I’d want to invite writing colleagues but not tech contacts rather than importing my entire email address book or typing them by hand one at a time. I should have made one of those videos they requested, because I envision it like that shaker of different cookie toppings where I could turn the top to the set that I want.
So that long-winded reply out of the way, what if it wasn’t so much about getting your data out as putting your data IN? If all your data set(s) was/were in one place with a universal mechanism for importing by selection?