SNS: It's Not How Big, It's How You Use It

I came across a very interesting entry at Bill Burnham's blog, Burnham's Beat. Burnham is a venture capitalist and, from what I've read so far, provides a great perspective on many different topics. I was caught by his latest entry, "Social Networking: Partying Like It's 1999". Bill makes a number of well-stated arguments as to why investment, both from a personal and business case, in SNS is a thorny matter to say the least. One of the main points is that without a specific application for these systems, the weight of consumer discontent and industry heavy-weights could be enough to collapse the entire business. As he notes:

In many ways it is these “applications” that solve many of the inherent problems with social networks. Not only do they initiate the creation of social networks but they force constant interactions which provide a natural mechanism for updating and maintaining these networks. Thus, in order for online social networks to be successful, our analog experience suggests that they must be by-products of applications that provide both an impetus for the creation of the network and a mechanism for constantly updating that network.

The problem for pure-play online social networking companies is that they lack applications. In fact, many companies, such as Friendster or Orkut, seem to have no stated purpose beyond the network itself. These companies would likely maintain that “the network is the application” (in other words, that the socializing facilitated by the network is the application) and therefore they don’t have a problem, but let them fool you, they do. As pointed out earlier, social networking is inherently an intermittent and dynamic activity. Without some kind of application to force the regular use and maintenance of such networks, pure play online social networks are destined to become as stale and appealing as two week old bread.

Source: Burnham's Beat, "Social Networking: Partying Like It's 1999"

By applicaitons, I should clarify that he is not particularly referring to the software variation, but more usage scenarios that establish and feed the networks themselves. Bill's point, as I've noted in the past, is that the more work required of the user to maintain the network, the quicker the benefits deteriorate.