According to 160Characters, “A study suggests that over 70 percent of social network users said they wouldn’t join a social network launched by their mobile service provider.”
A couple of thoughts here. I’d hoped that by this point, operators have figured out they can’t launch their own walled-garden social services that are only open to their customers. I think they have, to a large extent, as we’re even seeing some operator-based social nets tear down their walls and work together. A phone that could only call or text other phones on the same network wouldn’t be of much value; why would a social network be any different? People don’t choose their friends on the basis of the mobile operator they use.
Second, when the social-networking scene is dominated by extremely popular internet brands (be it Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn), why would a user want to try to build up and maintain a presence on an mobile-only operator-limited service with a small group of users, as opposed to use their existing social networks on their mobile? The process here shouldn’t be for operators to try to develop or deploy their own networks and steal away users from Facebook or another site; it should be to better integrate the social networks their users are already a part of with the inherent social features of the mobile phone.
I take your point carlo, but in the case of eyevibe (refenced in your link ‘tear down the walls’ here were two communities that were already alive and kicking in the mobile space. And they were doing well precisely because they were designed for mobile first. I don’t have the up-to-date stats, but Russell B referred to MySpace having a puny 450k uk users on mobile last year while the likes of itsmy and pepperonity cruised over the million mark. At its simplest… is this still about horses for courses?
Not all the world (and definitely those parts of the world that are pushing the mobile subscribers to over 2 billion) has always on high-speed broadband connection. For many the mobile Internet is the Internet and MySpace and Facebook are irrelevant as David C points out there are mobile only social networks that have millions of regular users.
There are opportunities for mobile service providers both with the Facebook’s and MySpace’s as well as to build their own mobile communities. This is not an either or choice; one should not exclude the other. The user will choose and may well choose to do both.
Carlo,
Defenitely no use to go down the walled garden/closed network path. I trust MNO’s not to do this mistake
I beg to differ on the only path being integrate to the big web brands, FB et al. That is one route absolutely, and maybe where the MNO’s care to focus and also can add some.
Just as David W points out here above it is not and either or question. There is a massive user base that the big web brands never reach. The “mobile only” Internet generation is a great source to tap both in mature and less mature mobile markets. India and South Africa are two instant and often quoted examples. We have seen this from own experience as well.
Since this is my first comment here at MobHappy I just wanted to give you a high-five for good and observant writing. Keep up the good work! Thanks!
Thanks for the good comments. Interesting points about mobile-only communities, particularly in emerging markets. The point I was trying to emphasize was that social networks with a limiting feature as arbitrary as a user’s choice of mobile operator don’t stand a great chance. The ones David C cites, like itsmy and Peperonity aren’t limited by operator, nor is Trutap. I think that we could debate what made Eyevibe such a big hit, but I think it’s got more to do with its video content and its payment model than its social features — but I think the move to link their networks underlines my point to a certain extent, in that the bigger the network, the more value it will have.
The problem the operators face is that if they choose to partner with the web brands, it takes them 6 months to spot the latest cool one…. then 3 months to negotiate with them… and then another 6 months to launch a mobile-optimised version.
But unfortunately, the current “coolness” lifespan of any one site on the web seems to be about 12 months, before all the ultracool kids get bored & churn to the newest trendiest sites without all the late-adopting numpties…..
I mean, is anyone still actually using FaceBook?
Dean