The Facebook Popularity Paradox

Social networks are and likely will be the most interesting Internet application for the average web user. They do all that the consumer web is supposed to do - keep us connected with friends, help us coordinate our off-line and on-line activities, and help us discover new facets of the web (through the sharing and collaboration of ideas). When Myspace.com was bought by News Corp, I did a happy dance thanks to the sudden surge in (personally held) value of Intermix stock. But clearly what Friendster started - and Myspace dramatically improved upon - Facebook has improved yet again. But there’s a funny thing about Facebook - it’s dramatically more conformist than its predecessors.

Every user of Facebook sees essentially the same management screen. Of course you can add applications (which has been essentially the competitive advantage of Facebook over rival Myspace - and frankly all the other competing “next gen” social networks). But even the applications are built around what is frankly a very rigid framework. All Facebook users are provided basically the same profile page. There isn’t even a color option. Sure you can change your picture, and you can add or subtract features from your page - but in essence Facebook is popular because of its conformity. And herein lies what I consider the paradox.

Social networks, along with blogging platforms, personal websites, Flickr accounts, et al, are supposed to provide an arena of personal expression. The web is supposed to allow all dog lovers to dress up their personal web spaces with pictures and caricatures of our four legged friends. But Facebook has - thus far - completely stopped personal customization. And the people love them for it.

Here’s my thoughts on the topic. For one - Myspace completely blew it by keeping their customization code a mysterious combination of CSS and HTML rules. Personalization for the masses involved seeking out the cottage industry of Myspace page theme sites, along with bulletin glitter and other inane “upgrades”. The page layout should have been completely modular from the beginning - and users should have been able to stay on their Myspace account to do the customization. They launched an absurdly commercialized “Theme Editor” - but last I saw you were stuck promoting your favorite upcoming 21st Century Fox film rather than tweaking the page appearance to your own desires. I went through the process of modding my Myspace profile, and frankly was frustrated with how much work it took just to put together a simple profile skin (and it’s assorted CSS code).

For two - Facebook may be in a weak position to radically alter the way people interact with others’ profiles. There’s essentially a status quo that’s been erected, and I’d be extremely surprised if the public will accept a Facebook with the buttons moved around and a color other than their baby-blue adorning the profile page. But - this might represent a significant challenge as the social networking space continues to evolve. When the next “hot” network comes out - perhaps personal expression theme & skinning options will be natively integrated. It will be part of the next culture - and probably embraced by the users from the beginning.

I have some mild personal experience with this as in 2007 I was involved in helping to create the “battle plan” for a proposed startup social network. Integral to every platform development (and even more importantly User Interface) decision was the understanding that some people will want to customize. It’s our nature. Facebook applications are a start - and Myspace’s popularity is probably still strong thanks to the huge cottage industry of Myspace customization sites. But when you consider that most people on the web are purportedly seeking a venue to express themselves - it’s surprising to me that Facebook sets such rigid design standards.

Of course, the counter-argument is equally appealing. All the experts are wrong. We’ve seen the horrors of dismal Myspace modifications that announce to the world that the owner of that profile has absolutely no perception of quality design. “Worst Myspace Pages” became a Ze Frank inside joke. It was just like when Geocities (back in the mid-late 90’s) provided personal webspace, and suddenly the notion of an animated dancing baby was accepted by hundreds (thousands?) of first-time webmasters all at once. The problem most people (especially those that have received no training in the design arts) believe that more is better. Given an unlimited palette for self-expression, these individuals run rampant, tossing design elements online with utter disregard for the fact that their dozens or hundreds of e-friends will be subjected and witnesses to their design tragedy.

The experts are wrong, in the extent that conformity - even online - is far preferred to the open path of a customized web life. The question is, will the next social network finally get these two opposed forces to live in harmony? Conformist and simple design for those that don’t want to go chopping up their lives, and a simple gateway to customization that allows even the most design-eye challenged of us to survive in the virtual world without the shame of a poorly designed social network profile page. Only time will tell, but I predict this feature-set is one of the biggest opportunities for social network contenders.