Clive Thompson’s comments on the size of social media (Wired, Feb 2010) are insightful . While convention demands that larger the population size, greater the value of your network, Clive does raise a very valid point that as size increases the social aspect of the network is reduced and the system moves into a more conventional broadcast process. Discussions do not maintain the same pace and emotion as a group gains in size. The point that socializing does not scale is very important as you plan your social media strategy.
A large network is not conducive to conversation. Image: Helen Yentus-JasonBooher/Wired
While Clive’s comments center around population size, he does acknowledge the difference between “digital Oprahs” and non-celebrities. With celebrities, even though there might be a perception of intimacy, the reality is that conversation is not expected. However, if the social network for a non-celebrity (either a person or a business) keeps growing and as discussions dim, there is a good chance that the social network will get stuck in a rut: it may not foster the cross-traffic typical of a small group and also fall short of the the scale relevant to a broadcast environment.
The fact that conversations become self-limiting as the size of the group grows is well made. It is but natural that we are more likely to censor ourselves in direct proportion to the size of the audience.
Clive inquires if we should design tools that reward obscurity – tools that help us to maintain the critical mass to enable conversation to thrive. I do not think it is as much about the tools, as it is the way we measure our social network performance. While there may be a place for celebrity-oriented social networks, which are just another form of broadcasts, the overall majority of social networks are organized as platforms for conversation. The success of a social media network should therefore be determined by the frequency and number of posts from the audience.
So, should we lock down a network when it grows to a certain size? I do not think there is a need to necessarily lock it down, as much as to investigate the option of spawning a “sub-group”. As your group grows and you notice that conversations are dropping off , it may be time to explore your network and see if may not help to start another network that can target a specific area of interest and therefore help maintain a network that thrives with conversation.
The point that we should not just focus on size and recruiting, but also measure the actual conversations is well made and something all organizations and people should consider as they launch a social medial initiative.
