Gary Andrews

Monday’s Evening Standard contained a rather curious feature suggesting that Facebook was declining in popularity, while profiling the social products that could take Facebook’s place.

I say curious, because among those suggested were Instagram, the addictive fast-growing photo sharing tool, and Foursquare. Yes, Foursquare.

I suppose much depends on your definition of waning. Certainly it’s a little bit of a concern for Facebook to see 100,000 British users no longer active on the site (as opposed to quitting entirely, which Facebook makes it very hard to do), as global growth, somewhat inevitably, slows down.

But then when the company is still growing in emerging markets, has 700 million users worldwide, this number pales somewhat.

Secondly, it’s difficult to tell if this this dip is significant or the start of a long-term loss of active users, although it is the second month active users has dropped. The number of users no longer active may well decrease next month, and could be attributed to natural churn.

What the article, in a roundabout way, may do, is suggest that Facebook users use the site differently these days.

Proclaiming that Facebook is dying and a new network will take its place still feel wide of the mark.

Yes, you can point to Facebook eclipsing MySpace, but this was in the early days of social networks and before Facebook became all encompassing. It’s telling that most social sites or apps offering something that Facebook doesn’t, still offer connectivity with Facebook.

What the article does show, though, is the niche nature of the “challengers” and this is probably Facebook’s biggest weakness.

Facebook has shown us the value of browsing the web socially and, for many, has become a daily or weekly way of keeping up with friends and a social life, and for big-to-medium brands it’s a great tool. But when it comes to engaging in niche areas, the one size fits all approach that’s normally so effective for Facebook, falls down somewhat.

For small to small-to-small medium interests, websites, brands, etc, Facebook is a good news feed and traffic generator but may not necessarily be the best place to grow the community.

Certainly off Facebook you can see burgeoning communities develop, often through engagement on Twitter, as these communities look for the most effective way to get together (even if this does involve connecting to Facebook on occasions).

Facebook’s groups and fanpages are quite disparate and don’t necessarily make the easiest communities, which are often best when they grow organically.

That’s not to say it can’t, because there are some excellent groups, fan pages and communities, but if you’re really interested in something, chances are Facebook is a conduit, a means to an end, rather than that end itself.

Of the other sites profiled by the Standard as contenders for Facebook’s crown, many fulfill a service that is perhaps lacking on Facebook, or just does it better (and it’s a bit odd to see Google Places on the list).

Essentially, if we’re looking beyond Facebook – and the site will have a lifespan, although I don’t imagine it’ll collapse quite as badly or as quickly as previous competitors – we need to be thinking completely beyond what Facebook currently is.

It’s unlikely that we’ll see another social network, along the likes of Facebook and MySpace emerge. Like it or loathe it, Facebook is so firmly entrenched in our lives it would be difficult to totally shift.

But the new generation of smartphones and tablets may give us something social that we’ve not yet thought of that becomes as much a part of our day as Facebook has been. If that sounds vague, remember, 10 years ago we didn’t have any concept of Facebook or why it would become so important to us.

What’s most likely is you’ll see something new that becomes as useful as Twitter and as addictive and socially necessary as Facebook, but does something completely different, and sits neatly alongside them both, threatening their market share but also co-existing.

After all, Twitter didn’t kill or even dent Facebook. It’s unlikely Foursquare or Instagram will do either. They’re different beasts altogether, and fulfil different needs. And, ultimately, no matter how cool something is, users will go where their friends are. Because nobody likes talking alone online.

written by Gary \\ tags: Evening Standard, Facebook, Foursquare, Instagram, social networks

Twitter isn’t something everybody gets. That I appreciate. Not everybody’s going to find it immediately useful, or even particularly understand what they’re meant to do with it. Again, that’s to be expected. It’s definitely not like Facebook, which is more of an over-arching site.

But if you get Twitter and use it regularly, you’ll probably have found a use for it. That use might be making new contacts for work purposes – and getting a case study, or a story, or from a PR’s point of view, getting a brand placed somewhere. Or it could just be saying hello, chatting from time to time, and then making contact in a work capacity when necessary.

Alternatively, you could be after some information, or doing a bit of crowdsourcing. It’s surprising just how many people respond when you put a request out on Twitter.

Or perhaps you know a few people on Twitter in a personal or professional capacity and just want to make sure you keep in touch with them.

Maybe you’re just one of those people who subscribes to news feeds from your favourite newspapers, magazines and blogs, thus enabling you to get all your news in one constant stream via your Twitter feed.

Or alternatively, you could sign up, spend a couple of hours on there, not follow anybody, decide you can’t work out what on earth is going on, then write a piece for a major publication decrying it as a waste of time, like Nick Curtis did for the Evening Standard.

I think it’s safe to say Nick doesn’t get Twitter.

In fairness, Nick isn’t alone. I know a few people who’ve signed up and after a couple of hours have come to the same conclusion. Like I say, not everybody gets Twitter.

The main problem is largely not knowing who or what to follow, so if you don’t know anybody on there it can be a bit, well, pointless. But one of the joys of Twitter is once you start following a few people, most folk are reasonably friendly and chatty. And once you’ve found a few people you want to follow, it’s quite easy to go through their friends and find more people that you’re interesting.

I’m guessing Nick didn’t use Twitter search or any other of the numerous applications you can get to enhance your experience. And if you’re on there on a slow news day, chances are there won’t be any breaking news. Twitter only really springs into life on that front – both regionally and globally – when something major happens that’s worth Tweeting about.

A journalist wouldn’t phone through a story about what was going on in their street unless it was newsworthy. While there’s a fair bit of inane chatter, when something newsworthy happens, Twitter knows about it.

The answer to Nick’s question is quite clearly “No”. Twitter isn’t like Facebook, and if you sign up expecting a near-identical service (or from a sceptical mindset) then you’re probably going to struggle at first (and its worth pointing out that if Twitter was a Facebook clone, it probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as successful, or create the level of buzz that surrounds it).

So there’s only a few celebs on there (notwithstanding that Barack Obama is the second Google result for Twitter and made social media a large part of his campaign). That’s not really the point.

It’s fantastic that Stephen Fry is on Twitter – his feed is always entertaining – or that Greg Grunberg (aka Matt Parkman from Heroes) is posting pictures from the set of his TV show direct to the site. That kind of gives it a bit of geek chic.

But what’s much more noteworthy is the number of leading lights in PR, journalism and business who are increasingly viewing it as an effective way to network and get their message across.

When you’ve got three major broadcasters, the two main political parties, Richard Branson, and Mark Borkowski all Tweeting from similar hymn sheets, it’s probably worth at least spending a bit longer to investigate why Twitter is so successful.

I can appreciate why Nick Curtis may not be enamoured with Twitter. i’ve had similar conversations with other friends in the media. And, yes, they’re right in some regards – it’s not essential to be on Twitter. But if you look on it as a communication and information tool (which is essentially what it is), then it becomes a bit more useful than just another social networking tool.

Hopefully Nick won’t get flamed by angry Twitter fans, protective of their site, as that’ll probably confirm his worst fears.

What would be really great is if somebody emails him offering him to give him a quick tutorial and explanation of how to get the best out of Twitter – if he’s still not keen, that’s fair enough. Like I say, it’s not for everybody. But he may well get something out of it – after all, a fair few users now know who he is, so it’s not like he’s still coming into the conversation cold.

So, if nobody wants to offer to give Nick Curtis a Twitter 101, I’m happy to make an open offer that if he ever wants a quick tutorial, I’d be happy to show him how it works and how, as a journalist, he can get the best out of a site he’s not entirely convinced by.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Evening Standard, Nick Curtis, Twitter

From Ken Livinstone’s reader’s Q&A in the Independent:

What was your biggest mistake as Mayor?

All the big decisions we got right. Sadly I didn’t have the power to close the Evening Standard.

I think he’s joking. At least, I like to think he’s joking. I’m not entirely sure.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Evening Standard, Ken Livinstone, London Mayor