A VC« NBBC | Main | Could Post Roll Command Higher CPMs Than Pre Roll? »
MySpace is the AOL of Social Media/Web 2.0
Ross Mayfield said at the Web 2.0 conference last year that "web 2.0 is about people".
He's right. What's really happening, to steal a phrase from my partner Brad Burnham, is that the Internet is being reconstructed around people instead of pages/content.
In the web 1.0 world, AOL tried to build a walled garden around it's content. Yahoo!, Google, and others went the open web way. We saw who won that war.
I've said several times in this blog that MySpace is the "AOL of blogging". I see blogging as the most open form of social media so that's why I used that term. MySpace made it simple and necessary for people to have a place on the web that represents them, the people they like, the things they like, etc. And MySpace took off for several reasons, but one of them certainly was the flexibility that people had in changing their pages and putting whatever they wanted on them. The people who use MySpace for their social media platform will be able to leave it for a blog or some other form of social media, if not today, then certainly tomorrow.
Now that they have attained the status as the leading social media platform, News Corp/MySpace is talking about changing the deal. Peter Chernin said:
“If you look at virtually any Web 2.0 application, whether its YouTube, whether it’s Flickr, whether it’s Photobucket or any of the next-generation Web applications, almost all of them are really driven off the back of MySpace.”
and regarding YouTube in particular:
“Given that most of their traffic comes from us,” he said, “if we build adequate if not superior competitors, I think we ought to be able to match them if not exceed them.”
The big question is whether MySpace will simply try to build better social media applications (like YouTube) or if they will also impair other social media applications ability to operate in MySpace. If they take the former approach and keep MySpace open to all, then that's terrific.
But if they take the latter approach and start limiting the ability of others to "drive off the back of MySpace" then they will be sowing the seeds of MySpace's decline. The web values openness over everything else. It always has and always will.
I am not the only one talking about this issue. Here are some other links worth reading on this topic.
Comments (14) | Posted September 13, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
MySpace should think of themselves as the Social OS of the web. They are the platform. Applications get built on top of them.
Those applications can be their own or can be others, but the key to a strong OS is the hundreds of apps that people bolt on top of it.
I agree with you -- they need to make sure they allow that innovation to happen on top of their platform. Otherwise it will happen off of it.
Posted by: Shri | Sep 13, 2006 10:13:54 AM
The first time I heard you say "MySpace is the AOL of blogging" (wrt bringing community/social networks/... easily to the masses) a few months ago I thought it was an accurate observation.
It's interesting that we're now starting to see MySpace potentially go down a short-term protective path of wall building.
I bet that MySpace closes their network at a rate proportional to the improvement/development in technology and features that facilitate community building in a dispersed network free from a central hub (blogs, etc.).
And "sowing the seeds of their decline" is accurate. A smart guy once spoke of the 10 year decline of AOL analogously to the decline that can be expected from currently popular (and closed) social network sites.
The question that is fun to think about is how often, and when, will MySpace catalyze their own decline through 1.0 thinking?
Posted by: Fraser | Sep 13, 2006 11:14:43 AM
Fred - I think you're off on this one. Google built a video section, a price comparison section, finance, etc. They are aggressive in adding more features and services and encouraging people to use theirs instead of thei competitors.
I won't even go into how many features and services Yahoo has rolled out to capture more users (dating, photos..)
I think it's natural to want to increase what you can offer your users. Unlike AOL, MySpace users are free to choose which service they ultimately end up using - which may or may not be the myspace apps. (They are also much, much more tech savvy, unlike the typical AOL user.)
I think the analogy sounds cool to say "MySpace = AOL 2.0", but can not be logically supported by the facts.
Posted by: TheRealist | Sep 13, 2006 11:17:42 AM
In case the mention of the Web 2.0 conference piqued your interest and you are thinking about attending the upcoming one in November, may I recommend The Register’s most excellent editorial of O’Reilly’s new conference registration policy.
Here’s my follow-up: If you want to have a private event or semi-private event, send out invitations to the people you want to attend and don't advertise it as a public conference. If the event is sold out, mark it as such on your website. A velvet rope policy for invitations works great for L.A. nightclubs but it downright insulting to industry professionals and only serves to piss people off. Isn’t a walled garden around a conference very un-web 2.0 like? Just because O’Reilly coined a phrase based on an observation of what other people are creating doesn’t mean that he has a vision or is driving the industry. The future of Web 2.0, 3.0 and beyond is being shaped by people who won’t be at his exclusive events.
Posted by: Mitch Rubin | Sep 13, 2006 11:18:58 AM
Fraser - saying a company will decline due to 1.0 thinking makes no sense at all. Absolutes are never the answer - Web 1.0 companies are kicking ass today.
Also try to keep in mind that 90%+ of web users have no idea what 2.0 is (and I would wager neither do any of us:)
Posted by: TheRealist | Sep 13, 2006 11:20:23 AM
I couldn't agree more. I worked from AOL from 2000-2004 and when i first got there there they spoke of doing this exact "walled-garden" approach in that they would look at where the traffic was coming from and going to from the portal. That data would then be used to determine what programming should be added - sports, travel, gossip, Love@AOL, etc.
Obviously this didn't work out as you can't be all things to all people and unless you can put out a best in class product people will go elsewhere. Look at AOL now - almost all their products (email, AIM, maps, programming) are second tier. If you spread yourself too thin, you'll end up losing the people who made you what you are.
If MySpace closes themselves off to the entire world of business and widgets, only bad things will happen. And ths overall arrogrance doesn't help either.
One interesting thing to note is that this is the same tactic that Facebook is using. They built thier own photo service (which is quite innovative btw) and haven't allowed videos or much customization and people still love it. The difference for me is that Facebook has a track record in executing on new features and functionality whereas MySpace doesn't. In fact, all their features seem fairly shoddy
Posted by: Mike Lewis | Sep 13, 2006 11:23:58 AM
My big thing about MySpace is how crappy the page load time is and how lame the UI is. It would be a shame if this became the model of Web 2.0, considering how lousy its performace is.
Posted by: Ruben | Sep 13, 2006 11:46:17 AM
Perhaps MySpace should take a page out eBay's "how to play the Internet game" playbook. If you recall, when they acquired Billpoint, they didn't prevent merchants fm using Paypal but instead tried to provide incentives. As it turned out, Billpoint was an inferior service and eBay ended acquiring Paypal as well. The oppty for them to get the best service came fm allowing open competition even w/their own service.
Posted by: P-Air | Sep 13, 2006 1:20:27 PM
I was referring to 1.0 thinking about network value - the belief that the greatest way to monetize / capitalize on the network is to close it off and build walls.
That's not sustainable value as we've seen with any number of walled networks. We should all be thankful for that.
Posted by: Fraser | Sep 13, 2006 5:54:38 PM
What other online walled networks aside from AOL have you seen?
If you're referring to portals, Yahoo (which in my opinion have built out a suite of dozens of services to maintain people in their "network" rather than open it up and let other companies provide those services) is far, far and away one of the largest revenue generating and profitable companies on the Web.
eBay, which demonstrated its desire to maintain its network by blocking RapLeaf and carefully regulating what people are allowed to inlude on their pages, is also one of the largest, most profitable companies.
It would be helpful if you could back up your claims that the best way to monetize a network is to open it up to other companies/service providers. I would love to hear a more concrete example verus the vague (but cool sounding statement) that walled gardens are bad, open networks are good.
MySpace has about as closed off a mentality as they come, and I would bet it leads to them being even more profitable and not hurt their growth one bit. Sometimes good business sense does not fit with theoretical, idealistic anti-walled garden sentiment.
Bottom line: MySpace users don't care whose video service they use if they all do exactly the same thing. They are all savvy enough to surf the web outside MySpace. Opening up their service to other video providers who provide the exact same service just for the sake of being "open" would just be dumb.
Posted by: TheRealist | Sep 13, 2006 7:19:14 PM
The Realist brings up a good point, being open just to be open is dumb.
Being open is critical for MySpace. Why?
Myspace offers a product to the digital herd. Herds of buffalo or zebra etc only need a few influential members to run and then you've got a stampede.
If they close their walls, they then run the risk of losing perspective. A fence for the herd keeps them away from the fresh grass right on the other side. It works for a while, but if the grass gets too green you might get a stampede and no fence will keep them at bay. Miss their needs and they might stampede.
The fence could give your product people a sense of security because they lack competition. The same competition that pushes innovation forward, lose the competition for video hosting and serving, etc.
You won't build the best product, soon the herd moves on. Think about the American auto companies.
Allow others to feed your buffalo on your field and they’ll never need to stray.
Posted by: Rob Deichert | Sep 13, 2006 7:46:41 PM
Rob I think that's some great insight. Over the long term being closed off is like a bet that you will always be able to keep up with the best and latest products/services, and I agree with you that over time that sounds like a losers bet.
Posted by: TheRealist | Sep 14, 2006 4:26:28 PM
For MySpace, being open to other services is definitely the way to go. They tried to shut out YouTube but user protest got in the way. Their own solution isn't nearly as good or usable.
I like Shri's comment:
"MySpace should think of themselves as the Social OS of the web."
That both crystallizes the idea and opens up new possibilities in a really succinct manner.
Now, if they could just make the tech part work properly, they'd have something!
Posted by: Clyde Smith | Sep 16, 2006 10:10:27 PM
The most important thing for the entrepreneur is passion. Entrepreneurs should first reflect on they should love what they have done, rather than corporate value, entrepreneurs should focus on a function of a technology, a product, and a certain experience, rather than a concept, even the concept is greater than heaven.
Posted by: Runshine | Sep 17, 2006 8:24:35 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
