Structural Social Network Theory

It seems like successful social networks grow like weeds. Just look at how massive Facebook and MySpace have become. A good social network establishes the foundation for its users, then allows them to do their thing - with minimal interference. This plants the seed for organic growth. One user attracts another, who in turn attracts more. From here Metcalfe's Law kicks in: the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system (n²). As a network adds users its value grows exponentially.

Andrew Chen does a great job articulating this phenomenon, Metcalfe's Law dictates how social networks can grow or shrink. If a network is adding users, its value grows, if its losing members, its value shrinks - exponentially.

I've been thinking about Andrew's post and MySpace a lot lately. Why is MySpace still so dominant? It's owned by NewsCorp, has a terrible UI, it's search doesn't work and there is enough glitter to drive you mad. Yet here we are, 2008 and MySpace still has a ton of users. What keeps MySpace going?

MySpace, wisely, creates value from more than just user-to-user (U2U) interactions. U2U interactions, as you may have guessed, occur when two users interact. If I'm your friend and we discuss something or share a photo, those are user-to-user interactions. It's the foundation of social networks. Even though U2U is fundamental, it's incredibly hard to keep and maintain. Look at Friendster, it was built solely on U2U. What was keeping Friendsters' users on Friendster? The users were. But, what prevents people from jumping ship (i.e. moving to a new network, say FaceBook)? If U2U interactions are the only value-add on your network, there is little you can do. The way to prevent users from leaving, or the social network death spiral, as Andrew calls it, is to establish pillars.

Pillars

To keep users on your network, one must control the number of people coming and going - encourage users to join, discourage them from leaving. This can be done by establishing pillars. In social networks, a pillar is a static, non-regular user entity that adds value. On MySpace, musician profiles are excellent pillars. They are static (they aren't going anywhere), they add value (music, tour dates) and are not regular users.

Just as a 2x4 holds your house together, pillars can hold social networks together. They provide a reason for people to join, and discourage them from leaving. If you want access to a pillar's value, you'll have to access it via the network.

Pillars are relatively unchanged by social network fads. For example, pillars won't change because others users Twitter, add Zombie apps or Super Poke each other. Pillars are constant, they provide structure and stabilize a networks' value.

I believe this is why MySpace remains a dominant network, even as FaceBook grows and casts it as yesterday's news. If you don't have a MySpace page, you can still get value from a band's page on MySpace. This pillar, the band, attracts new users and prevents old ones from leaving.

In short, users use a social network for a reason (value). If your network only has U2U interactions, it is in danger of the social network death spiral (when users leave, it encourages others to leave.) U2U networks are highly susceptible to fads. On the other hand, if your network is built with pillars, it can avoid the death spiral. If some users leave, it is unlikely more will follow because pillars provide a reason to stay.

Think about it, what's keeping you on your social network of choice?

Gregory Schnese is a co-founder of SoUrban.net, an East Village blog about music, tech and fashion, and is the Web Producer at beYOU.tv, a fitness and wellness video community.