Branded Social Networks
by Deepthi
I still have a problem with what to call social networks like Facebook; social networking site doesn’t quite cover it all. It seems I’m not alone in thinking this, since there’s a range of terminology being used across the spectrum of public discourse in the popular press and in academic circles (social networking sites, social network sites, social networking services, online social networks, etc.). My choice? Branded social networks, which will be employed exclusively on UIO. Keep reading for why I don’t use social networking sites or any other alternatives, and what in my view makes branded social network the most accurate term.
Wikipedia’s entry, for example, terms them social networking services. According to Wikipedia’s editors, a social networking service “focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.” danah boyd and Nicole Ellison also interrogate the terminology, arguing for a comprehensive definition under the name social network sites, as opposed to the more common social networking sites that continues to dominate the popular press today. boyd and Ellison write, “We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”
As a basic definition of the main characteristics these networks share in common, boyd and Ellison provide an excellent starting point. And their attempt at refining the terminology makes a fine and necessary distinction between the nature and activities in these networks: “‘Networking’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers… What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks.”
Nevertheless, I would argue that there are two key omissions of characteristics of these networks embedded in the terms social networking sites or social network sites, and one by social network services that could be rectified with yet another shift in terminology to branded social networks. In 2009, it makes sense to drop the word “site” as it limits access points to browser interfaces, while many networks are now regularly accessed through a variety of mobile device applications. In addition, many of these networks host events in the offline world as opposed to the online, and much of the activity that takes place on these networks can be described as coordination of “real world” or offline activities (argued by Donald Roberts and Ulla Foehr). Thus, the boundary between online and offline worlds is both permeable and fluid so no limitation is necessary.
Finally, it makes sense to include the more commercially-oriented vocabulary of branded because branding is the central organizing principle of these networks. Many members are proud to be affiliated with one network, and have actively rejected identification with another. This aspect of brand affiliation cannot be ignored in discussing how members engage with each other and with the networks themselves. In addition, the dominant networks that exist are for-profit companies, and their networks and members are big business. To ignore this element of BSNs is to preclude a discussion of motives and catalysts for certain types of growth and use.
That’s it, let me know what you think in the comments.
Interesting. Do you mean branding as in Facebook vs Myspace? or do you mean NewSchool network vs WalMart vs Beirut? (the networks within the network…)
I would agree generally, but I find that “branding” while accurate is too loaded with a specific negative consumption vibe. I’m not sure how directly relevant, the branding is, well or how “conscious” the choice initially was. I have few to no friends on Myspace, I have many friends on FB, therefore I use FB. I got on FB because my brother discovered a group of relatives across the world and we started creating the family tree network. I never expected then (more than two years ago) that FB would become such a big thing…
Although I know where you’re coming from, (and mostly agree) I just think perhaps “Branded” is too strong a word.
Yes, I mean in a Facebook versus MySpace kind of way. Facebook is definitely more about community/lifestyle than MySpace, which is really defined by its network of music communities at this point.
That’s really interesting, I wasn’t thinking so much about the connotation of “branded” as negative, I was more interested in distinguishing the embedded practices of one network versus another. But while I completely agree with you that the choice of alignment with one versus another is often not based on brand, I think that the brand shapes member experiences on every visit.
There’s also the argument about perception of FB as more general and “clean” versus MySpace, which danah boyd wrote about. She interviewed teens who thought MySpace was too “ghetto” to use and found the demographics were falling out along ethnic lines, which while super depressing, makes a lot of sense. I’m writing that section of my paper right now, I’ll post it later
i also agree with “branded” being a capitalistically loaded word in this sense, although i also feel that it is applicable. Many social networks arise from companies creating them as an enterprise, such as fb and myspace.
the idea that i find drawn to when conceptualizing these networks is more the idea of ‘tribes’ or ‘clans’ of people, wherein members of the group identify with their own clan, and distinguish themselves as different and exclusive of another.
this of course was the idea behind ‘tribe.net’ which i used for quite a while, and i was sad when it failed to keep up, interface and support-wise. but i am still intrigued how the clannish tendencies of humanity is in place even in the metaverse.
I thought of you when I fell upon this article:
The Anti-Social-Network Social Network (in NYTimes)
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/the-anti-social-network-social-network/?ref=technology