Social Network Saturation?
There’s an interesting article at Mashable today about data suggesting that Facebook and Twitter traffic is flattening. According to the article:
Somewhere in June [...] Twitter stopped growing, at least according to Compete. The same thing happened to Facebook (Facebook) at the exact same time; at first we’ve attributed the traffic numbers to the summer slumber, but now that Compete’s numbers for September are out, there’s no doubt that both Facebook and Twitter are no longer growing, at least in the eyes of the (admittedly US-centric) Compete.
Be sure to click over to the article, and check out the charts. They paint the picture pretty well.
So, what does this mean exactly? That’s unknown at this point, but there are several possibilities. One is that it’s a blip on the growth chart. That’s unlikely, as it’s a three month slowdown. Another possibility is that it’s due to summer and vacations. Unlikely also, since the slowdown (or even reversal) extends into September.
The final (and I think most likely) possible explanation is that we’re reaching the saturation point (at least in the U.S.) for social networking. Most of the people who were going to join … have joined.
When you think about it, the saturation theory makes sense. I frequently teach classes and lead workshops on how business owners can use social media and social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter. I always ask how many in the room use each site, to get an idea of how much explanation will be needed. Generally, about 75-95% in the room use Facebook. How many more are really going to sign up? No product is ever going to have 100% penetration, even within its target demographic. For example, there are plenty of people who don’t use email much or at all, even though it’s been an accepted business tool for more than 10 years.
My informal polls usually show 25-50% of the room using Twitter. There’s obviously a lot of room for expansion, but will Twitter ever get significantly larger? The site concept isn’t as easy to “get” as Facebook, and many people don’t like condensing their thoughts into 140 characters or less. Many people will never be comfortable on Twitter.
So, if the saturation theory is correct … what’s next for these sites? For Facebook, there aren’t many worries. The company is profitable and 300-million users is nothing to scoff at. For Twitter, the news isn’t as good. The company is not making a single dime of its own money, despite their recent move to start posting ads on the site and recent infusions of venture funding.
While Twitter’s user base (estimated at 13 to 15-million) is quite healthy, if it stops growing, bad things could happen. The most damaging scenario could be that a new competitor seeps in, starts growing, and becomes the “next big thing”. Remember FriendFeed? It was a big dog on the block once upon a time. Then, Facebook came along. Now, Facebook owns FriendFeed.
Comments
Comments for this post
Leave a Reply
Subscribe & Share
Blog/Site Feed
News Releases
Podcast
Receive our content via email
Our content is featured on Alltop!
Connect
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Google
YouTube
StumbleuponCategories
- Client News
- EndGame PR News
- EndGame PR Site News
- Media News
- Media Relations News
- Media Relations Opinion
- Media Relations Tactics
- Online News Release Distribution
- Podcasts
- PR Opinion
- PR Tactics
- Rants
- Recommended Sites
- SEO PR News
- SEO PR Tactics
- SEO Tactics
- Social Media News
- Social Media Opinion
- Social Media Tactics
- Speaking Engagements
- Uncategorized
- Web Design
- Web Marketing
- Web Videos
It’s like TV then cable..once the service costs come down, there will be more universal adoption. SM site’s like Facebook have a lot of multi-media rich content so they demand super-high Internet bandwidth, and fast computers to view them well. Some of these costs need to drop before more people (who don’t need super high speed for home/work) opt in.
The biggest barrier to SM usage: people have real lives, no time for a “virtual” one. I know tons of people not on FB or SM because of work, relationships, family and all the other demands on their time.
Twitter is a different story. If you did not like chat rooms, BBS, message boards, IM, texting, it’s unlikely you will “get” or appreciate Twitter. If you only glance the login interface, never search, use other apps, etc. it could seem like just mindless chatter about lunch and celebrities seeking attention.
As far as one SM site/service replacing others, not sure. I use Twitter, LinkedIn, FF and Facebook differently; I’m not interested in sharing my business blog with high school classmates.
Saturation is a good word. Some people probably have too many networks already, not interested in joining more; others want to wait until the hoopla dies, or until they figure it all out.
Didn’t mean to write a novel, thanks for your post.
Hi Davina–
Thanks so much for your comment, and don’t worry about the length. Electrons are cheap!
I agree completely with your overview of why people do and do not join up to social networking sites. When I present at workshops and teach classes, the number one worry I hear from people is that they don’t have time for all of this stuff. I remind them that as business owners, they have to make time to market themselves, whether that marketing is in the form of a networking group, cold calls, or social media networking.
I’m not sure I agree with your suggestion that broadband penetration may be holding back the numbers. While it isn’t at 100% penetration, there are options for everyone who wants it, even if they have to go with satellite broadband.