Joe Maloney

While analysts delineate between media sharing sites and social networks to some extent, I believe that relatively little consideration is given to the nature of the network in respect to personas. Let me put forward the notion that some social networking sites aim to enhance real-world relationships, while others support facets of our personalities, defined as personas.

This delineation is epitomized by the two juggernauts of the social network space – MySpace and Facebook.

Why does persona support matter when you evaluate these sites? It greatly affects the nature of the communication (flirting versus open discussions), the tools and applications the users will leverage (browse versus search), and the construct of the profile. These implications directly impact the longevity of the network, the lasting value to its members, and the role businesses can take in the community.

What is a persona?
The term is commonly associated with the concept of a character, an image that one wishes to show or represent. Within the study of sociology and social identity theory, the persona is accepted as a facet of our true selves, and the natural changes in how we present ourselves relative to different circumstances. In other words, we truthfully present ourselves differently to our coworkers than we do to our parents and peers – we just share different parts of ourselves, different information depending on the circumstances.

What is a Friend?
What constitutes a friend? Tom has millions; this other guy named Tom has far less. Because Tom’s own site can’t delineate between “friends”, he is forced to create multiple profiles (a representation of a specific persona) to support his natural relationships. This of course is an inefficiency in the design of the social network that devalues the utility of each individual profile, creates superfluous profiles (leading to inflated profile counts), and makes comparing user counts between MySpace to Facebook akin to apples and oranges.

Facebook does not have this problem of superfluous identities as they leverage domains to verify identity, effectively limiting any user to one profile. That being said, Facebook’s finite privacy controls are limiting while being overly complex.

Privacy and Personas
Being that we share different information with different people in our daily lives, social networks must adopt to this behavior if they wish to become even more engrained in our every day communication, and outlast changes in our lifestyle (eg, from single to married, from student to professional). Finite privacy controls related to tiers or groups of “friends” that are easy to understand remains an obstacle that I have yet to see cleared.

In closing…
Identities, particularly social identities are situational. Our attitudes, norms, behavior, appearance and mannerisms change based on our active social identity… and it is the same online. People represent themselves differently based on the norms of their online social community and group of friends. Therefore major social networks must evolve to be dynamic and and trustworthy. Users will not wish to share information in the same way to all people, so creating flexibility is essential.

Leveraging only my personal experience with technology and my hands-on experience developing hardware and software in various industries, I am going to go on a rant about the need for uninterrupted feedback in user interfaces. This interruption is referred to as “latency”.

Latency is a time delay between the moment something is initiated, and the moment one of its effects begins or becomes detectable. – Wikipedia

While there are scholars quantifying the results of controlled interaction tests and the resulting anxiety measurable in heart rate, eye movement and overall subject satisfaction ratings, I am going to go out on and rant without supportive citation.

In order for advanced products and services  to succeed, the user interface must keep pace with your wants and desires. Every moment the service lingers, the user pauses….. and in doing so, is stuck holding nothing more than a mass-produced, shiny, expensive, red stapler.. err.. paperweight. If the user’s mind wanders, they can lose their train of thought, preventing them from leveraging the service for what it was intended to do, making the overall experience a waste. In this case, the device changes from an enabler to an anchor.

Yet another feature doesn’t matter anymore. Feature lists are outpacing lifestyle shifts. Companies focused on features (eg, Sony, Creative, Microsoft, et al) are being trounced by companies that are taking a more measured approach by delivering state of the art services that work naturally (eg, services such as those made by Google, Apple, Tivo). With these last 3 companies, they have delivered services short on features, but rich on utility. Low and behold – they have had an impact – integrating technology into our daily lives!

How do you avoid latency and deliver compelling service? Compete on solving fundamental needs, not superficial wants. Definitely not feature list comparison battles. You’ll win the battle of the powerpoints and a gold star. Understand the users’ real needs, make educated guesses as to what they may like, but not yet expect. Give them more of what they want (information on the subject they care about, faster and richer than they could otherwise).

In hindsight, this stream of conscious rant I just went on reminds me of two things. First, Steve Wozniak’s strive for efficiency, getting the most out of the chip, and Charles Eame’s quote, “Design is a plan for arranging elements in such a way as best to accomplish a particular purpose”

Final thoughts (for the moment)..