Six Signs that Social Media is Dying

2009 August 21
by Teeg

The last time I wrote I mentioned that I was going to try podcasting.

Talk about a big flop! I’ve discovered that I’m a much better writer. Perhaps I’m too much of a perfectionist, but I really didn’t come up with a podcast that I’d consider worth sharing.

I did do an interview with Shannon Cherry which I’ll share soon, the end was cut off for some reason, so I’m learning how to do audio editing (to clip the interview at a reasonable place). Thanks so much, Shannon, for the interview and showing me how it’s done! I’ll definitely have to more of them. :)

In the time that I’ve been avoiding writing, I’ve still been studying social media sites. And I’ve come to a conclusion that I really didn’t want to face.

Social Media is dying.

I guess I should mention that I don’t think it will be dead anytime soon. You won’t wake up tomorrow or even next year to find Soc Med has disappeared off the face of the earth.

So why do I say it then?

1) It’s grown stagnant. For a body of water to stay fresh, it has to have a steady stream of new water coming into it. If that stream is blocked off somehow, the body of water grows stale and stagnant and eventually the things that live in it wither away and die.

Social Media early adopters get laughed at sometimes, since they’re always looking for the next best thing. But the next best thing is like the stream that brings in fresh water and their innovations keep the older sites from going stagnant – and there hasn’t been anything new in a while now.

2) It’s become mainstream. My mom and great aunt are both on Facebook, the flower girl from my wedding is on twitter. I read a statistic the other day that there are more people using the internet to visit social sites than there are people using the net to look up porn. It sounds funny, but that’s a huge change!

The problem with mainstream is that it kills innovation and creativity and the effort is put into crowd control. Think about your favorite non-chain shop or restaurant. At our favorite, they know our names when we walk in. Often, the waitress greets us with our drinks already prepared. They know our favorite foods and will mention something they think we’d enjoy trying if it’s new, or tell us if one of our favorite soups is what’s being prepared that day.

Now think about Wal-mart or any major chain store. In the electronics department of our local Wal-mart, most of the video games are behind glass. When I want to purchase one for my boys, I have to first find someone to wait on me then wait while they figure out who has the key for the cabinets and to find where that person is. Often it can take 20 minutes or more, just to make sure the game is the one the boys were hoping for. If we decide to purchase the game, another 15-30 minutes can easily be added on to the time estimate.

3) Spam is out of control. When I first started using email, spam was practically unknown. Then marketers discovered how great e-mail was for their business and how easy it was to purchase groups of e-mail addresses. Soon after, spam e-mail became a major problem. Now, I only check my e-mail every couple days knowing that even with my spam filter, a good portion will still be unrequested and unwanted junk mail.

When I first started using twitter, spam was practically unknown as well. With the rare exception, a friend request was always from a real person. Now, easily 8 out of every 10 friend requests I get are from spammers, and I can easily spend more time trying to determine if someone is real than I used to spend tweeting.

4) Sites are buying up competitors. A few days ago when I was talking about this subject with Allan, he pointed out the fact that when a company is working to improve, it buys companies that help it in some way. But, when a company feels secure, they start buying up competitors and potential competitors instead. Facebook’s recent purchase of FriendFeed seems to fit the bill here.

5) Removal of Social Media from titles. Among business people who handle social media functions, there has been a growing movement to remove Social Media from their title. Yes, they often do more than only handle social media, and their arguments are well thought out, but it’s still a sign that soc med’s star is fading.

6) The teens and college students have left. Whenever Twitter first came out, it quickly became known as a site where teens could text their friends and tell them what they were doing. Facebook was started to connect college students. Now, when I talk to teen friends, asking if they’re on online social sites often earns me an eye-roll and a “Um, no.” As surprised as I’ve been at the number who use Skype, I’ve been just as shocked at the number who don’t use Twitter or frequently even Facebook.

So what do you think? Is social media here to stay in all it’s glory, or in a few years will we look back and say, “That was fun, what’s next?”

  • Personally I think social media sites are a tad anal...I never use them and neither does anyone I know over the age of 15.
  • Well for some reason I dont really use social sites... I'm kind of "get a real life" dude ))
  • Dont die! I love you social sites, I LOVE YOU!
  • I have not much time, but I've got many useful things here, love it!
  • Great article...It is a touch depressing though! lol
  • @Jerry If you didn't delete your comment, could you please repost it (or let me know and I will). It's been approved but for some reason isn't showing up either here on my blog or as a comment on Disqus. Let me know, I'm not trying to ignore your comment. :)
  • I love dead things. I just work while the other things die. : )
  • I'm a bit torn between saying "it's not dying, it's evolving" and "so what if it dies?"

    Your article is interesting but to me, a bit off the point.

    I think what's dying is superficial social networking or people networking simply to collect followers and inflate dubious businesses. As well it should. Actually being social is not dying as it's basic to human nature. Given the bidding war over FriendFeed, the possibility of Twitter actually starting to make a profit with the pending release of Twitter Pro and the always increasing social networking technology, I only see growth on the horizon.

    What also dies are sites that are cumbersome to use and insular. Twitter and Facebook are popular because the are easy to integrate with other sites, phones and apps that people already use. Anything that forces a user to adapt to their setup rather than vice-versa is wasting its and our time.

    I'm not really getting your points here. Becoming mainstream doesn't indicate dying to me, it indicates growth and most certainly change. While some don't like the change that comes with widespread usage and mainstreaming, it's anything but stagnation to keep that sort of growth alive.

    The chain store argument is weak. Wal-mart and the like may be huge corporations, but the people who work there are not automated robots. If you want personalized service it helps to talk to them like people. I've had crappy service from the local mom and pop shop. In the end, it always comes down to people. Maybe what's dying is interpersonal communication. People rely to much on tools to help them communicate instead of actually showing a little interest in the other person.

    Get a spam filter. They really do work. They even have them for Twitter. (I use Twitspam, I think) Sure, any time something fun comes along, soon after scammers and commercial interests look for ways to exploit the systems. Shortly after someone finds a way to avoid them. Then the cycle repeats. I can't see that changing anytime soon. I don't really see that as a sign of death though, things have been like that since the internet started.

    Who cares about Social Media in a title? That trend is probably dying again as it should, because it's kind of useless. It's up there with "Life Coach". People will always need a way to connect. The kids (and adults) I know use Twitter, Facebook, IM and whatever new network comes on the horizon that makes to easy for them to connect. The only determining factor is what their friends use. That makes sense to me, it's what I do too.

    People who do actually use social networking apps always seem shocked that not everyone uses these web communities and apps. While the media, both web and mainstream alike routinely cover its SN's influence, the reality is that social networking super users are still a small percentage of the population despite all the crowing about it becoming mainstream. The media is actively trying to make it mainstream, because unless that happens, it will die. It's in their interest to get the non-believers to sign up. As much as I love Twitter and Facebook and their ilk, the facts are it's convenient to me for what I do. For most of my family it's one more thing they have to do that takes time out of their day. The mainstreaming that people seem to dread is the one thing that has a chance of actually making these social networking sites a viable and useful part of their lives.

    I guess I'm not afraid of the social networking landscape being different from what it looks like today anymore than I yearn for the days when Netscape was a popular browser and AOL barked "You've got mail." And I suppose I'm not brand loyal. I use what's expedient, because my time is valuable and life is short. Things change. As they should.
  • Phoenix, I wish it was evolving. To be honest, I think that's the main point of my argument...it hasn't evolved much in close to a year. Seriously, what has come out in the last...oh, let's say the last 9 months, that's different than anything that came before? Not that has a new niche or is a remake of something else, but totally different like StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg, Twitter, Seesmic, etc. were when they first appeared? Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps something has evolved and I just missed it. It's possible, but if it has, I sure haven't heard anyone talking about it.

    As for your second paragraph, I actually see just the opposite happening. There's a LOT more of the superficial going on, and although it's possible to cut through to the real conversations, how many new people have the patience to do that? There are more twitter tools now to enable conversations (TweetChat for example), but by and large, spur of the moment conversations about everything from work to baseball happen (on my timeline at least) with much less frequency than they used to.

    I'll agree with you that the Wal-Mart argument is weak. I apologize for that, I had meant to use a different example (Barnes and Nobles, where they're rebuilding each store so that it looks like all the rest).

    My point really didn't come across well here, it's not about specific sites going mainstream. You're right, that's needed.

    I have spam filters for twitter (Topify is great for helping to know who to follow and who not to, and TwitChuck will rate anyone you're curious to look up on their spammer potential) and for e-mail of course. But even so, I spend a good chunk of time making sure someone's not a spammer (after making a mistake and getting a DM from someone which started off, "Hey sexy").

    I hope it didn't sound like I'm afraid of the social media landscape changing. If it did, I need to rewrite this. I've loved the changes social media has gone through over the years, from chat rooms (which is where my first online adventures started) to MUDs (the first MMORPGs) to Six Degrees to StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg, Twitter, etc, etc, etc. :)

    Thanks so much for your thoughts! I appreciate you taking the time to write them and hope I explained what I meant a bit better. :)
  • I can't agree that it hasn't evolved, but I suppose that depends on
    what you are looking for and how you measure it. Wondering about the
    next big thing is definitely a valid question, and I'm one of those
    people who will try it out relatively early, because it's in my
    nature. But I only do that because I enjoy it and I know the risk
    involved. The "Next big thing" so rarely actually is for more than 15
    minutes.

    It's rather telling that you've set 9 mos. as your time frame. While
    that may seem like a long time in the web world, in terms of quality
    things that last, that's no time at all to develop and build a
    following. I've seen and tried many recent new social platforms and
    like others, quickly dismiss most. It's not for lack of trying that
    there is no new "It" app on the cover of Time, but I submit that
    often the It app of the day is more hype then actual substance. I
    think it's much more likely that there is no new Twitter because
    these days, politics, ponzi schemes, scandal and healthcare are what
    sell e-zines, magazines and newspapers at the moment. Eventually the
    tide will swing back to software, if the subject is sexy enough.

    As for a rise in superficial, again, that's always been true in the
    history of the net and complaining about it is just as old. When
    things are new, the audience is small and all the content is fresh
    and relevant. Then the doors open, everyone comes in, the
    conversations get cyclical, spam invades. People get disillusioned
    and look for something new. The reality is that life is full of spam
    and irrelevant content. The trick is always how to filter the chaff
    from the wheat. That however, is not a problem that can be solved by
    the next big thing because it's not a problem new things have. Only
    established entities have to face that problem. Why do I stick with
    the 3 Social Networks I use the most despite trying so many? Because
    they are the ones that constantly come up with ways to stay new and
    relevant to me without me having to rebuild the wheel, learn a new
    interface or rebuild my content. To me that's the future and is a lot
    more interesting than something totally different. Now that a
    significant number of us have a history of internet content, the most
    likely future is in things that help us easily manage it while also
    making it easier to create more. I too am dying to know what that new
    thing is. I still don't think that the fact that it's not here yet
    means social networking is dead though.

    (I don't see many radical differences between StumbleUpon, Digg and
    Seesmic to be honest, but then I don't make much use of those sites
    and perhaps can not judge them accurately. )

    Glad I could help you clarify your thoughts, discussions help me
    clarify mine too.
blog comments powered by Disqus