Okay, it's been a fun experiment. We said lots of things, shared tons more, but that's a wrap. Everybody out of the social media pool. C'mon, c'mon, we haven't got all day. It's time to go back to the regular old Web, you know, where you saw only what we let you.
Said no one. Ever.
What might be said, some time later?
Well not if people have anything to say about it, that's for sure. The denizens of the Web love their social sharing, their status updates, and their meaningless badges for things as trivial as checking in. If it were up to any of them, social media would stay forever and only continue to evolve.
But that's the kicker. It's not up to them, or even us.
Thus spoke Gordon Gekko
Social media was started by people looking to get money. Okay, maybe they started out because they really had something to say, and it was that everyone had something to say, but in the end it's about the almighty dollar.
When Facebook went public it signaled, subtly, the sign of the times. That even the most maverick of hackers (hotshot coders, not intruders, mind you) who loved to "go against the Man" or the Machine or the Establishment or whatever, that even Zuckerberg really likes getting those profit margins.
Any successful startup that really begins to shine instantly garners the attention of a large company or other entity who promptly buys them out. If they're ambitious the founders of that startup will try their luck at another, and hope that somebody grabs at the bait all over again.
In short, money talks. The ability to connect people all over the world and disseminate information at rates unprecedented in human history across any and all barriers, that's a distant plus. Just look what happened to MySpace's many handlers. Only recently has it come into the hands of someone who actually "cared" about it, but that man is an actor, a fan of the concept. Justin Timberlake is no web developer or business visionary.
So what happens when something good that has benefitted humanity stops making a profit?
What they giveth, they can taketh away
Social networking is a product, supplied by a provider. That provider seeks to generate income off their product, if nothing else to continue developing that product or to earn a profit. When they see that their product no longer generates a sufficient income, the wise business decision is to move onto more attractive products.
General Motors withdrew their ads from Facebook, and consequently the world's largest social network took a huge hit to their IPO that has continued to ripple forth into their stocks. Facebook didn't fall, and so far doesn't appear to be going under, because of that. But what if more companies had withdrawn? What if Facebook lost all its ad revenue, and couldn't afford to run its infrastructure? Or, now that the company has gone public, what if the shareholders simply deem it no longer profitable and decide to liquidate it?
For all of Facebook's millions of users, would that give the shareholders pause? If it's not making money, it's not making money. Millions of people can complain, but unless they're willing to pay up they have no right to decide the fate of the company.
Facebook, or any social network, is technically doomed the moment someone decides they're not worth the investment. And that someone is a businessman, or a group of shareholders, who are solely concerned with profit. They're like gods, hungry for the sacrifices of our wallets, and if left unappeased will wipe clear the world we live on.
Ignorance is Doom
If radio or television had been deemed unprofitable it's doubtful they would have been demolished either. Fortunately they were such a widespread hit that they couldn't fail, and even the most miserly of investors had to admit that. The same with social networks, so far. With that many people in one place, how can an investor resist?
Until they drive it into the ground with bad ideas, and lose enough of an audience that they decide to scrap the whole thing. It happened to MySpace.
This is why businessmen should not look at social networking and judge its money-making merits in the same way as other mediums. Social networking and the social Web are a different medium, with different allures and reasons for that allure. Applying the old tactics to it won't work, and when they fail angry shareholders will take out their losses on the social websites by closing them down.
What if Twitter hadn't been there during the Arab Spring? What if it had been shut down because somebody didn't get enough of a good fiscal quarter?
Advertising works differently on social channels, and advertisers must understand that. They want to be successful, and for the sake of the Social Web we want their campaigns to be successful, because if not we stand to lose it all. I'm not saying we should throw money at corporate bigwigs, but we cannot afford their losses due to the marketing team's ignorance.
Understanding social media is crucial to social marketing success. Because nobody wants to lose.
What do you think? Is everything just profit-ridden, or are there other options?