New Mass Media
Ramesh Jain laments social networking’s focus on youth, wondering when entrepreneurs will begin to use these tools to address needs beyond sex and friendship. Well, they are–LinkedIn being a primary example–but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for venture capitalists to slaver over social networks for people with families and careers the way they do over MySpace and Facebook. The reason for the focus on youth is that young people are more influenced by their peers, and thus more easily marketed to as a bloc. In this sense new mass media like MySpace and Facebook are continuous with old mass media: TV and radio also focus on selling to young people. Rupert Murdoch saw this right away. The bottom line is that it is much easier to make money by inducing artificial needs among the young and pliant than it is to address the real needs of older people.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Yes, depressing… (;_;)
May 15th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Maybe I’m completely naive, but I don’t see the pursuit of sex as a primary use of Myspace.
I also take issue with your implication that all young people are “pliant” and their needs “artificial.”
Also, I’m curious: what are you referring to when you say “the real needs of older people?”
May 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I don’t have any data on whether sex is a “primary use” of MySpace, but sex is certainly a factor in the way it is marketed. Porn stars in Los Angeles were among the first communities to latch onto MySpace, and I have no doubt that their sexy photos were a factor in MySpace’s growth. Even now, my MySpace inbox fills up with spam from shady porn sites and escort services. And don’t tell me you’ve never heard people talk about MySpace as a great place to find people to hook up with.
I didn’t mean to imply that all young people are pliant or that all their needs are artificial. However I do think that, in general, young people have less commitments in their lives, more disposable income, etc. Corporations take advantage of that by using marketing to make them want things. It’s easier to do this with a teenage boy trying to decide what movie to spend his allowance on than it is with a 40-year-old mom who needs to pay the bills.
As for “the real needs of older people,” I mean things like paying their mortgages, feeding and educating their kids, caring for sick elders, finding new jobs late in life when desired skill sets have shifted, etc.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
That’s what I thought you meant by “the real needs…” and I would argue that social networks
don’t seem the most appropriate tool to meet these needs. Or if people wanted to create
social networks to serve these needs, they don’t need vc dollars to do so — thanks to
Andreeson (see: ning.com).
But I guess what seems odd about your argument as you’ve stated it is that you seem to imply
that investment in sites like Myspace and investment in “other” types of social networking
sites are mutually exclusive (that is, vc dollars will go to either one or the other), which
doesn’t seem true.
I realize that I’m overanalyzying what you probably intended as a casual remark, but what
can I say: I’m bored :)
Incidentally, I do agree with the fact that marketing to peoples’ artificial needs (which
I also think you phrased perfectly) is an easy way to make money. (I’m not sure I see
how Myspace does this, but I’m shutting up now).
May 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
To the extent that people with similar problems can help one another solve those problems, I believe social networking tools could meet those needs. I’m a bit skeptical that just having the technologies (as Ning provides) will do it, though–I think social networking sites are successful because they have full-time employees working hard to ensure their success.
As for VCs–yes,in theory investing in one thing doesn’t preclude investing in another. But in practice herd mentality seems to rule among VCs, and everyone invests in what everyone else is investing in.
Finally, if you don’t believe Rupert Murdoch views MySpace as a platform for marketing and promotion, consider his remark in this 2006 interview with The Hollywood Reporter:
May 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Well yeah, I’d have to have had my head buried in the sand to not be aware that Myspace is used
very heavily for marketing (the last time I checked it cost 750k to advertise for one day — but it’s probably significantly higher by now). What I meant was that I’m not sure Myspace markets
exclusively to peoples’ artificial needs (and I don’t think the need for entertainment counts).
But I guess that depends on what you classify as “artificial needs” and that’s an entirely
different discussion.
Anyway, I’m off to harass some other unsuspecting blogger. You’ve got an interesting blog here. And a hella-impressive resume.
Cheers.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
You’re right, MySpace doesn’t market exclusively to artificial needs. And I don’t actually consider entertainment to be an artificial need. I certainly wouldn’t be able to survive without music, for instance.
I’ll admit that I’m being somewhat cynical here–it’s hard to live and work in the Bay Area without getting a little cynical about this stuff, I think.
Thanks for the comments.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Absolutely right! However on the other hand, if you don’t have such “entertainment”, young people will search for something else. Better being hoocked to a music community rather than playing poker or taking some drugs.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Sure, myspace is full of marketing possibilites and you are being bombed by ads - but i see it this way: Better the kids use the internet active, rather than lying on the couch, eating chips and watching TV (inactive and just consuming). There will always be a way to reach out to young people and their needs and this will ALWAYS be used by marketeers, sadly :(