success factors of online social networks abstract introduction

Success Factors of Online Social Networks Evan Carroll

INLS 490 Online Social Networks School of Information and Library Science

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Fall 2007

Abstract

Online social networking sites are quickly becoming a notable portion of the internet market. Many

have theorized on their success factors, but little academic research exists to confirm or deny these

claims. This paper outlines the potential success factors for these sites and presents results of an online

survey testing hypotheses regarding functionality, visual design and market. Respondents indicated that

functionality which directly and indirectly supports individual and group communication are key factors.

The data also shows that modern visual design indicates legitimacy, increased security and robust

functionality, and that the viral nature of these networks is the best way to gain market traction.

Introduction

Online communities have gained much attention recently and have quickly become an integral

part of the internet. Researchers have studied the internet and have defined models for successful

websites; however, little research is available that focuses on successful online communities or social

networks. Many definitions exist for an online social network and is most broadly defined as “a group of

people who interact in a virtual environment”(Preece, Maloney‐Krichmar, & Abras, 2003). Various

technologies support these virtual networks, but this study focuses on those networks which are

supported by a web site. Examples of web‐based networks include MySpace, Facebook, Friendster and

LinkedIn, to name several popular sites.

Success

Since the focus is on web‐based networks many ideas about web site success can be applied

including functionality, architecture/interface, design and market. If is from these viewpoints which this

paper is intended to examine success. Creators of online social networks have different purposes for

creating them and this presents many means of determining success. These goals may include

facilitating professional communication or selling and promoting commercial products. All of these

intents have tangible ways of measuring success, but they are not comparable across the spectrum of all

networks. The common feature, however, is usage. Generating a frequent user base contributes to all

additional goals for these networks and as a common indicator of performance will define success in this

study.

Functionality

Functionality is a key factor in online network success. In order for a site to meet the definition

of an online social network, users must be able to interact with each other. Web‐based communities

are based upon the older mediums for asynchronous online communication, the oldest of which being

electronic mail. E‐mail allowed users to communicate directly with each other. This later evolved into

list servers, which allowed many people to communicate via e‐mail and then into group communication

spaces like USENET groups and bulletin boards (Preece et al., 2003). These spaces facilitated group

communication but most notably moved the communication to another virtual location. Users have the

option of reading e‐mail in an assortment of ways, but the messages, based upon the postal mail model,

are delivered directly to the user. The shift to spaces in group communication forced the user to visit

the space, instead of having content delivered to them. Users return to these spaces because they are

interested in viewing the content available there. This establishes two aspects of the modern online

network web site. First, the user must visit the space to gain information. Many networks offer e‐mail

alerts when specific content is updated, but those essentially drive traffic to the space. Secondly, the

user must remain interested in the available content to continue visiting. With these factors in mind, it

is important for successful networks to have functionality which supports basic communication.

Another requirement derived from USENET and bulletin boards is scope. Users care about the

content which is most important to them, and are generally not interested in things they find

unimportant. Communities must then offer a means of filtering content so that users will remain

engaged. USENET groups and bulletin boards had a specific topic and users were discouraged, if not

prohibited from deviating from that. Additionally, these groups not only filtered the content which the

user received, but also the people which they interacted. Communities must also offer a means of

grouping people into those with a related interest or importance to a particular user.

Architecture and Interface

The internet is a large place. In January, 2005 Gulli and Signorini estimated that the web consisted

of over 11.5 billion pages (Gulli & Signorini, 2005). Nielsen writes that the web has given its users a

range of choices in the services they use and that it is easy for a user to decide to go somewhere else

(Nielsen, 2000). Combine this with the short attention span of internet users or as Nielsen writes “user’s

exihibit a remarkable impatience and insistence on instant gratification” (Nielsen, 2000). Considering

these user requirements, users must be able to figure out how to use a web site in less than a minute, or

their attention will be drawn elsewhere. As more social networking sites emerge, this same problem is

found in the SNS arena. To this end social networking sites must have a navigable architecture and a

usable interface. To achieve this labeling and functionality should be consistent, the look and feel should

be unified, and information must be presented in a useful way (Preece et al., 2003). In short, a social

networking site must be easy for users to understand and use; therefore, usability is a key consideration

in online network success.

Design

Online social networking sites fall into a category of sites which Tim O'Reilly has dubbed “Web 2.0.”

Web 2.0 encompasses among other characteristics those web sites which “harness collective

intelligence” and feature “lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business models.” An

association exists between modern web design patterns and web 2.0 services (O'Reilly, 2005). While the

term “web 2.0” only refers to site concepts and business models, many still associate modern design

with it (Nicol, 2006). Engaging users visually is the first way to keep them on a web site to learn more

about what it offers. Jonathan Nicol outlines several characteristics of web 2.0 visual design. First,

pages are more colorful, using primary colors to draw attention to important parts of the site. Box

corners are rounded and graphical icons are used instead of stock photos. Sites utilize open white space

with short copy and large fonts, which are almost exclusively sans‐serif. The association of social

networking sites, with this visual style has prompted users to look for these elements when evaluating a

site, as they may be an indicator of functionality.

Market

As with any endeavor, a product or service should be tailored to a target group of people. It is clear

that most social networking sites are targeted to a younger, computer savvy market. For example, it

would not be prudent for a network targeted towards older adults to include functionality that allows

members to connect with others in their college courses. The number of college going seniors is small;

therefore, sites who do not consider market may not see much success. Additionally, the way in which a

new site is release to its market may contribute to success. Facebook released their application first to

Harvard students in early 2004 and slowly expanded to additional college campuses and then the entire

world. Releasing the site in this way motivated students to become members because they felt

exclusive, having access to this tool that many others didn’t. Social network designers must carefully

consider the market for their product during the conceptual design phases and release the application in

such a way to encourage adoption.

Research Questions

The intent of this study was to determine success factors for online social networks looking

particularly at functionality, architecture/interface, design and market. From these viewpoints several

questions developed which became the focus of the study. First, what core functionality is expected of

an online social network? Many networks exist offering the same basic features, but are those features

critical? Considering that the basic model for asynchronous networks is based upon personal (e‐mail)

and group (USENET and list server) communication, then the basic hypothesis is that those features

which directly support user and group communication are the most critical parts of a social network.

Additionally, those features which indirectly support communication, including user profiles, photos,

and connections (friends) are the second most critical parts of a social network. Finally, features not

included in the previous groupings are the least critical parts of the network.

This study also sought to determine users design preferences and what other information might

users derive from design. When presented with two web site designs with equal content and

functionality, one based upon modern design patterns, which have web 2.0 connotations, and another

based upon older design patterns, which will users prefer? Additionally, what other information do

users derive from designs while choosing if they should use a particular site? The hypothesis then is that

users prefer social networks with a more modern design.

Market is also a consideration in online social network success, therefore the final point of this study

seeks to determine how users became informed of social networking sites. Is it useful to purchase

advertising to become successful, or should online social network developers stimulate the viral nature

of social networks in some way. The final hypothesis is that the viral nature of social networks is the

ideal way of obtaining market traction, therefore advertising should be used sparingly, and more

emphasis placed upon leveraging the viral nature of these networks.

Methodology

This study was conducted using an online survey tool and was distributed to over 300 college

students via e‐mail. The survey collected background information, and specific data related to the

research questions. Respondents were not offered any compensation or incentive to complete the

survey and were not required to Respondents were initially asked to input their age and gender, and if

they had a social networking site account. Examples of online social networks were given and they were

asked to input the names of sites to which they belong. To validate that respondents were familiar with

social networking sites, they were asked to select how long they have had an account and how

frequently they visit. The next page of the survey asked users to observe two screen shots, one

following traditional, yet pleasing design patterns (example one) and another developed to follow

modern, web 2.0 related design (example two). Care was taken to ensure that the content of each was

the same. Examples of these designs can be viewed in figure one and two. Respondents were then

asked to choose which site they would choose to join and why. This served to gauge overall user

preference through the selection exercise, and its explanation to indicate additional information

determined from the visual design. Respondents were then asked how they learned of a social network

and presented with options to choose from. Lastly, Respondents were then presented with a list of

common online social network features and asked to select those which they use. This was to

determine the importance of specific features to success.

Figure 1: Example One Figure 2: Example Two

Findings

The survey yielded a respondent population of 132 comprised of 129 (97.7%) social networking site

users, with 55.7% females and 44.3% males. Age of respondents ranged from 18 to 55, with a median

age of 19. Most respondents had an account for longer than one year and 116 respondents use social

networking sites multiple times per week (see table 1 and figure 3).

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Less than 6 months 7.0% 9 6 Months to a Year 10.9% 14 A Year to Two Years 33.3% 43 Two to Three Years 26.4% 34 Three Years or More 22.5% 29

skipped question 3 Table 1: Summary of responses indicating longevity of social network accounts

Figure 3: Summary of responses indicating frequency of online social network use

Respondents overwhelmingly selected example two as the preferred site with 80.5% of respondents

selecting it. Those who selected this example cited that it was more visually appealing and that it

seemed more legitimate, robust and secure. A vast majority of respondents (93.8%) chose that they

first learned of online social networks through a friend with very few citing a web search (3.8%) or an

online advertisement (2.3%). No respondents learned of online social networks through television, print

or radio advertisement and 3.1% were not sure how they learned of them. A natural divide exists

between the responses where respondents indicated which social network features they utilize. Those

items which facilitate communication and grouping of individuals are used by 75 percent or more of

respondents. Lesser used features mainly consisted of those features which do not directly affect

communication between or grouping of individuals.

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Comments or Wall (Public Messages) 95.3% 122 Profile 90.6% 116 Profile Photo (One) 87.5% 112 Photos (Additional) 87.5% 112 Messaging (Private Messages) 85.9% 110 Friends or Connections 82.0% 105 Groups 81.3% 104 Events 75.8% 97 Status or headline 63.3% 81 Posts (blogs, bulletins or updates) 32.0% 41 Friend Rating or Top Friends 20.3% 26 Videos 17.2% 22 Others (please specify) 9.4% 12 answered question 128 skipped question 4

Table 2: Summary of responses to feature usage

Discussion

For the most part the data collected confirms all three hypotheses and the background information

collected did not deviate from expectations. With a few exceptions all respondents were college‐aged

and the male/female ratio is similar to the overall composition of UNC – Chapel Hill, where the research

was conducted. UNC statistics show 41.7% males and 58.3% females, compared to the study which

received responses from 44.3% males and 55.7% females (UNC‐chapel hill office of institutional research

and assessment: Current statistics.2006). Most respondents had held an account for more than one

year and used if frequently, that is multiple times per week. Based upon the general knowledge about

online social networks and college‐aged students, this is expected.

The first hypothesis stating regarding site functionality was partially confirmed. Features which

support communication, both directly and indirectly, are utilized by many users and a divide between

them was not present. Additionally, photo sharing was a feature utilized by many respondents. This

does not directly affect written communication, but probably facilitates it as a way to share more than

just words. In the future as video cameras become more ubiquitous the usage of video sharing may

increase. Overall, those features such as friend ratings and other features, with many citing 3rd party

Facebook applications, trailed, confirming that those features which do not facilitate direct

communication, are not as widely used. The second hypothesis stated that users will prefer modern

design and respondents confirmed this with 80% selecting the second example. Additionally,

respondents did derive additional information from the visual design. Several noted that the second

example reflected more effort and time, and that correlated to a higher level or security, a sense of

legitimacy or more functionality. The third hypothesis stated that leveraging the viral nature of online

social networks was the ideal means of gaining market traction. Respondents confirmed this with 93.8%

stating that they learned of online social networks from a friend. This calls attention to the importance

of users, not necessarily advertising or search engine placement.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that users of online social networks prefer sites that feature a modern visual

design and include features which allow them to communicate and group contacts. It also confirms that

person‐to‐person communication is the best way to advertise an online social networking site. This

study did not cover aspects of web site usability nor did it delve into detail about each success factor.

Future research in this area could include semi‐structured interviews where usability tests could be

performed. Additional studies in any of the areas discussed including functionality, visual design, and

marketing strategies would also be appropriate. This study was also limited in the most part to a fixed

demographic (students at UNC‐Chapel Hill). Further research could include a wider age range,

education level and geographic location.

References

Gulli, A., & Signorini, A. (2005). Indexable web size. Retrieved 2007, 12/10, from

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~asignori/web‐size/

Nicol, J. (2006). The visual design of web 2.0. Retrieved 11/3, 2007, from

http://f6design.com/journal/2006/10/21/the‐visual‐design‐of‐web‐20/

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, Ind.: New Riders.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of

software. Retrieved 12/10, 2007, from

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what‐is‐web‐20.html

Preece, J., Maloney‐Krichmar, D., & Abras, C. (2003). History and emergence of online communities.

Encyclopedia of Community,

UNC‐chapel hill office of institutional research and assessment: Current statistics. (2006). Retrieved

12/10, 2007, from http://oira.unc.edu/facts‐and‐figures/general‐information‐about‐the‐

university/current‐statistics.html

Appendix: Online Survey Instrument

Online Social Networking Survey

1. Welcome

Thank you for your interest in this survey. It's purpose is to help determine why online social networks are successful. To that end, please try to answer each question as accurately as possible.

Please note that this survey is for educational purposes only and no results will be published, outside of the class project. No personally identifiable information will be collected and you may choose not to answer any question simply by leaving it blank.

Please click next to complete the survey.

2.

Please complete the following background information.

1. What is your age?

2. What is your gender?

3. Do you have an account at a online social networking site?

(Examples include Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, Orkut, Yahoo 360, Flickr)

Male

Female

Prefer Not To Share

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

Yes

No nmlkj

nmlkj

If yes, to which sites?


4. How long have you had an account?

5. Please rate the frequency of your social network involvement.

3.

Please examine the following screen captures.

Less than 6 months

6 Months to a Year

A Year to Two Years

Two to Three Years

Three Years or More

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

nmlkj

Very Frequently (Multiple times

per week)Frequently (Once weekly) Seldom (Once monthly)

Very Seldom (A few times per

year or less)

How often do you use a social

networking site?nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Example 1


Example 2


1. Assuming that these two sites are functionally equivalent social networking sites (i.e. Facebook, MySpace), which would you be more likely to join?

4.

Please answer the following questions.

1. How did you first learn of a social networking site?Please check all that apply.

Example 1

Example 2 nmlkj

nmlkj

Please explain your decision

A Friend

Web Search

Online Advertisement

Other Advertisement (Radio, Print, or TV)

Not Sure

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

Other (please specify)

gfedc


2. Which social network features do you use?Comments or Wall (Public Messages)

Events

Friend Rating or Top Friends

Friends or Connections

Groups

Messaging (Private Messages)

Photos (Additional)

Posts (blogs, bulletins or updates)

Profile

Profile Photo (One)

Status or headline

Videos

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

gfedc

Others (please specify)

gfedc

success factors of online social networks abstract introduction

Documents