The Endurance Of Niche Social Networks

I don't think we should be fascinated by the rise of niche social networks.

I think we should be fascinated by the endurance of niche social networks.

They were here before the social media explosion, they're still going strong, and they will be here after it washes away. 

The successful niche online communities you see today aren't about to be swallowed up by Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn and Pinterest. 

Successful communities has very little to do with technology and a lot to do with developing a strong group identity. For many niche communities, using an older platform is part of their group identity. 

Better platforms don't create better communities. 

You should worry less about social media platforms and more about how to create a unique group identity that other people set out. That involves a strong history, clear group symbols, elements of ideology and clear, stated, beliefs. 

Easy to say, of course, much harder to do.

Comments

[RLma]

Rich - no question that you're right about symbols, ideology, beliefs etc. But the thing that caught my attention in the ReadWriteWeb article was that these niche networks get their strength from raiding the follower lists of bigger networks - e.g. Fb or LinkedIn. Which makes them sound like opportunistic networks. Maybe their focus is only a short term win. What are your thoughts on that sort of quick growth by drawing users from other networks' lists? Can that be sustainable?

[Richard Millington]

I don't think that's what most niche networks do. They were here before FB/Twitter even existed. You could argue, that FB/Twitter raid real social networks between people for their membership.

Either way, I don't think a) it's a good idea and b) it has much impact.