Is it necessary to generalize about anything anymore? Forget Google’s “don’t be evil.” That blank stare of data correlation as its own ends is the true ethic. Wired’s Chris Anderson got it right last month:
“Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves.”
While third party Facebook developers, like RockYou, are responsive to the tastes of 14 year old volley ballers, the host companies (i.e.: Facebook) still favor plain vanilla. Although Facebook is a social network, its prioritizing of efficiency over self expression is Google-esque — but are these two things truly mutually exclusive?
Younger (post-Facebook) companies, like RockYou, are evolving a very different standard of usability. Facebook looks to Google, RockYou looks to Facebook. Different points of reference, assumptions, and data breed variable utility.
Does RockYou’s rise represent a vertical market entry strategy for up and coming developers? Maybe. It might also indicate a profound shift brought on by the availability of (so much) personal data. While Google famously insists “focus on the user and all else will follow” its definition of what that “focus” constitutes is narrow.
If the web is becoming as personal as it is vast, is it enough to define “user focus” as a speedy page load and minimal interface? Excellent performance is essential, but is it accurate to equate this with “focusing on the user” ? Or, even more provocative, is that last vestige of universality, utility, about to be picked apart ?
2 RESPONSES SO FAR.
1 randy // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:17 am
Some fairly provocative claims in that very brief posting.
Starting with the Chris Anderson post, you can’t be so blasé about consumer motivation. I did a WebEx with a company that offers search results and navigational schemes based on affinity modeling, but the client they were pitching doesn’t have hard/fast validation metrics we’d be comfortable using as a basis for the modeling. They can’t say definitively that one visit is more valuable to them than another based on sales, registrations or even page-views (it’s more complicated than you’d think). We have CPG clients that optimize to engagement, which on the search side might include page-count but nobody ever validated the site itself to say whether these are the right contents to create lift and intent. Sometimes the data is loaded, and sometimes based on pre-designed navigational structures people aren’t making free decisions anyway. Either way, to say “who knows why people do what they do” feels desperate and resigned to futility.
I agree that Facebook is catering to lower common denominators, but that’s more based on the scalability and structure of their sales products than interest or promise for the full ambition seen in RockYou’s striations. Per the article I wrote for you. But personally, I don’t know whether RockYou has been able to deliver on their promise.
As for the last comment, you surely can’t be suggesting that utility is being deconstructed or delivered in less concentration than in the web of past?
2 Paul Johnson // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:20 am
Randy:
Well, behaviorism, by definition, considers motivation irrelevant. Google is a vast behavioral targeting engine. Talking about things like “evil” and a “database of intent,” which are highly subjective concepts, is great PR but basically meaningless. Google’s minimalist definition of what “following the user” is implication enough. It’s very Le Corbusier, very Skinner.
Developers which can now assume access to vast amounts of personal data will be more diverse in their models. That is my prediction. It is not an issue of dilution. There are many factors at work in this shift. Much of Google-era efficiency standards are completely arbitrary and, yes, these will be blown apart.
LEAVE A COMMENT