Sloppy AIM?

Shai Dardashti, a friend of mine, made the interesting-if-grandiose observation yesterday that AOL has squandered its first-best opportunity to rule the field of online social networking. Shai points out that, really, Instant Messenger has contained all the core elements of a primitive social networking platform since its first release circa 1998: user-customizable profiles and away messages, updateable contact and interest meta-data and, lest we forget, dynamic buddy lists.

Now, I'd venture to guess that 99.9% of new connections within the system are struck externally. I can read my friends' profiles, but nobody I know uses AIM's search functionality to locate new contacts with similar interests. In the same vein, AIM's buddy lists are strictly first-order. So I can see my friends, but not my friends' friends.

But even on AIM, my friends have other friends I've never met. So do their friends. And AIM claims to have over 195 million regisered users, 84 million of whom say they IM actively, with better than 48% of the active IM user base. (These numbers are from different sources but even so, do the math, interpret it roughly and you'll notice that AIM's subscribed base appears larger than the entire market of active IM users. Lots of people sign up for online services and never use them again, so this may make sense. But I don't know. If anyone has thoughts on this, by all means post a comment or drop me an e-mail.) By comparison, Spoke today claims to have "access to 28,844,647 relationships in 500,700 companies." So why has AOL's massive, mixed media marketing machine squandered so much of its head start over upstarts such as Spoke and Friendster, let alone other IM platforms who split the remaining 52% of users?

As it turns out, Shai and I aren't the first ones to think about these questions. Check out BuddyZoo, which was launched back in 2003 to map AIM buddy relationships all the way out. It even applies neato-algorithms such as popularity rankings and college rankings. BuddyZoo has gotten some play, as well as mapping 8,584,105 unique Screen Names (these represent BuddyZoo's immediate users and their first-order "buddies), but a hands-off response from AOL. BuddyZoo users have to upload their buddy lists manually. NYT quotes Derick Mains, an AOL spokesman here: "BuddyZoo is an interesting concept that takes hold of the community and relationship elements that are so key to AIM…[but] we still view the buddy list as something completely private."

Perhaps with that philosophy in mind, AOL has taken steps just this past month to incorporate some (but not all) of the benefits of social networking. On June 5, they announced a forthcoming partnership with Plaxo, a social networking platform that dynamically updates PIM-downloadable vCard-like contact profiles as the relevant information changes. To the mix, AOL brings presence-awareness and an influx of new users. In exchange, it reinforces one of the most powerful, most natural and as-yet partially tapped stores of contact information that exists today. So the Plaxo deal has potential to increase AIM profiles' depth, but not to encourage new relationships. How much more powerful a platform would it be were AOL to take the next step by facilitating new contacts as well as existing ones? An "introduction-oriented" model such as LinkedIN's, where users can discover new contacts independently, but must ask permission of mutual "buddies" before actually making contact, could be wholly consistent with AOL's commitment to user privacy.

Because AIM users update their buddy lists naturally, in the course of daily communication, AOL retains the right to map the web that results and dwarf existing social networking platforms overnight. So maybe it's unwise to count them out just yet.

Comments

[Shai Dardashti]

Jon and Doug:
First of all, this site's really got some extraordinary content on it, and I really am impressed (and will be coming back to check it regularly...)

Regarding the comments you added on our conversation a couple days ago re: AIM and the evolution of Social Networking...

I think it would also be rewarding to evaluate the "Corporate DNA" of a company like AOL vs. the likes of an emerging internet force like Google. In many respects, I think, the conclusion would be much akin to thinking about the divergence of Lucent and Cisco. The former was offspring of a "monopoly mentality" entrenched within the AT&T/Bell psyche. AT&T/Bell/Lucent, I'd argue, thrived when there was a status quo: they'll make a ton of money as long as *everyone just does the same now as they did the year before* (eg. uses standard phone service.) As simple as that.

In contrast, however, Cisco thrived when there was a digital disruption; i.e., Cisco's success was rooted specifically on innovation and technological advance. They'll make a ton of money as long as *they're the industry leader in technological advances.* (eg. their purchases of pipe bandwidth supporters, etc.) As simple as that.

===

In many respects, AOL still has that AT&T-esque mentality; broadband revolutionized internet access, and nearly eroded the relevancy of AOL as a company - people no longer used "standard telephone service" to access the internet, and AOL was too content to become the industry leader for change. The stiff competition from Comcast (cable based internet access) and DSL is a testament to AOL's poorly evolved "Corporate DNA." Of course, the contrast in Google's "Corporate DNA" should be self evident - they only reached their level of current success (market cap is greater than Time Warner) because they out-innovated the previous giant of search: Yahoo.com

===

Ultimately, when thinking about the future of Social Networking, I think it's important to remember the past - "Corporate DNA" is one of many factors that is likely to play a role in who emerges as the next industry giant, and the "Sloppy AIM" of AOL is clearly a cause for concern.

Best,
Shai Dardashti
www.ShaiDardashti.com

[Shai Dardashti]

A Brief History Lesson and A Safe Prediction:

Lesson 1) "AIM Meets Social Network Theory"

Headlines from SlashDot, from Mon Apr 14, '03 03:41 AM.

Looks like AOL *really* managed to mess up their chances to lead the Social Networking revolution.

===

Lesson 2) "ICQ Builds a Social Network; New service uses IM, allowing members to meet and greet in real time."

News broke in a PCWorld.com story dated March 4, 2004.

It's more than a year later - literally a lifetime for a product in a digitally-disruptive technology.

Again, where is AOL's innovative role in the social networking world?

===

I'd like to see Google.com get involved in real-time Social Networking. Wait, it looks like that already is their intention, and they're well on their way towards securing a leading position!

(a) Google.com buys Blogger.com in 2002.

---> A couple years later: Google promotes "Adsense" to their flock of millions of blogger pages; I've made $5.46 in 2 days of ads with their program on my Blogger website; I'm sure Google has made far more than that from the page views my writings are generating. The revenue generated from Blogger.com-based Adsense click-throughs, I'd argue, will soon cover the purchase price for Blogger.com!)

(b) Google.com buys Dodgeball.com on May 11, 2005

A couple years later: Google will emerge as a leader in "Real-Time Social Networking."

Just watch.

- Shai Dardashti

Editor, www.ShaiDardashti.com