In the past three years, two atypical events - on two entirely different channels - have radically changed the way organizations function: the Economic downturn following the subprime mortgage crisis in the US; and the uprising of Social Media giants, towering the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc. And with the occurrence of both, it is only natural then, that companies rethink their way of functioning, their management of resources, and particularly so, their channels of communication – more so in largely consumer-driven businesses. Should the organization jump on the bandwagon to establish, or more usually, defend, its online brand? Or should it invest in an online ‘Social’ startup which happens to be rather promising? How have such innovations evolved, and have they always been successful? Are customers attracted to them faster than the usual channels of communication?
The article in turn, intends to establish a definite pattern in such startups, in hopes that it might just be easier to recognize one in the “next big thing”.
The article in turn, intends to establish a definite pattern in such startups, in hopes that it might just be easier to recognize one in the “next big thing”.
Going Google
When Google first opened to the world, it offered something most Search engines didn’t: subtle, ad-free search – and with nothing obvious on its website to sell to users. It was inherently smart.
Pitting it off against other search engines at the time, AltaVista, Yahoo! etc, which were otherwise crawling with news and advertisements, Google in turn kept it simple. Their clean webpage gave out the obvious message that their focus was indeed to provide the best of Search capabilities, and early adopters quite naturally took it in a stride - possibly owing to its reputation within Stanford as well. Its popularity soared, and so did widespread adoption. People shifted rapidly, not only because it was the best, but because everyone else was now using it.
Pitting it off against other search engines at the time, AltaVista, Yahoo! etc, which were otherwise crawling with news and advertisements, Google in turn kept it simple. Their clean webpage gave out the obvious message that their focus was indeed to provide the best of Search capabilities, and early adopters quite naturally took it in a stride - possibly owing to its reputation within Stanford as well. Its popularity soared, and so did widespread adoption. People shifted rapidly, not only because it was the best, but because everyone else was now using it.
The rest is history. Google now offers much more than just Search – Maps, Gmail, Chrome, Picasa, SketchUp, and the upcoming Wave. The list is endless, if not perfect.
‘The’ Facebook
Facebook in turn, albeit a different platform altogether, had similar beginnings. Written by Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg, it started off, best-described by Wikipedia, as a “Harvard University version of Hot or Not”. While the hot-or-not concept most certainly died out, the social-networking aspect stuck.
Reprogrammed and refurnished, it garnered around itself a certain exclusivity reputation, open only to Harvard students in its initial stages. Consequently, when opened for Ivy League universities, unsurprisingly enough, it attracted students by the masses; Zuckerberg glowed. The Networks grew, expanded to other universities, added Canadian Schools, Microsoft, Apple, and even High Schools. Facebook, it seemed, had provided people with the perfect way of staying connected, with old friends, acquaintances, and everyone else, occasionally offering a peek into the on-goings of their daily lives, with photos, status updates etc. etc. The website was simple, friendly, fresh, and clean.
Fast-forwarding a few years past that, Facebook, of course, is now open to users worldwide. While the ‘exclusivity’ factor is perhaps non-existent, users now flock to it by the thousands, if not millions, not only because of the same features which had attracted its early users, but more so because everyone else is now on it.
Twitterbits
Twitterbits
Twitter, perhaps Mashable’s favorite Social platform, had a rather interesting start as well. While not concocted in the likes of a garage, or as an accidental startup, it was rather the product of a brainstorming session at Odeo. Initially a simple SMS service offering the ability to post public messages, it was devoid of the sheer laziness accompanied with writing long blog posts (Such as this one). Everyone could give nippy little updates on their life – in 140 characters or less. It was simple, easy to use, and quite, quite unique.
While its long-term success might be hard to predict, it is definitely a fact now, that following its initial adaptation and success at the SXSW conference, it most certainly became quite a huge hit. Still in its early stages, people are starting to find uses which even its makers could not have possibly comprehended – viral marketing, research, and possibly even more.
Putting it all together
Putting it all together
There are more that may be talked about – YouTube, Blogs, Wikipedia etc. - the list isn’t exhaustive. For the purpose of this article however, let’s stick to highlighting certain common characteristics in these particular cases.
They all started out simple, quite unlike their competitors. Google, with its clean homepage; Facebook, with its simple connectivity features; and Twitter, of-course, for being Twitter. More so than simplicity of course, all three offered users something which other websites didn’t: an unusual, unique characteristic. Google, with its PageRank, for offering the most relevant of results; Facebook, with its Networks feature, to connect with all the right people; and Twitter, for its short SMS-like bursts of 140 character-long messages, which were so much more easier to jot down than blog-posts. These peculiar traits in turn, made the three platforms much, much more interesting - easily attracting the early hordes of adapters towards them.
Foregoing the exception of Twitter, (still just about 2 years old,) Google and Facebook themselves have now evolved into a lot more than what they started out as. While the Search Engine does provide some incremental features, Google has also tied in more and more efficient services to it – YouTube results, Google News, Maps etc. etc. And while Facebook itself has in fact discontinued its Networks feature, it now offers a lot more than just that – Videos, Groups, Fan Pages, Events, Applications, Games, E-Commerce systems - and much, much more.
So what’s next?
So what’s next?
What after them? Will Twitter evolve in a similar manner – incrementally, as Anil Dash likes to put it? It's already on the way to implement better Retweeting abilities, among other things. The only thing I fear is a substantial lack of clarity in exactly what it'll be offering businesses through subscription-based models.
What of the foregone Google Wave? The email-defying platform was certainly unique – too unique perhaps. While it provided an excellent array of features for developers, first looks alarmed common users with its complexity, rather than awe them with its savviness. Perhaps if they gradually rolled out similar features within Gmail itself, now one of the biggest email platforms worldwide – then yes. Google knows best.
As for future startups? Will they be as simple, unique, and viral? Time will tell.
As for future startups? Will they be as simple, unique, and viral? Time will tell.
