Are social networks useful?

At a time when everybody can easily set up a full blown blog (think WordPress), including revenue generating advertising, why would so many people be wasting their time posting quality content in (other people’s) social networks?

If you look at the member count at MySpace, Gather, Orkut, Facebook and Hi5, to name only those, it’s clear that being there has a lot to do with connecting family, friends and co-workers. While a minority of members actually take the time to post large amounts of content (of varying usefulness), most people just click around rather aimlessly — akin to wasting time in the local mall, on a rainy day.

So it seems that while a proverbial handful of people are there to obtain some form of visibility for their content, the bulk of these social network members are pretty clueless about “what else” they could be doing, other than surfing away their free time.

In today’s most popular networks, there’s a lot to do such as dressing up the profile, posting articles, images, videos, comments (in response to other people’s articles, blog-style), adding up friends and joining groups. So why are people so uninterested by all these features? It could be many things but it basically comes down to each member’s perception of the service. Said differently, to participate, the member has to find that posting content in a social network is useful… for him or her!

Social networks are allegedly bringing in large amounts of advertising money (pay-per-click or otherwise) for their owners but the members are always treated as “those who freely provide the content” so that pretty much insures that they’ll never get rich “networking” in other people’s (rather tightly controlled) web properties.

Maybe some musical artists on MySpace Music will convince a few more fans to listen to their music along the way but for most artists, it’s not the fastest route to financial independance. Similarly, some web marketers have tried peddling all sorts of things to all sorts of crowds, namely through groups, although eventually, they’re caught “abusing” the social network and either get their account downgraded or banned.

So we’re down to seeing social networks as big (and sometimes huge), ongoing, garden cocktail parties where everyone’s basically free to join but more likely uninterested enough to eventually forget they even have a working membership. Social networks therefore try to muster members’ attention with special events, promotions and features. It seems to be having very uneven levels of success, depending on the perceived value for the user, if any.

The Frankenstein-like privacy policy nightmares related to these social networks will be the main theme for an upcoming article but suffice it to say that trusting these particular “third-party” web services with information you hold dear, like your entire identity, might turn out to be a very, very bad idea.

So should bloggers also have their “spin marketing” account in each of these social networks to generate theme-specific unique visits to their blogs? It depends. If no other alternative exists, social networks might be better than nothing but that’s about it. For instance, a blogger’s not likely to hit Google‘s top search spot because he cross-posted lead-generating content in his MySpace or Orkut account. It might help (over the very long run) but it’s not going to make a significant impact.

It’s a gradual process, really.

Most people get sucked into these networks to “become (online) friends” to their offline counterparts. Once in a while, they get a message from their friends, through the social network. At this point, most people wonder if the whole social networking thing is really worth it but deleting their account is made so ridiculously difficult (or tricky) that they just keep it as is until things hopefully become less entangled.

So even though social networks are said to be handling hundreds of millions of member profiles, one has to wonder if the members are really getting a valuable payoff, at their end of the deal. After all, (1) they’re actively or passively censored, (2) they can’t (legally) make any money with (pay-per-click) advertising, (3) they instantly lose full property of their content the moment they post it and (4) in the case their profile is abused, they’re legally bound by contract to fully indemnify the social network operator — even if those operators happen to be the culprits!

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because in most networks, members have very little control over what other members say about them and that could lead down a very slippery slope, online and off.

So at this point, most members might be scratching their heads as to why they’re sticking with these rather insidious networking platforms anyway.

If you’re one of these members, you’re not alone since a lot of people are now backing away from freely giving away their personal information and going back to creating their very own blog in why they control all aspects of the content while remaining the owners of what they create… and getting a bit richer (with PPC ads), in the process.

While most people will continue to use one form or another of social networks, chances are that until the operators come clean, from legal and ethical standpoints, more and more people will see more use in staying away from these networks than joining them.

After all, giving away -everything- you think up can’t be that useful for you although, in the global scheme of things, it’ll make total strangers (the social network owners) that much richer!

Tags: social networks, usefulness, networking, people, myspace, gather, orkut, facebook, hi5, legal, ethical