What separates the winners and losers in social media? Why does one idea catch on while a similar one fails? Do the same principles that apply in other channels translate to social networks, blogging platforms, communities, and the like?
I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm curious to find out what thoughts people have. Lately it seems Twitter and Facebook are the two dominant social platforms, but it wasn't so long ago that everyone was touting MySpace's 100 million members and the endless possibilities presented by SecondLife (anyone still own an island?). MySpace isn't dead yet, but many of its brethren are. What made Facebook and Twitter rise above the rest?
The answer probably involves some combination of timing, ease-of-use, usefulness in general, and building on the wave of early adopters to go mainstream. Certainly Everett Roger's diffusion of innovation theory and Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm could explain the randomness of which sites survived. If you're unfamiliar with either writer, I recommend at least a glance at Wikipedia to see if the topic piques your interest.
What do you think separates the social media leaders from the fallen? Which sites (defunct or currently operating) did/do you prefer, and why? Share your thoughts in the comments, join the discussion in our 1to1 Insiders LinkedIn group, or Tweet about it.
