Charlie Crystle writes about startups, startup ecosystems, tech, food systems, and random things.
Search This Blog
Startup Over-Confidence of Network Effects
Network effects have been on my mind lately--a lot--and since Fred referenced the term yesterday I made a few comments and did some core research to validate/invalidate my assumptions and gut.
I feel there's lack of understanding about the dynamics and efficacy of network effects. Typically we refer to Metcalfe's law and talk about a pure environment, where every node that's added to the network is universally and always available.
When we apply this to human networks, the environment is not so pure and not reliable. We need to consider half-life, diminishing returns, dead stops, time limits of each human node, etc.
When applied to web-connected devices (nodes), flow is largely unimpeded, with messages/signals reaching the intended destination, and the response is highly likely (even taking into account the rare device failure, like a switch going down, or your wifi router, etc).
But networks of people have limits because people have limits like time, accessibility, interest, belief, trust, need, ambition, acceptance, etc.
So when we apply the term network effect to networks of people (social networks, trade networks, interest networks), we have to consider that they are not always on, and not reliable, like a network switch or device etc.
Those human elements are variable in intensity and availability, somewhat unpredictable, and different across people.
And the currently favored delivery networks (FB, Twitter, LinkedIn) present your messages in temporarily visible ways (as opposed to email, sms, voice) because of the use of streams instead of static messages designed to go from you to someone else who will most likely read anything in her inbox (unless it's poor Fred, inundated with email).
But let's just say the only network is the phone network, and you want your message to go from A to H, and the connection is assumed to be constantly available; the chance of your message reaching H without a direct call to H is something like, oh, well it's low (that would require math), given the human variables that leave gaps in the message chain.
I'll reference Leslyn's startup uencounter.me (disclaimer: we have not discussed this topic so this is not a reflection of Leslyn's thoughts or model necessarily).
When thinking in broad, general terms about a base of people (suppose there are 1 million people who would pin something on a map and share it with their 150 Facebook friends, thus our potential reach is 150 million people), keep in mind that
getting to 1 million committed, regular users is really tough (and a different topic),
not all 150 FB friends will get the message, even if each person sends a direct message (streaming content is only seen by people viewing the stream, or who seek out and browse your stream after the fact)
even if 30 get the message, perhaps only 3 will click through to see what was shared (limited by time, interest, relevance, need, etc)
of the 3 who click, it would be a miracle if 1/3 of them become a new committed user. It's more likely 1/40, because our social networks are largely aggregates of interest networks, not a single network of people with the same interests.
Reach is not 100%; measure reach and apply it to your models.
Expressed interest (click-through) is not 100%; measure expressed interest and apply it to your models.
Adoption is not 100%; measure adoption and apply it to your models.
Production (pinning and sharing) by your committed, active people is not 100%; measure the sharing of pinned stuff and apply it to the model.
And make sure you reward that behavior and remind them to come back and enjoy those rewards more (create a desire engine).
I'm not an economist, researcher, mathematician, or focused marketing guru--I'm just observing, learning from others, and trying to understand ways to get past the gaps and limitations of human networks. I'm not an economist, researcher, mathematician, or focused marketing guru--I'm just observing, learning from others, and trying to understand ways to get past the gaps and limitations of human networks.
So be realistic when thinking about networks of people.
What you will end up with, in simple terms, are percentages multiplied by percentages, which produce much lower engagement results than the perfect network model.
Your equation is R*E*A*P (this was totally accidental, btw but I like it). If R=20%, E=10%, A=10%, and P=50%, your resulting network effect growth factor per period looks like this : .2*.1*.1*.5 = .001.
If you have 10,000 users, and this is your monthly growth, your increase is 10,000*.001, or 10.
That's a pretty weak number.
So your work then is to optimize at each stage, and add in other, more dependable things like email, SMS, phone calls, letters, visits (depends on your business of course), but not so much that you discourage people from using your system.
And you can optimize the frequency/reduce the amount of time your people produce and share.
If you have thoughts or articles to share about these issues, please comment below. If you want to read real research on this with a less linear approach, check this out.
I've been working for quite a while on a new search concept, though the further in I get, the closer the rest of the world gets to what we're doing. So today I'm inviting you to sign up for the rather modest beta, which will be ready soon if we can nail down a few difficult details. Jawaya is a way of navigating the web and getting better results. And that's as much as I can say right now, because we're not a funded startup, and things are moving really fast in this space--it's going to be very competitive. I predict there will be about 10 funded startups in the next 6 months doing something similar. One of them will be mine, and we aim to make it the best. We're raising a round of capital to fund the team, and are shooting for early sustainability. This is my fifth company; my fourth in the tech space, and my third software company. I think it will be the biggest and can possibly have a positive impact on the world by reducing the amount of time it takes
As I get closer to a go/no-go decision on a project, I've been thinking about the difference about my vision for the project and the supportive innovations to enable the core innovations The vision combines (in unequal parts) product, core innovation as I imagine it, the application of that core innovation, design, marketing, developer ecosystem, and business development. The core innovation enables everything else, but it's the application of the innovation that makes it meaningful, useful, and in this case, fun. This week we're testing initial approaches to the implementation for our specific application, and that's where we'll develop the enabling innovations, which is basically where the rubber meets the road. The difference is that the enabling innovation happens at the source of real problems only encountered in the making of something, and in a project like this just getting the essence of it right isn't enough; it also has to be safe, the compone
It's the economy, stupid. Well, yes, it always has been, if you're in the distortion field of politics. But whose economy? The pundits, the White House, the Republican candidates all miss the mark. They keep talking about debt, taxes, and monetary policy. None of those things tell the real story behind today's economy. The Old Economy Keynes was right--in the old economy. Economy gets weak, pump some money into the economy through public works projects, which 1) puts people to work, which 2) boosts the economy and 3) generates new tax revenue, while 4) leaving us with another generation of reliable infrastructure to support 5) more growth (for growth's sake, which is another post). The Beach Ball Imagine a beach ball, partially deflated to represent a recession. Got it? Now imagine the govt pumping that beach ball back up through sensible public investment (which we haven't seen for decades). The New Economy Same beach ball, same pum