Comments for

The Facebook Platform is Biased Toward "Fun" Apps

2008-05-05T21:00:01Z

Over the weekend, a chart from the Flowing Data blog "revealed" that Facebook applications, on the whole, are silly. Much of the discussion that followed was of the patronizing "see, we told you Facebook apps were dumb" variety. Nevermind that the category data is based on developer defined categorization (i.e., this is how the apps makers see their apps, not necessarily how users might classify them), the real reason there are so many fun apps on Facebook is because the distribution channels are biased toward their success, or so says Ben Rattray of Change.org.

]]> That Facebook will eventually morph into a network suitable for both work and play is an argument I've made on ReadWriteWeb in the past. But as we noted a couple of weeks ago, in spite of Facebook already being in wide use in the business community, it has yet to shed its fun image. On top of there being fewer "useful" apps, the ones that do exist also aren't being used as often.

According to Rattray, that's because the Facebook platform is biased against them. "The only way for a Facebook app to get any sort of distribution is to have a viral coefficient over 1. This is an extremely high barrier for any app in which inviting friends is not an inherent part of using it," writes Rattray in an email republished on Andrew Chen's blog.

Fun Apps are Built to Go Viral

Utility apps on Facebook rely on word of mouth to spread, while "fun" apps tend to use the platform's built in viral action mechanisms (friend invites, news feed stories, etc.). It becomes exceptionally difficult for utility apps to achieve a viral coefficient above 1 when relying solely on word of mouth -- or people talking about their app because they're excited to use it. In otherwords, "Witchdoctors vs. Shopping Mall Security Guards" will get very popular because it has a built in viral transmission mechanism (invite friends), but most utility apps don't have that -- you don't need to invite your friends to an application that manages your schedule, and there are fewer chances for news feed insertions -- and so must rely on word of mouth.

Facebook actually compounds the problem because the sheer number of apps has created noise and made it less likely for people to accept invites. "Given current invitation conversation rates of 5% or less (at least what I'm hearing), for an app to go viral, you have to get people to invite an average of at least 20 friends," says Rattray. "How many utility based apps can achieve that? How many inspire so much passion that its users tell 20 friends, on average? Few, even if people find the app incredibly useful."

Rattray also compares the Facebook platform to one of history's most successful computing platform plays: Windows. Windows apps, he says, are rarely viral. Instead, they gain users via distribution deals with big box electronics stores, of which the application directory is the Facebook equivalent. But the directory is so overloaded with choices that it has become virtually useless as a distribution tool. To the extent that it is used, which apps get top billing? Largely the silly viral applications that tend to be the most popular for reasons already stated.

The Solution

"As a final note," writes Rattray, "[...] it seems almost certain that Facebook itself didn't realize when they launched the platform that they created a system in which it was nearly impossible to achieve the very thing they claimed to seek -- greater utility." Facebook is now trying to remedy the situation by tweaking rules about app invites and news feed insertions, but making it easier for useful apps which have no built in viral mechanism to go viral on the network is itself not an easy task. Rattray suggests an overhauled directory that is perhaps personalized for each user based on app ratings gleaned from their social graph.

In a follow up email to Chen, Rattray wonders if perhaps Facebook users just aren't interested in useful apps -- a common sentiment in comments here whenever I make a post on this topic. "I think it's possible that Facebook users as a whole just aren't that interested in utility-based apps," he concedes. "But I also think that a strong argument can be made that Facebook could be a compelling utility." Because of the way distribution on the platform is set up, it's a question that can't really be answered until useful apps have been given their fair shake at exposure.

According to Rattray, "From a business standpoint, if Facebook wants to keep their core audience engaged beyond college, attract an older audience that has never used Facebook, and better monetize both groups, they're going to do more than offer fun ways to communicate with friends."

Comment from Jon on 2008-05-05

2008-05-06T01:36:57Z

"an overhauled directory that is perhaps personalized for each user based on app ratings gleaned from their social graph"

I wonder how much of that social graph is made up of explicitly stated items. My guess is very little. There seems to be such a bias toward using implicit data over explicit data these past few years.

If my overall web "directory" is customized based on implicit data, eventually my overall web "experience" will leave no room for the serendipitous discovery of that which could add to my overall "life" experience.

Comment from Bala on 2008-05-05

2008-05-06T03:49:31Z

Ofcourse it is and what is the problem being so?
FACEBOOK is a social Networking site and you cant expect anything better, let it be fun and let it be silly. We cant afford to have too serious stuffs out there.

If at all someone wants something serious, go for other options like Linkedln rather then talking about changing facebook

Comment from Ben Rattray on 2008-05-05

2008-05-06T06:30:46Z

Thanks for mentioning my post, Josh - much appreciated. (This is Ben.)

Bala - I agree that it's possible most Facebook users just want to have fun, just as I agree that business networking will likely mostly stay with Linkedin.

But there are a ton of useful apps that would never fit in Linkedin (e.g. sharing restaurant reviews with friends, organizing carpools or local sporting leagues, etc) that I think could add a lot of value to Facebook but which will never spread as apps because of the structural bias against apps that aren't built specifically for virality - even if these are truly loved by users.

So again, I recognize it's possible that users don't want these apps. But the nature of distribution inside Facebook is such that users will never be given the chance to embrace or reject them since they'll never find them in the first place.

Comment from John on 2008-05-06

2008-05-06T17:56:41Z

We launched our application on FB earlier this year and view it as having business and social uses. It's a free networking tool that helps you connect offline with people you want to meet in the places you will be-- whether traveling or near home or work. It focuses on developing your business and social networks through face-to-face meetings. Meetings can be arranged for purposes of social networking, business networking, sharing common interests, or any other purpose.

We are considering a name change since the site is not limited to travelers or to meetings around a table. People can post invites for networking meetings near home, work or on the road. Moreover, the proposed meetings are not limited to those around a table such as coffee, lunch or drinks, but can be for golf, running or any activities. Once we implement the new name, we'll promote the app and the site more heavily.

We have a few additional challenges on FB. Specifically, our metric of success is actual meetings between people. We need to encourage our FB users to create profiles that can be viewed by other users (both on and off FB) since it helps at either end of the meeting invite and also create invites that better describe the purpose of the meetings.

We believe as the number of FB users above 25 years grows, the usefulness of applications such as TravelersTable will grow.

Comment from Merredith on 2008-05-07

2008-05-07T22:37:53Z

Remembering the genesis of FB, it's not surprising that a lot of apps built for it are fluffy. I was even at a WebGuild event where RockYou and GOOG execs poopoohed the idea of Web users over 25 or 30 using Web 2.0 apps in the enterprise -- even though it's already happening. JiaShen even snorted, saying, "Web 2.0 -- that's like, 'Hot or Not' -- and I don't see old folks going for that." Which cracked me up, since Hot or Not is just voting -- and it's on lots of apps, some of them fluffy, many of them not.

The point of my scree is - many are developing for what they assume 25-and-unders want. But like John, I think there's a balance to be had -- and money to be made. The 30-pluses like some fun, and some utility. And as for the 25-and-unders, they won't stay that way forever, either. Hot? or Not? is the same thing as Obama? or McCain?