e202f07kazunas

Peter Kazunas
3 December 2007
Research Paper Final Draft
MWF 9:05-9:55
Dr. Sherwood

The Invisible Hand Behind Online Social Networks
Marshall McLuhan, forward thinking communications theorist stated,
“All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered.” McLuhan made this statement in his book The Medium is the Massage in 1967 when television, radio, and newspapers had established themselves in the everyday life of the average American citizen. Likewise McLuhan’s analysis can be carried over to 2007, when computers have become fixtures feeding our senses as much as television and the printed word had in the 1960s. The internet upped the ante by not simply shouting static words at the user, but allowing the user to seek out information and become a participant with every user having his own corner of cyberspace. Each detail of society sprung up in the ersatz landscape that was traversed not by marching feet, but rather clicking fingers.
The internet, the home of our digital lives, has evolved from monochromatic text lines to a multimedia experience. Many people’s first online experiences were in Web1.0 in the 1990s. The internet was a bland world. There was no web surfing, nothing moved. Web pages were static and factual. But this was enough to draw people in. Once there, people began interacting with one another, connecting. Themed forums and message boards were the basis of online communities. Business joined in the migration. Dotcom companies with a few dollars in start up costs were projected as million dollar companies weeks later. AOL became a household name, both as an internet service provider and as a networking site. It gave users the ability to list information and graphics about themselves and say “Here I am.”
It is in this age the dreaded “pop-up” was born. Pop-up advertisements were not for mainstream products though, they were advertised online because it was cheap enough to bombard a large amount of users, if only to have a fraction of a percent accidentally click their link. Almost virus-like in its early days, the pop-up advertisement would flood a user’s screen with flashing text, links to online scams, invitations to adult websites, or diet pills of questionable legality. This was not a pleasant experience for the user who was forced to close the advertisement hordes with the dexterity of a Missile Command player. Eventually browsers and even ISP’s combated the problem with pop-up blocking software. Ads were not essential to the existence of sites; they were simply an add-on for the possibility of some extra money.
The rapidly growing internet industry could not sustain itself though, and in 2000 the dotcom bubble “burst.” The web based companies with projections in the millions and growth doubling every few months saw themselves reduced to their actual worth, which for most, was not much. Users did not leave the internet though, and continued to frequent the remaining sites. Technology continued forward and soon hardware could execute many more processes and faster, bandwidth pumped into homes dwarfed dial-up, software allowed webpages to attract users with constant updates, interactive interfaces, videos, and short load times. A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms formed a new digital mall for users. Out of this melee Web2.0 emerged ubiquitous and our lives slipped further to the digital. Users increased their connected-ness and it became commonplace to have online friends. As the trends of users consolidated, some social networking sites saw their user base grow into the tens of millions. This new window to consumers enthused online advertisers, many of them with real products or desirable services unlike Web1.0. Ads were no longer annoying pop-up windows that were X’d out of existence or blocked altogether; they were integrated with the webpage often with flashy graphics. When millions of users log onto a site, there are significant expenses for servers, bandwidth, programmers, and a host of other technicians. A website must pay the bills with advertising, or attract investors with the promise of advertising revenue. So in Web2.0 large social networking sites have become intertwined with online advertising. Without giving it much thought, users can create profiles, share pictures, post blogs, and connect with others on their favorite websites. But there is an overlooked dependence on advertising, investing, mass marketing, and the ability to generate profit will control the fate of multimillion user social networking sites in Web2.0.
Friendster was one of the earlier multimillion user social networking sites in Web2.0. Jonathan Abrams was a software engineer who landed work in a dating website after the Dotcom bust. He wanted to make a social tool that connected people based on a few degrees of separation. He obtained some start up money and opened Friendster in early 2003, and by the summer it had nearly a millions users. There was little self promotion, the site relied on word of mouth interest. With traffic doubling by the end of the year, software and hardware demands for the site slowed down browsing. At this point Abrams was set on getting more investors onboard. Engineers for the site were able to keep the site up and running, but with the effectiveness of patch-working a sieve. Investors had put millions into Friendster, and with that, they wanted to determine the direction of the company. A board was assembled with Abrams as the chair. Investors are focused on money though, and rather than make a better product, they sought stability through partnerships. The board removed Abrams as head and the site continued to go downhill. An expensive overhaul was done, but load times did not improve much. (Chafkin 84-91) While Abrams was by no means an expert in making his site a success, he did have more experience than the other entrepreneur board members. The board members were older and were treating Friendster like a typical investment. As can be seen from the short period in which Friendster made its rise, such a market is dynamic and requires and understanding of how to please the user base. Placing decision making power with inexperienced board members was not just risky, it was flying blind.
With the inabilities of the board, a bump in the road was able to cripple the site. During the time of the overhaul, a key change in the Friendster user base took place. The site had become popular among Filipinos, and lots of them. This taxed the resources of the servers, and advertisers were not interested in users they were unable to sell to. America had only recently established internet ads as a legitimate medium for advertisers, so Filipino companies were not likely to see it as an effective advertising method yet. Myspace had begun its rise, and Friendster saw a decline in their users in the midst of competition. The company changed hands a few times and was valued at a small fraction of previous offers for buyouts. Visiting the site in October of 2007 brings up a frontpage of almost all Southeast-Asian users.
MySpace is the most popular social networking site and is the sixth most trafficked site in the world.(Alexa) MySpace started as a project in a company called eUniverse with Chris DeWolfe, Brad Greenspan, and Tom Anderson being among the first people involved. The foundation of MySpace was built with the large user base of eUniverse. The site gained momentum as features were added, and eventually band profiles became a feature. There is an e-myth that MySpace started as a band networking site, but these band profiles were the honey that would attract new users. In July of 2005 MySpace was bought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for $580 million. (BBC News) This cements MySpace as a media outlet and their users continue to grow. Already Google has made a $900 million deal with MySpace for the rights to its banner ads for the next three years. This demonstrates the importance of a site’s ability to not only sell ads, but rather ad space.
There is another history of MySpace though. Since MySpace itself is a product, the story behind it can be thought of a sales technique. A different perspective on how things developed has cropped up among online journalists. In Trent Lapinski’s “MySpace: The Business of Spam 2.0” the roles of key MySpace founders and the inception of the site are questioned. Lapinski states, “What’s interesting is that most users don’t know that Tom Anderson is more of a PR scheme than anything else–the mascot designed to give a friendlier feel to a site created by a marketing company known for viral entertainment websites, pop-up advertising, spam, spyware, and adware.” Tom appears as every new user’s first friend on the site. Lapinski describes DeWolfe’s and Greenspan’s trek through companies like Skilljam.com, X-Drive Technologies Inc., Intelligent X, Responsebase, and eventually winding up in eUniverse. The founders then joined Friendster and saw an underutilized medium. The features of the site were taken to create MySpace, and an initial user base was fueled by eUniverse resources. After MySpace was up and running, Greenspan was forced out, and the public spotlight was placed on Tom. Greenspan retained MySpace stock and was unsatisfied with the bid from Newscorp that was accepted. This event prompted Greenspan to come out against MySpace and publish the “Free MySpace Report” from which bloggers like Lapinski draw much of their information from. With this perspective the navigation of the site can be reinterpreted as an advertising machine that draws people in with social networking.
The first few pages a user sees when logging into MySpace is full of ads. The breakdown of the homepage is as follows. A small flash based ad above the login and a larger flash based ad to the left are the most noticeable ads. They often have commercial qualities with moving frames and sometimes sound. Often these ads promote movies or television shows, and in this case they are for Palm electronic products. Still links with pictures of user based videos are in the upper left and middle right of the page, the largest picturing being of a video of a child playing with a Nintendo Wii. To the left under the MySpace music heading is an ad/link to Fat Joe’s new album. Below it is a fashion review by Nicky Hilton sponsored by Degree. Text links in the lower right for “Meeting Black Singles”, “Soulja Boy Video Online”, “Get Hip Hop Music Songs”, and “Tattoo Lovers” fill out the page. There are also over 35 links to other MySpace pages including features and profiles, each of them containing more ads.
Once a user logs in, his greeting page appears. The top of the page has a flash based banner ad with a click based mini-game for Advertisers Reward Network. To the right of the user’s profile picture there is another flash based ad scrolling cartoon ad prompting the viewer to “Insert FREE smileys & eCards into your IM and emails.” Below is a four paneled ad for a MySpace profile page for a video electronics product. Lower on the page Fat Joe’s album is again advertised. There is also an indicator message that the web browser being used has blocked an incoming pop-up advertisement. This page clocks in with over 80 links to other MySpace features and pages.
From simply logging in and visiting two pages the user is bombarded with ads in every form. A user likely flies through these pages in less than ten seconds as they log in. Some ads prompt the user to click them, while others do their job like a billboard creating brand awareness. The line between advertisement and content is blurred as many products have their own profile on MySpace. MySpace links dozens of features and profiles to the user, each of them with more ads and links. The more a user navigates the site, the more advertising MySpace can sell.
Unlike the established advertising that users are becoming desensitized to, Myspace is on the cusp of having a better product to sell to advertisers, and potentially this advertising method may be better for consumers as well. MySpace has recently purchased Strategic Data Corp, a company which provides the means to evolve advertising on Myspace. Fox president Peter Levinsohn states on the SDC’s site that “SDC’s expert team and technologies combined with our own top notch engineers and vast audience will enable us to ensure the optimal performance of our advertising for the benefit of clients and consumers alike.”(Strategic Data Corp.) So-called “ad-targeting” narrows down the audience for a specific ad to users that fit the criteria that the advertiser defines. An example might be that a company with a baldness-combating product traditionally would advertise to all of MySpace’s over 100 million audience. With ad-targeting though, the audience can be narrowed to say, males in the US over age 40. Since advertisers pay by the impression, this would either significantly reduce their costs to reach their target audience, or increase the amount of impressions per target consumer. This benefits the user as well in that the rest of the MySpace audience does not have to sit through an ad for hair growth formula that they will never buy.
Ad-targeting is not without its dark side though. MySpace users predominately join and use the site for social networking, not to be advertising targets. It is an unspoken agreement that any media user, be it radio, television, or computer expects some degree of advertising. MySpace users publish profiles with likes, dislikes, personal information, and blogs. All of these tidbits of information can also be seen by MySpace, relayed to advertisers, or viewed by advertisers directly in order to target ads. Even if a user deletes information they no longer want to be sharing, their user data may be stored in advertising databases for decades to come. This data-mining is not limited to MySpace’s efforts to generate income. Since a good deal of user information is public, any agency can amass huge volumes of user profiles to search and categorize as they see fit. Users may not be as willing in this type of advertising agreement.
MySpace isn’t alone in the social networking front though, Facebook could be the next big thing based on its recent yearly growth (270% from Jun 2006-2007)(Farber) and the direction of the company. In its early stage it required an .edu e-mail address to join, so the user base was formed from predominately high school and college students. Since their .edu e-mail was often unique and identified with their real name, people tended to stay closer to their real selves on Facebook. For now it is coexisting with MySpace and many users use both sites, indicating that the sites serve a somewhat differing purpose. Interestingly, NetRatings reports posted on socialmedia.net showed that MySpace/Facebook dual users spent over 20% more time on each site than exclusive users. Facebook has a founding story that helps them identify with the intended audience:
“Originally called thefacebook, Facebook was founded by former-Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (while at Harvard) who ran it as one of his hobby projects with some financial help from Eduardo Saverin. Within months, Facebook and its core idea spread across the dorm rooms of Harvard where it was very well received. Soon enough, it was extended to Stanford and Yale where, like Harvard, it was widely endorsed. Before he knew it, Mark Zuckerberg was joined by two other fellow Harvard-students - Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes - to help him grow the site to the next level. Only months later when it was officially a national student network phenomenon, Zuckerberg and Moskovitz dropped out of Harvard to pursue their dreams and run Facebook full time. In August 2005, thefacebook was officially called Facebook and the domain facebook.com was purchased for a reported $200,000.” (Yadav)
The founding story helped the intended user feel that the site was a more organic environment. Facebook is now open for anyone to join, but there is still a strong sense of the college feel.
The funding of Facebook has matched its growth, and so far Zuckerberg has kept the site independent. Investments have been accepted along the way from Peter Thiel ($500,000 in Summer 2004), Accel Partners ($12.7 million April 2005), Greylock Partners, Meritech, and previous investors ($27.5 million in April 2006). (Facebook) Currently the board consists of “Members: Mark Zuckerberg, Jim Breyer (Accel Partners), and Peter Thiel; Observer: David Sze (Greylock Partners); Observer: Paul Madera (Meritech).” Most recently Microsoft invested $240 million for a 1.6% share of Facebook. (Associated Press) An August press release from Microsoft states “As part of the relationship, Microsoft will be the exclusive provider of banner advertising and sponsored links on Facebook using Microsoft’s digital advertising solutions and the Microsoft® adCenter platform. The two companies also agreed to work together on future technology and advertising initiatives.”(Microsoft) This is a much needed war chest for Facebook without having to sacrifice decision making authority to an investor.
As can be seen with the amount of money invested in Facebook advertising is vital to the site, but the site goes for quality advertising not quantity. The ads on Facebook are considerably less in number. Upon bringing up the home page to log in, there are no ads at all. Once logged in, the user profile page has one flash based banner ad at the bottom, in this case for Verizon. Visiting a profile has a flash based side banner for a dating service. With one advertisement a page, Facebook is much less intrusive while the user is navigating. Based on Microsoft’s investment though, these ads are projected to be effective. This makes sense, as an advertiser, would you rather pay to have your ad among a dozen other ads, or be the only ad on the page?
This advertising and marketing war is being played out hidden in plain view of the user. When a person decides to join a social networking site, they have been carefully guided to that point by a self marketing campaign brainstormed by the developers of the site. Once in a site, the user may generate some content, but it is organized and used to the site’s advantage. In the early days of messageboards, users developed sites based around content and organic communities. The popularity of current social networking sites shows that users are eager to join sites that have content as a low priority and find their place in the fabricated system. In the process of supplying personal information to friends, users now do the same for advertisers.
While some might pass off online social networking sites as fads, over a billion dollars has been invested to carry advertisements to millions of people. The next few years will be important in the outcome of Google and Microsoft’s large investments. If it pays off, the values of MySpace and Facebook will spiral into the billions of dollars and new investors will beg to find a way on board. On the other hand if these companies do not see a worthwhile return, they will not invest much more money into the sites. This would leave the networking sites in an interesting spot. Without the luxury of selling ad space in bulk to investors, they would have to concentrate on generating their own ad revenue, so advertising prices would increase to keep up with the bills, or clever new advertising methods would be developed. More than likely the number of users will continue to grow, and both the quantity ads of MySpace and the quality ads of Facebook will be seen as profitable advertising schemes. As companies seek exposure for brand awareness, social networking schemes may work even harder to bring company and consumer together as friends.

Works Cited
Alexa the Web Information Company. “Alexa Top Sites.” 2 November 2007

Associated Press. “Microsoft invests $240 million in Facebook.” msnbc.com. 24
October 2007. 2 November 2007< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458486/>
BBC News. “News Corp in $580m Internet Buy.” BBCNews.com. 2 November 2007

Breslin, John. “Dual visitors to MySpace and Facebook spend more time on site than
exclusive visitors in US teen bracket.” Socialmedia.net. 20 Sept 2007. 2
November 2007 < http://socialmedia.net/2007/09/20/dual-visitors-to-myspace-
and-facebook-spend-more-time-on-site-than-exclusive-visitors-in-us-teen-
bracket/>
Chafkin, Max. “How to Kill a Great Idea.” Inc. Jun. 2007, Vol. 29 Issue 6, p84-91. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007
Facebook. “Facebook Factsheet.” Facebook.com. 2 November 2007

Farber, Dan. “Facebook, Tagged, Bebo Outpacing MySpace Growth Rate.” Zdnet. 31
July 2007. 2 November 2007 < http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5818>
Greenspan, Brad. “The MySpace Report.” FreeMySpace. 30 May 2007.

Lapinski, Trent. “Myspace: The Business of Spam 2.0.” Valleywag 11 Sept. 2006. 5 Oct. 2007 < http://www.valleywag.com/tech/myspace/myspace-the-business-of-spam-20-exhaustive-edition-199924.php>
McLuhan, Marshall. The Medium is the Massage. Corte Madera: Gingko, 2001.
Microsoft. “Facebook and Microsoft Expand Strategic Alliance.” 22 August 2006. 2 November 2007
Strategic Data Corp. “Enhanced Media Network to Bring Hyper-targeted Ad Serving to
Reality.” 22 Feb 2007. 2 November 2007

Yadav, Sid. “Facebook- The Complete Biography.” Mashable. 25 August 2006. 2
November 2007

1. Reflection on one Process Step:
In forming the topic for my research paper, I found the initial readings and assignments of Boyd, Rheingold, and McCluhan to be the most useful. They encouraged me to look more critically at the web, as it is normally just a blur of windows. In my research paper I think I was able to slow that blur down and analyze one aspect of what was going on within the blur. I found the McCluhan reading assignment most useful as it established the importance of the medium itself on the user. While my paper did not concentrate on the medium itself, what McCluhan stated about environments typically being invisible stuck with me. In the group wiki assignment Section 1 got me thinking about privacy. McCluhan discussed privacy in terms of the flood of information that the electronic age brings. But when looking at online social networks, I saw the flood of personal information that we supply to the rest of the world, and wondered who might be using it. The biggest influence in my brainstorming was from the section I participated in on the McCluan wiki project in Section 5. Here we analyzed McCluhans perspective of a person being engulfed and unaware of their true dynamic environment. This idea led me to question what might really be going on with multimillion user sites that people spend hours a day logged in on. People have the idea that these sites are all about user content and sharing pictures, but how aware are they of the true nature of this environment?

2. Reflection on Draft Revision:
In writing my draft I found that while my paper was a single topic in my head, it came out on paper as sections. Initially these were poorly linked to one another and the paper lacked cohesion. By centering on the idea that users were unaware of what might really be going on when they log into sites like MySpace, I wanted to concentrate on a few things that I thought the typical person might be unaware of. In exploring these topics, I wrote a short section on each. In my early drafts these were unrelated to one another, and what was worse, unrelated to a central theme. I think the peer review exercise helped me realize that I have to lead the reader more, especially early in the paper. This led me to add the line “Ads were not essential to the existence of sites; they were simply an add-on for the possibility of some extra money.” to the introduction in reference to early internet advertising. From this I wanted to more clearly point out to the reader the leading contrast to current sites being driven by advertising.
Also changed was my thesis statement from “The new priority of generating income while maintaining a growth of users determines the fate of large social networking sites in Web2.0.” to “But there is an overlooked dependence on advertising, investing, mass marketing, and the ability to generate profit will control the fate of multimillion user social networking sites in Web2.0.”. I feel this changed better summed up the rest of the paper. And gave a core for the paper’s topics to branch off from. In the future I think I will try to develop my thesis clearly in an early stage and then think about how to make each section support it instead of trying to meld everything together in the end.

3. Reflection on the Digital Dimension:
The concentration of the course both on the topic of the digital dimension and the exercise of writing in the digital dimension has been a positive experience. While I knew how to access journal articles and searches before, in this course I learned how to narrow my results to a group of pages that was both manageable and useful. The wiki setup for blogging was something I had never used before. It worked well for sharing ideas in the class as well as organizing old blogs and making use of them in later projects. Zotero was a well intentioned tool, and works well for auto-citing some articles but not others. Installing it each class made me want to use it less. Also early on I did not establish a reliable place to save my Zotero data, if I had done so I think I would have had a better experience with it. When looking for sources for my research topic I noticed how information on the net changes over time, so a tool like Zotero that can take a snapshot of a page used in research is definitely necessary.
Being a Physics major, I might not use the exact skills taught in this class, but I can imagine parallels of how I might approach research in my major differently because of this class. I was pleased that this class had the digital dimension added. Many professors think that have students slaving away in dusty books is the only research method with virtue. I would recommend the digital dimension of this class to friends, unless they have some aversion to technology or have a tough time grasping using the computer as a tool. IUP has a general computer requirement for most if not all majors, it seems as though each department should concentrate on implementing computers as a mandatory part of at least some of their courses. The one part of the class that I feel could evolve is the editing and peer review process. While everything else is done on the computer, comments and feedback both from the professor and peers (aside from blog comments) were pen and paper. I found them useful, but if they were updated it would be more in keeping with the rest of the course.

4. Narrate and Evaluate the Final Essay:
From the starting idea of the Mini-Essay I started with wanting to examine why users were deleting their profiles from popular social networking sites. I presumed advertising and emphasis on content played a role and this was the criteria for my initial source search. In the Essay Topic blog I was still focused on the behavior of users as a whole. My preliminary research questions at the time of the post were “Will the next popular activity be the “delete profile” movement? For users who want more out of the online experience, what is left to offer them?” This was a pretty broad area with not much research having been published on the topic. After reading through some sources I realized I could look at the same themes, but from the perspective of the social networking sites themselves.
During the Topic Development blog I was able to decide on a direction, and my research question became “What is the driving force behind the evolution of popular virtual communities in Web2.0: the past - Friendster, the present - MySpace, the future - Facebook?” I began to see that most sources on the topic were blog posts or technology based websites that featured articles. This worried me at first since part of our focus in class was identifying the quality of sources. By the time a study is proposed, carried out, peer reviewed, and published, it is already painfully old news in the world of online social networks though. I decided to filter through sources based on how up to date the information was and the biases of the author. Creating the foundation for my paper from the available sources was probably the hardest aspect of the process to me.
I feelthe intro of my final essay shows my best ability as a writer. It may also be a weak part of the paper since it may drag on and not convey the relevance that I was hoping for. I wanted to introduce the reader to the history of online social networking and internet ads from my perspective. I was able to see both of these institutions evolve during my time online, and felt it was important to show the reader that the current state is radically different from years previous.
I feel I was able to create movement and link topics to build my own view. Sources generally came in three flavors: gosh a lot of people are using MySpace, online ads are bad, and lots of money is being invested into online ads. By looking at how these topics might interact, I feel I was able to show the dependence of current sites on ads and the user’s journey through them.
In the Final Draft I feel I was able to frame the cited sources well. Not only did I want to show the reader something important in an article that I found, I wanted to tell them why. I was able to create a works cited page, and unfortunately I found the more I added and changed it, the more Word wanted to format it in unfriendly ways. Despite this I think everything wound up formatted properly. Overall self-evaluation is tough. I feel that there was a lot left to the topic in this paper to be explored, but it was beyond the scope of the assignment and would need lots of careful studies to be done. I think my initial draft was a strong foundation that revision helped string together.
Content-10 I felt I challenged myself with this topic since not much up to date information directly related to my topic was out there. I think I was able to put together existing information in new ways to analyze online social networking sites.
Organization-9 I think I related topics well. After spending a month writing the paper though, it is tough to see it from a new reader’s perspective any longer though.
Mechanics-9 Hopefully I got everything cleaned up.
Revision-10 At first I thought when revising I would just be adding some topics into the discussion. I soon realized that I needed to better relate everything to the central theme, which revision gave me an opportunity to do.

1. Fix crazy verb tenses especially in introduction.
2. Give thesis statement more direction/strengthen position of argument.
3. Based on the improved thesis, expand the conclusion/predict where online social networks might be going.
4. Add personal observation of data-mining evidence on MySpace and discuss its effectiveness vs. un-targeted ads.
5. Find a clever way to lead from Friendster to Myspace, MySpace to advertising, and from advertising to Facebook.
6. Possibly ad a section on the size and placement (real estate) and frequency of ads, possibly tied in with primary source.
7. Find a few scholarly sources (possibly for MySpace origins).

-Comparison Transition:
Before:
McLuhan made this statement in his book The Medium is the Massage in 1967 when television, radio, and newspapers were establishing themselves in the everyday life of the average American citizen. McLuhan’s analysis can be carried over to 2007, when computers have become fixtures feeding our senses as much as television and the printed word had in the 60s.
After:
McLuhan made this statement in his book The Medium is the Massage in 1967 when television, radio, and newspapers were establishing themselves in the everyday life of the average American citizen. Likewise McLuhan’s analysis can be carried over to 2007, when computers have become fixtures feeding our senses as much as television and the printed word had in the 60s.

-Time Transition:
Before:
Paragraph about Web1.0
In 2000 the dotcom bubble “bursts.”

After:
-Paragraph about Web1.0
Then in 2000 the dotcom bubble “bursts.”

-Transition
Before:
Web2.0 emerges ubiquitous and our lives slip further to the digital.
A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms form a new digital mall for users.
After:
A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms form a new digital mall for users. Out of this melee Web2.0 emerges ubiquitous and our lives slip further to the digital.

-Contrasting Transition
Before:
Paragraph about MySpace ad saturation
Myspace is on the cusp of having a better product to sell to advertisers, and potentially this advertising method may be better for consumers as well.
After:
Unlike the established advertising that users are becoming desensitized to, Myspace is on the cusp of having a better product to sell to advertisers, and potentially this advertising method may be better for consumers as well.

Marshall McLuhan, forward thinking communications theorist stated,
“All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. ”
McLuhan made this statement in his book The Medium is the Massage in 1967 when television, radio, and newspapers were establishing themselves in the everyday life of the average American citizen. McLuhan’s analysis can be carried over to 2007, when computers have become fixtures feeding our senses as much as television and the printed word had in the 60s. The internet ups the ante by not simply shouting static words at the user, but allowing the user to seek out information and become a participant with every user having his own corner of cyberspace. Each detail of society springs up in the ersatz landscape that is traversed not by marching feet, but rather clicking fingers.

The internet, the home of our digital lives, has evolved from monochromatic text lines to a multimedia experience. Many people’s first online experiences were in Web1.0 in the 90s. The internet was a bleak world. There was no web surfing, nothing moved. Web pages were static and factual. But this was enough to draw people in, and once there people began interacting with one another, connecting. Themed forums and message boards were the basis of online communities. Business joins in the migration. Dotcom companies with a few dollars in start up costs are projected as million dollar companies weeks later. AOL becomes a household name, both as an internet service provider and as a networking site. It gives users the ability to list information and graphics about themselves and say “Here I am.”

It is in this age the dreaded “pop-up” was born. Pop-up advertisements were not for mainstream products though, they were advertised online because it was cheap enough to bombard a large amount of users, if only to have a fraction of a percent even accidentally click their link. Almost virus-like in its early days, the pop-up advertisement would flood a user’s screen with flashing text, links to online scams, invitations to adult websites, or diet pills with questionable legality. This was not a pleasant experience for the user who was forced to close the advertisement hordes with the dexterity of a Missle Command player. Eventually browsers and even isp’s combated the problem with pop-up blocking software.
In 2000 the dotcom bubble “bursts.” All of the companies with projections in the millions and recent growth doubling every few months saw themselves reduced to their actual worth, which for most, was not much. Users did not leave the internet though, and continued to frequent the remaining sites. Technology continued forward and soon hardware could execute many processes and faster, bandwidth pumped into homes dwarfed dial-up, software allowed webpages to attract users with constant updates, interactive interfaces, videos, and short load times. A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms form a new digital mall for users. Web2.0 emerges ubiquitous and our lives slip further to the digital. Users increase their connected-ness and it becomes commonplace to have online friends, As the trends of users consolidate, some social networking sites see their user base growing into the tens of millions. This medium enthuses advertisers, many of them with real products or desirable services unlike Web1.0. Ads are no longer annoying pop-up windows that are X’d out of existence or blocked altogether; they are integrated with the webpage often with flashy graphics. When millions of users log onto a site, there are significant expenses for servers, bandwidth, programmers, and a host of other technicians. A website must pay the bills with advertising, or attract investors with the promise of advertising revenue. The new priority of generating income while maintaining a growth of users determines the fate of large social networking sites in Web2.0.
Friendster was one of the earlier multimillion user social networking sites in Web2.0. Jonathan Abrams was a software engineer who landed work in a dating website after the Dotcom bust. He wanted to make a social tool that connected people based on a few degrees of separation. He obtained some start up money and opened Friendster in early 2003, and by the summer it had nearly a millions users. There was little self promotion, the site relied on word of mouth interest. With traffic doubling by the end of the year, software and hardware demands for the site slowed down browsing on the site. At this point Abrams was set on getting more investors to get onboard. Engineers for the site were able to keep the site up and running, but with the effectiveness of patchworking a sieve. Investors had put millions into Friendster, and with that, they wanted to determine the direction of the company. A board was assembled with Abrams as the chair. Investors are focused on money though, and rather than make a better product, they sought stability through partnerships. The board removed Abrams as head and the site continued to go downhill. An expensive overhaul was done, and load times did not improve much. (Chafkin 84-91)
During this time, a key change in the Friendster user base took place. The site had become popular among Filipinos, and lots of them. This taxed the resources of the servers, and advertisers weren’t interested in users they couldn’t sell to. Myspace begun its rise, and Friendster saw a decline in their users in the midst of competition. The company changed hands a few times and was valued at a small fraction of previous offers for buyouts. Visiting the site in October of 2007 brings up a frontpage of almost all Southeast-asian users.

Intro 2

Marshall McLuhan, forward thinking communications theorist stated,
“All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. ”
McLuhan made this statement in his book The Medium is the Massage in 1967 when television, radio, and newspapers were establishing themselves in the everyday life of the average American citizen. McLuhan’s analysis can be carried over to 2007, when computers have become fixtures feeding our senses as much as television and the printed word had in the 60s. The internet ups the ante by not simply shouting static words at the user, but allowing the user to seek out information and become a participant with every user having his own corner of cyberspace. Each detail of society springs up in the ersatz landscape that is traversed not by marching feet, but rather clicking fingers.

The internet, the home of our digital lives has evolved from monochromatic text lines to a multimedia experience. Many people’s first online experiences were in Web1.0 in the 90s. The internet was a bleak world. There was no web surfing, nothing moved. Web pages were static and factual. But this was enough to draw people in, and once there people began interacting with one another, connecting. Themed forums and message boards were the basis of online communities. Business joins in the migration. Dotcom companies with a few dollars in start up costs are projected as million dollar companies weeks later. AOL becomes a household name, both as an internet service provider and as a networking site. It gives users the ability to list information and graphics about themselves and say “Here I am.”

In 2000 the dotcom bubble “bursts.” All of the companies with projections in the millions and recent growth doubling every few months saw themselves reduced to their actual worth, which for most, was not much. Users did not leave the internet though, and continued to frequent the remaining sites. Technology continued forward and soon hardware could execute many processes and faster, bandwidth pumped into homes dwarfed dial-up, software allowed webpages to attract users with constant updates, interactive interfaces, videos, and short load times. A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms form a new digital mall for users. Web2.0 emerges ubiquitous and our lives slip further to the digital. Users increase their connected-ness and it becomes commonplace to have online friends, As the trends of users consolidate, some social networking sites see their user base growing into the tens of millions. This medium enthuses advertisers. Ads are no longer annoying pop-up windows that are X’d out of existence or blocked altogether; they are integrated with the webpage often with flashy graphics. Advertising is gaining a foothold in online social networks, and it is important to question the impact that it has.

Intro

Computers have become fixtures in our lives as much as television and the printed word. Each detail of society springs up in the ersatz landscape that is traversed not by marching feet, but rather clicking fingers.

The internet, the home of our digital lives has evolved from monochromatic text lines to a multimedia experience. Many people’s first online experiences were in Web1.0 in the 90s. The internet was a bleak world. There was no web surfing, nothing moved. Web pages were static and factual. But this was enough to draw people in, and once there people began interacting with one another, connecting. Themed forums and message boards were the basis of online communities. Business joins in the migration. Dotcom companies with a few dollars in start up costs are projected as million dollar companies weeks later. AOL becomes a household name, both as an internet service provider and as a networking site. It gives users the ability to list information and graphics about themselves and say “Here I am.”

In 2000 the dotcom bubble “bursts.” All of the companies with projections in the millions and recent growth doubling every few months saw themselves reduced to their actual worth, which for most, was not much. Users did not leave the internet though, and continued to frequent the remaining sites. Technology continued forward and soon hardware could execute many processes and faster, bandwidth pumped into homes dwarfed dial-up, software allowed webpages to attract users with constant updates, interactive interfaces, videos, and short load times. A combination of existing stores with new online catalogs, and surviving dotcoms form a new digital mall for users. Web2.0 emerges ubiquitous and our lives slip further to the digital. Users increase their connective-ness and it becomes commonplace to have online friends, As the trends of users consolidate, some social networking sites see their user base growing into the tens of millions. This medium enthuses advertisers. Ads are no longer annoying pop-up windows that are X’d out of existence or blocked altogether; they are integrated with the webpage often with flashy graphics. Advertising is gaining a foothold in online social networks, and it is important to question the impact that it has.

Research Topic: The Impact of Advertising on Social Networking Websites in Web2.0

An observational primary source possibility is simply logging onto Friendster, Myspace, and Facebook and noting the advertisements. “Normal” activity would be simulated and advertisements would be counted, and catagorized. Catagories would include, product type, company, type of ad (video, text, link), relevance of product to typical user. It would be important to note subtle ads like band profiles and fansite and “fakester” profiles of people or products who are not the host user since they are a form of advertising as well. Social networking sites market themselves as being the key conduit to several desirable demographics, but are advertisers capitalizing on the demographic based ads, or simply relying on traffic based sales.

Peter Kazunas
ENG202 9am
Research Paper Outline
The Impact of Advertising on Social Networking Websites in Web2.0

I)Introduction
a) Digital migration
b) Social networking sites

II)Friendster
a) Founder/History
b) Format/Features
c) Advertising methods
d) Demise

III)MySpace
a) Founder/History
b) Format/Features
c) Advertising methods
d) Current state of site

IV)Facebook
a) Founder/History
b) Format/Features
c) Advertising methods
d) Current state of site

V)Advertising
a) Transition from Web1.0 advertising to Web2.0 advertising
Role of advertising
b) Who is advertising
c) Effectiveness of web advertising
d) Economic forecasts
e) How advertising affects the users

VI)Conclusion
a) How sites should balance their advertising with interface
b) What happens to users when there is too much or too little advertising

The Impact of Advertising on Social Networking Websites in Web2.0

Peter Kazunas

ENG202 9am (Fall 07)

Abstract:
As society continues the digital migration, popular social networking sites have grown to millions of unique users. Advertisements play a key role in the longevity of such sites. Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook are investigated. Friendster may have had too little advertising income to keep up with the requirements of its rapidly growing user base which contributed to its demise. MySpace on the other hand was a copy of Friendster, with perhaps the primary purpose being an advertising platform. Facebook is showing the largest growth of any large online community, but has somewhat less of an overbearing ad presence. Advertising methods such as banner ads, pop-ups, targeted advertising, and data-mining may attract an even stronger influence from advertisers. The delicate balance between too little and too much advertising may be the key to the overall longevity of such sites.

Introduction

Focused Research Question
What are the impacts of advertising on the life cycle of social networking sites in Web2.0, the past - Friendster, the present – MySpace, and the future – Facebook?

While millions of internet users are members of social networking sites, few of them consider why they are members of particular sites, why such a site exists, and what keeps it going. A key to understanding a site is to look at the entities involved. The founders of the site and their background can point to the intention of the site. The methods involved in expanding the user base (how the website advertises itself) help determine what kind of user is likely to join and how many potential users it will reach. Once there is a strong user base, advertisers become keenly interested by the flow of millions of people through a site they can easily place an ad on. Not long after, technology economists are attempting to predict the next big site for advertisers to flock to. Once advertisers have become an integral part of a site, the site must also concentrate on retaining users and attracting new ones.

Overview of Sources:
• Tech economists
• Advertising methods
• MySpace history/ a user’s perspective
• Website trends
• Fall of Friendster
• Growth of Facebook

Most of the sources uncovered so far are non-scholarly. This does not detract from their usefulness though. A newspaper, magazine, or blog may be biased, but it is those biases that help show the perspective of the author and the crowd it is written for. Newspaper articles concentrate mostly on the financial aspects of the sites and their value to advertisers. Magazines also are concerned with sites as an advertising platform, but also may focus on features of the sites, and the users of the sites. Blogs have offered histories about the sites, backgrounds of the founders, and the role of advertising, while these may not be as reliable in the way of facts, at the very least they show what a user thinks of the site. It would be best to try to back some of the topics discussed in blogs up with scholarly sources. Simply logging onto the sites and noting the advertisements may lead into a useful primary source.

Working Bibliography:

Chafkin, Max. “How to Kill a Great Idea.” Inc. Jun. 2007, Vol. 29 Issue 6, p84-91. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007 .

Holahan, Catherine, Robert Hof, Spencer E. Ante. “Facebook: The $10 Billion Social Netowrk?.” Business Week Online 26 Sept. 2007, p6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007

Kirkpatrick, David. “Myspace Strikes Back.” Fortune 1 Oct.
2007, Vol. 156 Issue 7, p128-136. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007 .

Lapinski, Trent. “Myspace: The Business of Spam 2.0.” Valleywag 11 Sept. 2006. 5 Oct. 2007 < http://www.valleywag.com/tech/myspace/myspace-the-business-of-spam-20-exhaustive-edition-199924.php>

Stone, Brad. “In Facebook, Investing in a Theory.” New York Times 4 Oct.
2007. 5 Oct. 2007 .

—. “MySpace to Discuss Effort to Customize Ads.” New York Times 18 Sept.
2007. 5 Oct. 2007 .

Sullivan, Mark. “Is Facebook the New Myspace?.” PC World Oct. 2007, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p32. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007 .

Swartz, Jon. “Tech Giants Poke Around Facebook.” USA Today 3 Oct.
2007. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Stapleton Library, Indiana, PA. 5 Oct. 2007 .