Interview with
Craig Calle, CEO of Common.net
BRADLEY: Tell us more about
Common.net
CALLE: My original motivation to start COMMON.net came from a lofty
notion that our society could benefit greatly by connecting good
ideas with those who could make best use of them. At the same time,
I was profoundly disappointed that the only social networking products
entering the market seemed like online dating sites masquerading
as business applications. I thought the facilitating relationship
capital had enormous business potential, but demanded far greater
innovation.
Having leveraged my network in other careers, I understood how
business people network successfully in the offline world. We’re
expressing that now with technology.
BRADLEY: Where did the social networking sites go wrong?
CALLE: To start, they created a virus that made an industry sick.
Most social networking sites for business are driven by viral marketing
tactics. People are first introduced to these products through unsolicited
invitations from others. Early adopters may appreciate the added
utility these apps have to offer, but as the sites mature, they
become spam-like when people invite those they don’t know
well, or don’t know at all.
Viral marketing can be powerful, but social networking CEOs see
only the benefits and are naïve about the consequences. I have
seen luminaries crow about zero cost of customer acquisition. This
belief is attributed to the beauty of the viral marketing process
or the willingness of users to send invitations to other people.
The problem with that thinking is that it overlooks the negative
consequences when such invitations are perceived as spam. These
social network chain letters create large groups of people who are
only associated through chains of emails, but that activity may
not result in a consistently actionable networking experience.
Finally, these sites they adopted someone else’s model rather
than create something innovative. Friendster was successful in using
social network theory to revolutionize online dating. That model
worked well because it created a plausible rationale for a stranger
to connect to another stranger who had a consensual desire to participate.
The profiles offered a means by which participants could satisfy
their voyeuristic tendencies. However, most of our competitors simply
used the Friendster model and called it a business application.
Online dating and business networking are very different animals,
requiring different solutions.
BRADLEY: What are some of the technical problems with
social networking sites?
CALLE: Simple. First, they place too much emphasis on viral growth.
The method of inclusion used by social networking sites are vitally
dependent on spam-like invitations to join one’s “trusted
network.” Socially awkward situations arise when someone receives
an invitation to join from someone they know but with whom they
don’t wish to be linked.
Second, social networking sites operate with flawed trust mechanisms.
Users must scrutinize one another’s personal profile to infer
whether there is a basis for trust to be established between members.
Many early adopters of such systems are comfortable with this kind
of display of information. I feel that the growing desire for privacy
will compromise these public profile displays and reduce their effectiveness
as part of a trust mechanism.
Users are aware that their multiple online personas may conflict
with one another. A profile on a dating site may be very different
from a professional persona, and the lines get blurry. This kind
of “multiple persona disorder” can have awkward or even
harmful consequences.
Finally, social networking sites bet the farm on the idea that
my friend is also your friend because we both know each other’s
email address. Why they don’t consider is the fact that a
friend-of-a-friend could be an enemy, a real jerk or at least indifferent
to their cause.
Trust mechanisms must be far more discrete and comprehensive than
the process used in social networking sites. We find common ground
and discretely compare two members’ affiliations with the
people, places and things that constitute their relationship capital.
Interacting members see only the shared affiliations, which mimics
the guarded act of discovery two people go through when they meet
in the offline world.
BRADLEY: How does social currency work in the online and
offline world?
CALLE: Social currency is a very important aspect of offline
networking. It follows that online networking should mimic the way
people interact in the real world.
People recognize the value received from those who help them through
indirect means. It would be unthinkable to write someone a check
or give them cash for help. Instead, someone might acknowledge a
favor by bringing a better bottle of wine when invited for dinner
or even invite them for a weekend at their lake house. Social networking
sites require a user to approach someone with a rather formal declaration
that they wish to engage in a networking relationship going forward.
The same sites also assume that people will help others simply by
tracing their linkages through a chain of relationships. Tracing
linkages can be entertaining, like the famous Kevin Bacon game,
but it does not lead to a consistently actionable networking experience.
BRADLEY: What are you doing differently?
CALLE: At COMMON.net, we’re working hard to mimic the dynamics
of the offline world in an online site. In the offline world, an
asymmetric relationship exists between the person asking for help
and the person who considers giving it. We replicate that relationship
between Seekers and Advocates in our online world. Seekers are the
people looking for a connection and Advocates are the people who
can help connect them with their desired Contact. Seekers don’t
know who the Advocates are unless the Advocate wishes to be known.
That means no more socially awkward situations for people with great
rolodexes. We’ve also eliminated the spam-like methods of
inclusion.
Seekers and Advocates do get to see the common ground they share,
which helps establish whether a motivation for cooperation exists,
and they can see their reputations as measured with others they’ve
dealt with in the past which helps keep everyone honest. The Seeker
also sees the Advocate’s professed strength of relationship
with the Contact before sending a message to an Advocate asking
for help.
Ben Bradley is the managing director of GrowingCo, Inc. and The
Bradley Group. Do you have a question or topic you would like Ben
to address in an upcoming column? Please send your comments to ben@benbradley.net.
|
