Wednesday, June 9, 2010

From MySpace to Facebook: Understanding the Causes of the Migration

In a world where upgrades are practically a part of every aspect of a consumers life, it is becoming a must for companies to keep up with the demands of the people. Between phones, computers, kindles, to upgrading your wardrobe, car and home, it’s a wonder that humans can ever keep up with the latest trends. If companies cannot keep up with the demands, then the consumer moves on faster than an Elvaan sword can slash an enemy in World of War Craft. One of the most recent examples of an event where a company could not keep its consumers coming back for more is the now obsolete, MySpace. MySpace was one of the most popular networking sites in the world and it quickly went from number one in the world to a virtual ghost town. Facebook quickly took MySpace’s place dominating all other Networking sites. Facebook, with its applications, sleek design, easy user ability, increased privacy functions, and minimal advertising. It would seem to be a networking fanatics dream come true. How long will Facebook’s popularity last? Will its fate be the same as MySpace or will Facebook learn from MySpace and give the people what they want, when they want, and fast. We will look behind the scenes at what happened to MySpace and what companies can learn from this “epic fail” in the future.

After taking surveys and interviewing both MySpace and Facebook users, it would seem that a few key things led to MySpace’s demise. We will take a look at customization, applications and gaming, interface, politics, and race/class within MySpace and Facebook to find the reasons why MySpace’s popularity declined so fast and why Facebook is now so popular. It is easy to see why someone would want to upgrade their Iphone to a regular 8G to a 16G with a video camera. It is not so easy to see why a website such as MySpace, which is designed for the user and indirectly by the user, would decline in popularity so fast. Websites can upgrade their products a lot faster and its consumers can receive upgrades almost immediately. In order for consumers to obtain the latest Iphone they have to purchase it through a store or order it online, either way shipping or driving to a store takes longer than a web designer to change its website to please its consumer. Many times web designers work directly with the consumers to apply the wants of the consumer into the design of the website. “A design space, between business rationale and designers, is where new media products are made and updated by their legal owners. In participatory spaces, amateurs and designers interact” (Taylor 2006:7). It would seem that MySpace would have many opportunities to improve upon their shortcomings since they had direct access to its users networking preferences. So is there a specific reason for what happened to MySpace or is a culmination of events? This is exactly what we plan to get to the bottom of.

MySpace and Facebook both started out in very different directions. MySpace started in August 2003. “The very first MySpace users were eUniverse website employees and moved it to the head of the pack of social networking websites until 2004” (Lapinski 2006:2). MySpace initially began its production with the intention of trying to create a website that would top the popularity of Friendster. “In 2004, Facebook launched, targeting only college students. Originally, access to Facebook was intentionally limited.” (Boyd 2009:3). Facebook eventually opened its virtual doors to all people of any education level and soon went on to kick MySpace out of its number one social networking site status.
According to our numerous interviews, surveys and general research, we have established that Facebook supercedes MySpace in terms of popularity. One significant contributor to this shift is the relationship between the user and each site’s interface. From layout to navigation, the elements of interface determine the level of complexity afforded to the user. While MySpace attracts individuals interested in creative flexibility, Facebook appeals to users who prioritize succinctness and simplicity.

Evidence of these attributes can be found in several aspects of their respective User Interface’s or U.I. In regards to layout, the use of color on each site provokes a response from the viewer. Facebook has dull shades of gray making up their entire color scheme. This is painfully obvious in the gray blue menu bar, the gray black text of their action links, the gray message boxes and the even more grayed out blues of their search and administrative tool boxes. In addition to this, Facebook’s use of white space while done purposefully, makes the profile, the message sections, and the general user experience sterile and calm. In contrast, MySpace’s user-made layouts are garish and flamboyant. According to an interviewees’ testimony the vibrant colors of MySpace “[…] excite the eye.” The cool grays of Facebook focus one’s attention to the content of one’s profile, including photographs, text and general conversation whereas, the mosaic of colors in MySpace stress identity through layout. Unfortunately, MySpace’s unique visual spectrum comes at the cost of navigational ease.
Also, Facebook gets kudos for demonstrating a reputation of clarity in navigation while MySpace lags behind the curve. This is viewable through two simple actions, signing in and signing up. Facebook’s welcome page uses their standard color scheme and keeps their U.I. very concise. One can sign up and into their account on the welcome page with one click. This system is important because the desired goal can be achieved with the fewest amounts of clicks, loading times, and transitions per page, which result in a quick, simple interface for the user. On the other hand, MySpace’s welcome page features several advertisements that take up a majority of the space, and a sign in/sign up menu packed into the mid right corner of the page. Logging in is similar to Facebook, but the sign up option takes you to a completely different page to enter the necessary information. MySpace is not far behind Facebook, but these seemingly insignificant nuances unite to make a difference in the user’s selection of social networking sites.
MySpace and Facebook share a three-column profile page format, however, idiosyncrasies primarily in column size and content organization distinguish the two. Facebook maintains a standardized format for all users. From left to right, its column system consists of content controls, main content, and peripheral notifications such as events, friend requests, and advertisements. The left and right columns are equal to or less than half the size of the central column, which allows “changes to friends profiles [… to stand out] in one, highly visible place” (Lampe 722). While MySpace shares a similar format, its left and right columns are equal to half or more of the center column’s width. The size difference between the columns of MySpace confuses its users causing the focus to be unclear. In addition to this, inflated advertisements litter the top and right hand side of the stock profile page, which force the user to sort through unnecessary information. These factors combined with personalization are key elements in how interface plays a major role in the migration from MySpace to Facebook.

One of the differences between MySpace and Facebook that is most visually obvious is the varying degree to which a user can personalize his or her page. MySpace and Facebook have taken different approaches to personalization, and in many ways, Facebook’s format is a reaction to the freedom MySpace offers (Smart 2009). MySpace allows its users to customize their pages by adding their own html code, creating different backgrounds, adding music and icons. This lack of site standards made MySpace pages appear “chaotic”, made information difficult to find, and one interviewee reported that the pages took a long time to load (Smart 2009). Facebook, in contrast, does not allow the user to change colors or backgrounds, though they can add certain information about themselves into the preset format. The “rigidity” that Facebook has allows for a “consistent user experience”, and solves the problem of difficulty finding information (Smart 2009).

Even though it would seem that people would be drawn to the site that offers more freedom and personal expression, Facebook is the far more popular one. We believe that even though it is important for people to personalize their sites to reflect things that are important to them, there is only a certain amount of personalization that is desired and accepted by other people sharing the social medium.

One important factor in personalization is how the sites were created, and what they have adopted as their primary purpose. Facebook was created for college students, and expanded into a social networking site for anyone with an email address. MySpace, on the other hand, was always available to anyone, and over time became less focused on social networking, and more on creating a media site. For the MySpace community, now catering to music groups and other artists, self-expression and personalization is more important for creating an image for the group. On Facebook, because it’s function is as a social networking site, people are less concerned with modifying every part of their page to represent their individuality, and more concerned with the functional aspects of the site, such as ease of finding information, and adding your own.

The data gathered from individual interviews supports the idea of different levels of personalization appealing to different kinds of users. Several informants found the rigidity of the Facebook layout appealing because they believed it was more “sophisticated”, which has become increasingly important as Facebook expands to include potential employers and teachers. Because MySpace and Facebook are virtually identical in the ways you can use it, it is logical that personalization is a large part of the reason people prefer one site to the other. People who use the sites mainly to keep in touch with their peers are more attracted to a site where they can still personalize their information and share things like photos, but do not have to deal with the excessive, and often chaotic personalization of many MySpace pages.

The idea that people using these sites mainly for social networking find the rigidity of Facebook layout more appealing is also supported by the fact that Facebook did add an application that allows users to customize their pages to look like the ones on MySpace. The application is called the Static Facebook Markup Language, or FBML, and allows the user to type in code to change the layout of the page (Smart 2009). This is similar to MySpace, which uses html code. Even though Facebook users have the option of keeping all other benefits they see on Facebook, but adding the personalization that MySpace offers, the vast majority of people have kept the uniform blue and white Facebook design. This shows that less personalization was not a compromise users had to make if they switched from MySpace to Facebook, but that the simplicity and rigidity in layout that Facebook offered was a boon and a welcome benefit of the new medium by creating uniformity and ease for people whose use of the medium was not self expression, but social networking.
In the world of online social networking websites there are many tools and gadgets to keep you entertained and connected with your “friends”. When the social networking websites MySpace and Facebook were in their infant stages of life their main purpose seemed to be to connect friends with each other via the internet and provide a virtual place for people to get together and communicate. Slowly each of their browser faces changed to include status updates, pictures, videos, and of course, the beloved application (commonly known as the shortened version “app”). When you think of an application you probably conjure up ideas of tax-software, or some kind of boring computer program that accountants use- but the online social networking version of the application is much more exciting and entertaining.

Before beginning research on the applications used by both MySpace and Facebook , our hypothesis was that there would be easily identifiable differences between the two social networking websites’ application selection. I thought that each site would have their own unique applications used in its own unique way. After beginning my research I quickly came to see that there actually were many similarities between the applications offered by each website. In fact, each site seemed to have some applications that were the same game but each website had their own version. For example, on Facebook there is a popular app known as “Farmville”. In this app your character is a farmer and you get to grow a farm and do tasks. Similarly, on MySpace there are two applications called “Wild Paradise” and “Virtual Pet Farm” where the layout looks a little different from Farmville but the concept and execution are both the same. This versioning of applications makes one wonder which website came out with the app idea first and why one website’s version of the game is more popular than the other’s. This last question was a main focus on our field participation while we were visiting the application worlds of both MySpace and Facebook.

One of our main goals for our participant observation was to try to understand why people prefer one website’s applications over the others. Luckily we have both a MySpace account and a Facebook account, and we have friends on both websites who frequently use applications. While talking with informants in the Facebook app Farmville, we found that a vast majority of the “farmers” preferred the Farmville version of the game as opposed to the MySpace versions.
While researching the differences between the apps on Facebook and MySpace we came to see a slight trend or correlation between certain groups of “friends” and the use of certain apps. For example, on both MySpace and Facebook we noticed that many of our “friends” who had children also had apps aimed at children. When we asked some of these friends about their preference for apps aimed at children, most of them answered that they play the apps with their kids because they did not want their children to have their own private account but still wanted them to be able to have fun with the apps. Another trend we noticed was the popularity of a single application across the board of friends. One such app that I saw on a majority of Facebook users list of applications was the “Causes” app. This app allows people to connect in order to address certain issues to make a positive impact in the world.
Generally speaking, MySpace and Facebook do have different application selections, but if you look past the names and the characters of the apps, you can see that each website has a version of the other website’s application along with a few originals.
After conducting a few interviews about Facebook and MySpace, the subject of privacy came up. We decided to look at the privacy policies of both websites. Upon comparison I found some very interesting similarities and blatant differences between the two.

First, lets look at the policy posted on the Facebook privacy tab. The last revision of this policy was April 22, 2010. Facebook's privacy policy contains eight sections: “Introduction, Information we receive, Sharing information on Facebook, Information you share with third parties, how we use your information, how we share information, hoe you can change or remove information, how we protect information, and other terms”(Facebook 2010). Each of these sections has corresponding subsections that detail every point relating to that section's topic. At first glance, the policy looks like a professionally drawn up contract or terms and conditions. Almost every subsection has a link to modify any privacy setting or read more detailed information on whatever that section is about. Overall, its highly unlikely that the average Facebook user will read every single word of this policy.

For contrast, lets look at the MySpace privacy policy available on the website. This policy was effective February 28, 2008. It is made up of 6 parts: “collection and submission of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) and non-PII on MySpace, NOTICE: MySpace will provide you with notice about its PII collection practices, CHOICE: MySpace will provide you with choices about the use of your PII, USE: MySpace's use of PII, SECURITY: MySpace protects the security of PII, access, remedies, and COMPLIANCE: how to access, correct or change your preferences regarding your PII and how to contract MySpace about privacy concerns” (MySpace 2010). MySpace's policy is considerably shorter than Facebook's and does not have as many sub sections or headings.
Both policies advocate the request to the user before using any information from the user's profiles. They also both state that any sharing of information is completely voluntary.

I then proceeded to investigate how both sites attempt to protect their user’s information. So I decided to check my own profile privacy settings.
For Facebook, we are able to control my privacy settings in 6 areas: Personal Information and Posts, Contact Information, Friends, Tags and Connections, Search, Application and Websites, and Block List. On each of the subsections, the user is able to choose which people certain aspects of their profile are available too. With each subsection, there is a drop down bar with the following choices to control who sees your information: Everyone, Friends and Networks, Friends of Friends, Friends Only, and Customize. Under the "Customize" tab, there is an option to choose specific people or friends list who are able to see your information. These settings are also true of applications and photo settings.

For MySpace, there is only one section to change the users "General Privacy" settings. The settings the user can change are Online Now, Birthday, Profile Viewable by, Comments, Friends, Photos, Stream, Block Users by Age, Block Users, and Applications. Unlike Facebook, there are only three settings the user can choose from: Anyone, Anyone 18 and Over, and Only Friends.
These findings go along with the feelings of safety that my interviewee felt when asked about her privacy and the internet. When interviewed, my informant was very concerned about her privacy on Facebook. I asked her what precautions she has taken to "protect herself." She said she said that she has set all of her settings to either to be viewed by only her or her friends only. She makes sure she cannot be found at all. She regularly “googles” herself to make sure nothing of her page can be found. She uses Facebook for photos and social networking. She has set all of her photography settings to either only be seen by her or her approved friends.
Some changes have also been made to some of the Privacy Tabs on Facebook. A recent change in Facebook’s interface included a change in some information that can be shared with the user’s profile automatically if these settings are not altered. In the “Friends, Tags, and Connections” tab, the current city, hometown, education and work, activities, interest, and things I like are default set to “Everyone” which makes that information available to anyone who searches the user. This is the type of personal information can make people more susceptible to cybercriminals (Gaudin 2010:1). Though it seems that both social networking sites are taking precautions for users to monitor what information of theirs is shared with others, there is no guarantee of absolute safety.

Race and class are two very important aspects to look at when examining the MySpace emigration and the Facebook following. Just because people have moved to the 21st century virtual world doesn't mean segregation has retired. It hasn't, and authors Erica Avila, Eduardo Bonilla, Dara Byrne, and Diane Harris, to name a few, also agree that it has not. It can be seen on both MySpace and Facebook, but it started on MySpace and it was in part responsible for people moving to Facebook.

The internet was seen by some people as the link that will unify all colors, races and classes, sort of like when people thought the world's problems would be solved with the invention of the telegraph. That didn't happen, and there is nothing more evident than how people segregate themselves on MySpace. Just go on MySpace and look at who is friends with who. Nine times out of ten, a person is mainly friends with people of their own race. There are exceptions to this, but then again there are exceptions to everything. Boyd agrees with this and found that "Just as physical spaces and tastes are organized around and shaped by race and class, so too are digital environments" (3). MySpace is simply a medium in which people communicate. It is no different than interacting in the real world in terms of which people are hanging out with each other. This isn't just limited to white people, though, "as people of color seek to identify with their racial and ethnic background" too (Tatum 1997).

As much as we contemporary American's hate to admit it, race played a major role into people choosing one website over another. When people moved to Facebook, it was at first mostly white people. What happened was the concept of "white flight" as was discussed by Danah Boyd. White flight is a term used when white people abandoned a particular activity or location because too many non-whites are doing it and it is no longer desirable. The practice of white flight is not new and is not confined to social websites. It happens all the time in the physical world as well. For example, in the physical world, a new mall might open and all the happy white people will go shop there. When non-whites start going there more and more, many white people will look someplace else to shop at. This does not imply that those who wish to shop somewhere else are racist. All this means is that people are more comfortable around their own race and that segregation is still present in the 21st century. Like the opening of a new mall, MySpace gained popularity and non-whites began to catch on to the social phenomenon. MySpace turned into a digital ghetto, and white people began to emigrate.

While race is a vital component to keep in mind when analyzing the migration from MySpace to Facebook, class also finds its way into these social websites. This had began around 2005 when Facebook started to get popular. Originally, Facebook was a social network limited to students at Harvard University. If it isn't enough of a prestigious position to be attending the world's most desirable schools, a chance to be part of their online social network is the next best thing. Soon after it gained popularity, other schools became incorporated into using this site. It wasn't just any person who could join. When the first opened up, it was limited to only students, and then only other Ivy League students. This was a different class of people than those on MySpace, the community college of social networking. This elite class of students were the only ones allowed to use the site. People became envious of these upper-class individuals, so when the opportunity became available for all people to join this elite social website, many people did, and for two reasons.

The first class-related reason people joined Facebook was to be a part of the hip counter-culture Facebook crowd. No longer was a user's social profile subject to lower class intrusions - the only people on Facebook were the fancy ones, so argues Boyd and her findings that "those headed toward elite universities appeared to be headed towards Facebook" (9), and that "black and Latino's preferred MySpace while whites and Asians seemed to privilege Facebook" (10). This new, innovative cyber-lounge was that of superiority, after all, it was known for its exclusive collegiate membership. It almost had the appeal of a new nightclub, and that if you went here, you were in a better social circle, where conversely if you were still using MySpace, you were "un-cool" or an outcast. If Boyd's findings aren't convincing enough, a marketing research firm, Nielsen Chalritas, reported that "wealthy individuals are 25% more likely to use Facebook while less affluent individuals are 37% more likely to be on MySpace" (Hare 2009).

The second class-related reason people joined Facebook was to get away from people on MySpace. Much like the relationship between race and MySpace/Facebook membership, it doesn't take much investigation to see it. For the sake of this being a research paper, Boyd found in her wonderfully written article that Facebook is seen as a "gated community" and that it is "highly monitored and reflects the same values signaled by the suburbs" (34). What this says to MySpace users is that online membership to the Orange County Elitist-esque Facebook was for the privileged, and those with less affluent backgrounds wishing to join the website were told "no no no, you go back to MySpace where you belong". It's hard to argue that MySpace is just as safe as Facebook, though, since rarely do TV reporters do a story on "Facebook Stalkers" when there are so many more "MySpace Murderers" to report on. It's because of the media's reporting on these incidents that Facebook users felt that if they left MySpace, they would get away from the "sexual predators on the hunt and the out of control teens" (Boyd 35) who were a thorn in this website's e-side.

It is easy to list the reasons why people have switched from MySpace to Facebook. It is, however, difficult to quantify exactly how much each different area made an impact on the migration, whether it be race and class, the games that users can play on their profiles, the personalization each site has to offer, or the site’s different user-interfaces. Our research has indicated that each of these topics can all explain why more people are on Facebook than MySpace. We can say with certainty that the synergistic effects of these categories combined proves without a doubt that Facebook is the winner of online social networking.



Works Cited

Boyd, Danah. 2010. “White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook”. May 15, 2010.

Gaudin, Sharon. "Half of social networkers post risky information". Computer World. 5-22-2010
Hare, Breanna. 2009. “Does class decide online social networks?” CNN, October 24.


Lampe, Cliff, Nicole B. Ellison, and Chaled Steinfield. “Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook.” CSCW 2008: Proceeding of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM: New York, 2008. (721-730).

Lapinski, Trent (2006-09-11). "MySpace: The Business of Spam 2.0 (Exhaustive Edition)". ValleyWag. Retrieved 2008-03-13.

Silverman, Dwight. "Privacy on Facebook Isnt Easy". Chron. 5-15-2010 .

Tatum, Beverly. 1997. “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria and other conversations about race”. New York: Basic Books.

T. L. Taylor, Beyond Management: Considering Participatory Design and Governance in Player Culture. First Monday, Special Issue #7, 2006.

The Loquacious Six
James Allen
Surja Chakravarti
Kendra Gilbertson
Tasha Miller
Laurissa Nieto
Myles Wise

No comments:

Post a Comment