Kevin Werbach gives a mixed review to business networking software.
Yesterday I got a request through Spoke to forward an invitation to Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist. I knew both the sender and the next person in the chain, and the request was reasonable, so I forwarded it on. The recipient wrote back to say that his only link to Krugman was sending him one email last year commenting on a column. Krugman never responded. Not exactly a "trusted connection."
Take Kevin's example: Suppose he had simply said on his weblog "I have a friend that would like to get in touch with Paul Krugman. Can any bloggers help?" Had I seen it, I could have put something on my blog, which Brad DeLong occasionally reads. He could have posted something on his blog, which Krugman occasionally reads. And if Krugman were interested, he could have worked his way back to the original request.
Interesting example -- since signing up for LinkedIn (courtesy Arnold), I've had about four to give request for such referrals -- not sure how much the requesters benefitted.
Have also used my weblog for such a broadcast -- and it got picked up by a few weblogs (see below).
There is some overlap with business networking software.
However, business networking software offers the advantage of relative discretion (your identity, the nature of the request, the identity of the end-person or all of the above).
http://www.prashantkothari.com/2003_06_01_prashantkothari_archive.html#95741369
http://www.emergic.org/archives/indi/005759.php
Posted by Prashant P Kothari on December 15, 2003 08:43 PM | Permalink to CommentThis is an interesting experiment. Let's see if the sender of the request for Krugman follows up here.
It wasn't a particularly confidential request (sorry, no vast left-wing conspiracy), but since it came via a personal email I'm not going to broadcast it here without permission.
In general, this only proves my point. If, like Arnold, Brad, and myself, you have a well-known blog, you don't need social networking services. (Reminds me of an off-color joke, the punchline of which is "if you have a big ____, you don't need a BMW!")
Posted by Kevin Werbach on December 16, 2003 09:08 AM | Permalink to CommentWell, it was me that sent the request, partly to see what Spoke could do, as I have other routes to Krugman, as well. What is interesting about the social networking technology is that it forces requests into a semi-public venue, making us think about them more explicitly. I'm not sure that does much in terms of making successful connections today, though it certainly makes the "pain" social networking software hopes to address more explicit.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe on December 16, 2003 10:56 AM | Permalink to CommentThe Spoke guys are doing a good job sticking up for themselves, but this example is why I think LinkedIn persists and Spoke doesn't. There is a tremendous difference between weak and strong social links. The weak ones are fine for commoditized interaction, but nothing that requires real focus or adds real value. Weakly connected networks like Spoke are like efficient financial markets -- if anyone but the market maker is profiting, then someone is likely breaking the rules.
Posted by Scott Rafer on December 16, 2003 01:13 PM | Permalink to CommentI wonder if social links based only on text can only be weak? Has anyone heard of a strong, sustainable relationship built only on text? Not my marriage. Only one data point. What happens, then, when every blog has rich multi-media as a natural default? [full stereo hi fidelity, Hi Def. video etc.] What if every blog were a telephone company that reduced the friction of voice contact to zero? Voice contact is so much richer in content than any text message. Voice with video is even better. iChat w/ iSight is very interesting.
What if blogs were avatars. Does Ramona blog?
Do we need to force ourselves out of the text only box?
Do you Skype?
Skype me at: jockgill
If I hear the ring on my Windows box, I'll answer. But I spend most of my time now on my Mac. Skype for Mac is promised, as well as access to the PSTN, but for the moment .....
Posted by Jock Gill on December 16, 2003 06:08 PM | Permalink to CommentI've been thinking about the issues raised by both Scott and Kevin - and there's a couple of points I would like to make.
Better and more granular controls (a la Kevin's point) are important here, and we're working on them ;-)
However, there's an implication here that a more explicit network would have connected Mitch to Paul, and that Spoke is a collection of only weak ties...
None of these products is always going to provide a connection 100% of the time. Spoke does contain a set of weak connections. And medium connections, and very very strong connections. We think giving you some of the weaker connections, along with the strong connections (and a way to pick and choose amongst them) provides more value.
Specifically, we found that people spend more time trying to get information about people, not trying to get access to people, about 7 times out of 8 with the Spoke referral system, and I think this is how the "A" players (like VC's) are using the system, and this is where more information really makes more sense.
In short - with 10M reachable people, while there's certainly a lot of folks where the connection path is weak, Spoke also contains a set of very strong relationships as well. Giving you the ability to have a bigger set of choices is something that we think is more valuable.
The important thing here is being able to discover connections that you didn't know that you had, before using Spoke. If you can get insight, influence and access through Spoke that were unavailable to you before, then we're providing value.
So, while the particular connection to Paul Krugamn for Mitch might not have gone through, perhaps one of the other 863 people at the New York Times reachable via Spoke might be helpful here.
Again, we are working to improve what we're doing -- the recent NSF grant we got is aimed squarely at making the information around relationships better; part of that may well be adding a more explicit set of controls here. (It's not against our philosophy to provide a more explicit set of connections, we just thought it was more valuable, and harder, to do it automatically first).
At the end of the day, I want more information, not less, and I want more opportuntiies to get through to someone, not less.
Feedback is already coelescing into product plans...
Chris Tolles
Spoke Software
So what is the request?
Posted by Brad DeLong on December 15, 2003 05:42 PM | Permalink to Comment