Separation of work and play

One of the most talked about points of contention in social networking to date is the idea of separating personal and professional networks. I've heard this from friends in the industry as well as from non-marketing friends. My industry friends all have an opinion. They, mostly, have all moved to Facebook and have limited interaction with LinkedIn. I don't, however, think this speaks for the majority of people as evidenced by my non-marketing friends who work in a variety of fields from non-profit, office equipment and financial services. They're just starting to connect with LinkedIn (the social networking primer?) and Facebook is a buzzword about as far away from them as the moon ("It's for kids").

Single Network with Overlap

Like I said, I have heard both sides of this story. Facebook, for example, is betting on the fact that you will consolidate all of your contacts (professional and personal) into one network. Further, they're releasing a way for people to group their contacts into personal and professional groups to aid you in this separation. (Note that it would be impossible to use LinkedIn as a social network in the way Facebook operates.)

The question with the consolidated network idea, in my mind, is the overlap. How do you deal with a co-worker, client or other contact who you know outside and inside the office? Do you want the client (no matter how close you are) seeing your weekend party images or images of "your friends" going back to homecoming and doing keg stands? That is the real trick with segmenting the overlap.

Separate Networks with Overlap

On the other side of the coin sits LinkedIn. They don't want to be your social network, they want to be your professional network. LinkedIn is betting that a physical separation between social and professional is how people want to keep things. LinkedIn is very professionally focused, image-light and keeps out-of-office banter to a minimum.

The main issue with this segmented approach is, again, the overlap. If you have professional friends on Facebook who you have professional contact with, you have to go to LinkedIn and invite them there as well. The same thing happens in LinkedIn where you have to go to Facebook to invite those you have social contact with.

In the end, I don't think this is an either/or situation. I think that this plays out at the individual level. Personally, I keep these two networks in sync manually and, in the end, they blur together for me. I don't post anything too personal on Facebook so I'll connect with anybody. LinkedIn is set up to do more with my information from a professional point of view. I can search companies, see who is connected easily, etc. Facebook needs to build these tools in to truly compete at the professional level.

The next generation of professional may use their Facebook network as the end-all, pro/social network where they do everything.

So how do you distinguish between the two? Do you actual patrol the people who you connect with on each and keep them separated? Do you keep em separated?

Technorati Tags:
Facebook, LinkedIn, Matt Dickman, social networks, tagging, Techno//Marketer, trends

Comments

[Gavin Heaton]

The distinctions are interesting ... and I loosely follow these as well. I think you are right about uptake ... both networks still have a long way to grow before they can really be considered mainstream applications. But they are both moving in the right direction. Is there room for both? Sure ... and I think there is even room for more.

BUT ... now I have a question for you. What do you do if you have an evangelising role at work? What if it is for a client? How do you "present yourself"? Do you establish a new Facebook profile? Do you "friend" yourself? What are the protocols?

[jon burg]

I've been saying this for ages! Thank You!

Ultimately this issue could be resolved through a single ID system with multiple layers of access and interactivity (connections or friendships).

Ideally I believe we all want as much control in as simple a manner as possible. We want anywhere from 3 to 7 levels of - or - types of connectivity. I want my work friends separate from my sales reps. I value my connectivity with my reps, but I don't want them to have the same access as my co-workers. My weekend/after work friends should be seeing different content from my co-workers. My parents and family should be living in a different space.

LinkedIn is a great network, but they currently live largely as a connectivity platform, not as a live and ongoing social network.

The best utility would be a single platform that speaks to both profiles - and all the various levels or types of connectivity therein.

Think of it in terms of your real world connections. People don't open up the same parts of their lives to all people, but they manage all of their contacts from only one or two messaging platforms (like Outlook and Messenger and Gmail and gtalk).

[Tangerine Toad]

@Matt: I've been saying this just about forever too.
Facebook is just way too personal for most of my work relationships.

And when you get to a certain level in business, well, the connectivity of a LinkedIn is just about all I really need. I don't want to know more about my many work contacts than the information LI provides.

@ Jon & Matt: The problem with having different levels of connectivity on something like Facebook should be glaringly obvious:

How do you tell someone they aren't a "Level 1" friend. Especially when they think they are.

There are so many shades of gray in friendship. To actually have to quantify that and give it a label and meaning is going to lead to no end of hard feelings.

Facebook (or so the kids tell me) if already falling out of favor because of people like you Matthew Dickman. They feel too many of their friends hold back on Facebook because they're afraid their bosses or coworkers or whatnot might see them in less than professional positions (e.g. chugging beer) and so they're looking for the new new thing.

[Antti Vilpponen]

I wrote about the issue in my blog just a while ago: http://antti.vilpponen.net/2007/10/30/facebook-sucking-the-life-out-of-other-social-sites/.

I personally think that as both the sites grow, the overlap will grow no matter what. It's the same in your real life - as more and more people know you, the more they know about your - more transparency.

The reason why I keep using LinkedIn with Facebook is that they present the information differently. After all, the target audience defines how the information in my profile should be presented (that's probably why it took LinkedIn so long to include a photo - it's a learned trick from other social applications but there's very little real value to LinkedIn users).

[Seni Thomas]

Matt,

Absolutely agree. I did a podcast on this when I was crayon calling it "Crossing the gluttonous chasm". Essentially the drive for more $$$ and more users that dilutes the community and alienates your most valuable core group.

I also wrote a post on the "History of Facebook: A Students Perspective". I was on FB since a few months after the Harvard launch and the internal upheaval that occurred when high school students were allowed access and then ubiquitous access was granted was massive. We felt betrayed.

http://senithomas.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/growing-up-on-facebook-a-tale-of-a-students-transition-from-college-to-the-real-world/

However, there is another larger trend that explains the development of social networks: "Media must fragment to remain meaningful"

Every new platform starts with a few pioneers that grow into behemoths, like TV, then they become too mass market to appeal to niches which then creates opportunities for fragmentation, like cable networks.

Here's a post on the subject:

http://senithomas.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/why-all-media-platforms-must-fragment/

[Tangerine Toad]

@Antti: Not sure I agree with your comment that "It's the same in your real life - as more and more people know you, the more they know about your - more transparency."

I think you'll find that the more people you know (in business) the more they are aware of your workplace accomplishments. Your taste in music, how you spend your weekends, what movies you see-- few people beyond your immediate social circle actually know that. Unless, of course, you put it all out there on Facebook.

[Matt Dickman]

Gavin -- I agree that these are new and that they are not the end-all of social networks. There is a lot of room for more of them and they're popping up every day.

On your question, do you mean what should you do if you need to have a "professional" and "personal" profile on a site like Facebook?

[Matt Dickman]

Jon -- I'm glad we're on the same page. I think you're right about having many levels of connectivity, my question to you is when does the digital management of those levels become overwhelming in a single ecosystem and is it easier to have say four networks to cover the majority of the distinctions?

[Matt Dickman]

TT -- There has to be a separation, I guess it's up to the end user to decide what works for them. I agree that creating levels of friends will eventually start hurting feelings.

What if there was a system where you could create your own levels and set permissions flexibly? That could help the situation and make it customizable.

I may be one reason FB is falling out of favor, as you suggest, but I really don't hold anything back. I lead a pretty normal life and most of it is publicly accessible. I think each generation will look for what meets their social and emotional needs and it may not be either of these (as Gavin suggested).

[David Berkowitz]

Enjoyed this a lot, as it's something I'm also thinking about. You'll get a kick out of my latest blog post.

[Jill]

I started off with a LinkedIn account and later moved to facebook when it reached critical mass. For the most part, my contacts don't overlap. While I use facebook to stay in touch with friends, LinkedIn acts as my online CV.

As lines blur between the two sites, it can get awkward. Even though I don't share much in the way of personal information through facebook, I always feel hesitant to add business contacts to my friends list.

For now, I don't mind using two sites to manage personal and business contacts but it would be nice to see the multiple layers of access and interactivity that Jon Burg references integrated into these or other sites.

[Chris Grayson]

I'm going to throw a few links your way.

About a month ago now, Eric Chiu of Laszlo Systems asked a question in the Linked[in] Q&A that read:

Is Facebook overrated?

Here is the link to his question...

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/e-commerce/TCH_ECM/105963-13157810

...along with my *Best Answer* response:

-----

FACE BOOK IS NOT OVERRATED.

Facebook has a very bright future.

Online social networks have value through a combination of what their technology offers and how many people they aggregate.

Facebook currently claims 43 million users. They have critical mass.

Facebook offers services that its users find valuable, and they have built a smart infrastructure that expands its features via modules developed by third-parties. This makes it both a social network, and a developer platform.

Linked[in] also plans to open its platform for this sort of third party module development as well (see 1st link below). I've wondered whether Linked[in] will develop a Facebook application. I believe they should. Others feel the same (see 2nd link below). When Linked[in] opens its API to developers, I will be interested to see if Facebook promptly creates a Linked[in] module. I also think they should, and they probably will.

As for Facebook, as the user-base ages, expect more professional networking features to be incorporated. Third party Facebook module developers are already addressing this (see 3rd link below). It has a much better chance to grow into a business threat to Linked[in] than, say, MySpace ever will.

For my own use, I only spend any appreciable amount of time using Linked[in]. I do have a Facebook page, but only because others invited me, and all I have up there is a message to please contact me through Linked[in]. With MySpace I have reconnected with a few old friends, and sometimes use it to research music and new bands. I also instruct people on MySpace that if they wish to network with me for business, to track me down on Linked[in]. Due to the wild-west nature of MySpace, I don't state my name, so people would have to already know who I am to then find me on Linked[in], but I digress.

Over-saturation in the social media space could lead to consolidation through merger/acquisition.

Links:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/24/linkedin-to-open-platform-in-response-to-facebook/

http://facereviews.com/2007/06/13/linkedin-on-facebook-at-least-there-is-a-linkedin-goup

http://www.facebookobserver.com/facebook-applications/10-best-facebook-applications-for-business-professionals/

[Matt Dickman]

Antti -- I agree that the information is presented differently in each. I think that may be a challenge for Facebook to shift that far. I don't think LinkedIn has real plans to branch into the social side (though they could partner as a service).

Seni -- Thanks for the links to those posts. Fragmentation is a threat to all of these networks as the next thing is always on the horizon and the opportunity cost is really low to switch.

Jill -- I think it's up to the individual, like you said. Right now I use both and I'll continue until another network evolves and gains critical mass.

Chris -- Wow! Thanks for that post. LinkedIn's QA is a great place to have these discussions to share knowledge. That piece of it alone is easier to use than Facebook's group options (which are wholly lacking in my opinion).