I was part of a discussion a few weeks ago where the concept of “people centric” vs. “object centric” Social Networks were discussed.

That discussion lead towards the route that “as individuals tend to change/leave SoNets over time” an object centric (ie media centric) approach may be more sustainable (as object still have a value after the “poster” leave the network. People centric SoNets will mainly leave “dead nodes” behind.

I do agree with the statement in your post though, that people centric SoNets implies a higher degree of communication, thus creating a stickiness.

Hm, where’s the golden balance…

Nice framework, but what implications do you draw from it? A matrix like this is only as useful as the predictions that it offers (like it is best to be in the upper right quadrant, as any consultant can tell you!)

J

As for the framework for social spaces, the only other one that we talk a lot about here is:

How is your social space bundled?

Bundling is a political term, but appropriate for the way social media generally clusters. The mall example is the food court. Most successful social media has a second tier of grouping of unit content: Universities for Facebook, Bands for MySpace, Groups in Flickr, Guilds in WoW. These sometimes dissolve over time – but they are a critical design component in helping subsegment as the Unit volume goes up. The best bundling loosely tracks bundling that already is happening offline (universities), and has a implied hierarchy that allows the lead of a bundle to have the authority to invite tens or hundreds of people (bands inviting their fan list).