The distinction between the necessary and the discretionary is a judgment call really. Very few things are technically necessary: a bite of bread, a drink of water, a blanket. Procuring these is how complexities begin, and the rest is history… and economics… and, come to think of it, lots of other things… that bring us in due course to Facebook. At some point in our evolution it was deemed essential that we should communicate. At some other point, subsequently, it became paramount that we do so quickly. Next thing you know, it is imperative to communicate with everyone at once. Like I said, these things are a judgment call, but nevertheless here we are: communicating quickly, with everybody, and we can’t stop. Or can we?
In a sector that is flooded with alternatives, the question is critical. For a company whose valuation depends on traffic and growth, the qualitative aspects of these value drivers are as material as the quantitative. Whether this thing is needed – social networking in general and Facebook in particular – or merely habit forming, is a debatable matter. But habits can be broken while necessities are permanent, and habits are therefore less valuable in commerce. If we have to compare the necessity of Facebook with that of, say, Google – or, generally speaking, social networking to search – the more truly necessary is probably the one that cannot be replaced.
We use a search engine to gather information that we need at a particular instance – for practical purposes or otherwise – and if this capability were taken away for some period, we would feel its absence. If Facebook or other social networks, on the other hand, were stopped for a few days or longer, “social networking” per se would not end. With email, SMS, IM, unlimited minutes, or actually looking someone in the eyes, we would still be very much in the game. We would still have friends, we would still have contacts, and would still communicate. (Minor digression: John Mayer – tweeter extraordinaire with some 500,000 followers and goodness knows how many tweets – has lost interest in Twitter. Just like that. It’s over.)
Behind Facebook’s new product rollouts, and especially behind its recent banner-waving about Open Graph, I sense that it is fighting hard to be more than popular and to become essential. (Here is a complete and rather extensive overview of Open Graph.) An enterprise with a $20 billion equity valuation and 500 million users has a lot at stake, and defections like John Mayer’s at Twitter should not even be an option… just as it would never be imaginable for anyone to stop using email altogether, or search.
But the more Facebook pushes to establish itself as a necessary (as opposed to discretionary) communication mode for the masses, the more its discretionary aspects stand out. I repeat, the distinction is a judgment call, but true necessities don’t have to roll out new features at techie conferences and push for the gizmoratti to be impressed: water never had to stoop to such lows. Even Google’s comparable embarkment upon a never-ending stream of gadgetry and trinkets has been of a different ilk: to facilitate – more than anything – web traffic, fully aware that search will naturally occur with it.
There is a huge difference between the two approaches: Google’s is characterized by confidence in what it has to offer, and Facebook’s by adolescent insecurity.
