Of
the three laws discussed in class (Sarnoff’s , Metcalfe’s, and Reed’s Law) the
law that makes the most sense and I agree with most is Sarnoff’s. While all
three laws discuss different ideas of how networks increase in value with the
more number of members, Sarnoff’s Law states that the value of a network
increases linearly with the number of people on it. This law is typical in
traditional broadcasting while discussing TV or radio network’s broadcasting
system.
To me, this law makes the most sense. It means that a
network can say that they have increased in value if their members have
doubled. This is valuable information when it comes to advertising. If, for
example, I work at CBS and know that my network on Super Bowl Sunday has 111
million viewers, I can market this as a prime time to advertise. If, for
example, I work for Budweiser and know that there are 111 million people watching
CBS’s network and not even close to that many viewers on a network like TLC,
then I will definitely want to advertise on CBS because my commercial will
reach the eyes of so many more viewers.
However, this value can also be thought of from a viewer’s
perspective. If, for example, I am looking to join a social network to stay in
contact with friends then I would want to join the network that has more people.
I would not want to join Myspace at this point in time because the network of
active users on Facebook is much larger. That means for me I can communicate
with more people on Facebook, making it more valuable to me.
I do not think that too much will change in terms of
communication in just five years. There was nearly 100 years between the time
the telephone was invented and the internet was invented. Although I think the
forms of social media that will be invented will change. I foresee one of the
big companies like Facebook or Google purchasing up smaller companies and
combining them. Similarly to how on Snapchat you can now view the news and send
“snapcash”, I predict that Facebook will create Instagram filters, image
messaging that disappears in seconds, etc. combining Instagram, Facebook and
Snapchat so you don’t have to use all three.
I agree with your premise on social networks, because I think social networks will be the main stream of information within to 5 to 10 years. Social media is a like a spider web(stay with me here) it's connected to a wide range of other media outlets, businesses, celebrities, and you can connect to them through Facebook, twitter, instagram, etc. And the more social networks you have the more connected or the bigger the web will be, and it keep's growing everyday as more and more people turn to social networks for advertising, getting their brand name out their. Based on where social networks were in the beginning to where they are now, it's only a matter of time before they become the standard for getting information.
ReplyDeleteI like your last point about joining Facebook instead of Myspace because of how many more people that would be in your network. I think that Metcalfe's Law could apply here too, because of Facebook's networking features that create even minor connections between friends of friends. While this does not show how meaningful the connections are, they are still there and valid. I also agree with the merging of companies and apps to simplify and become all-encompasing instead of having so many separate ways to do the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Sarnoff's Law makes the most sense. I think your examples justifies that it isn't only applied to broadcast network, but social media as well. It is interesting that you pointed out how useful could this law be in terms of advertising. Your example shows that Sarnoff's Law can still be applied. It is also true that users could use this law as a source for choosing to use a social media network. So, I think that you made your point very clearly.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the idea that Facebook could own other small companies. To me, Facebook is getting boring for people and thats why it tries do add different qualities. But you might be right, since we are getting more and more lazy, reaching everything in a single network would seem better for people in the future.
Hmm Ms. Faloon... I beg to differ about the change of communication in the last five years. Even though there was nearly 100 years between the telephone and internet, look how far we've come in the last ten years. Think about the iPhone. Ten years ago you had to use the dictionary to look up a word. Now you only have to whip out your phone and type in a question. Think about all the screenshots you've taken to gossip to a friend (aunt Rara) about what someone has posted on Instagram. None of that would have been possible five years ago. So your telling me in five years not much will change? I think your wrong, and I cant wait to say I told you so in the future :P
ReplyDeleteCompelling feed back, Ms. Skerrett. However, I can't really take this post seriously because of YOU'RE lack of proper grammar . Please comment back when you learn English. :p
DeleteAnd p.s. my argument posted above does not discount the huge technological advances we have seen in the last ten years. Instead, I state that all forms of current technology will simply become combined.
Faloon I think very HIGHly of you. Our dear friend Marky Mark (Zuckerberg) tried to purchase Snapchat, but the 23 year old Evan Spiege turned down the $3 billion dollar offer! What an idiot. YOU'RE right though... one stop shop is where its at :D Evan needs to realize that moms are going to be on Snapchat soon, and when that happens he is going to wish he took that $3 billion dollar offer.
Delete