SNS use could be described as largely standardised within the sample. As already reported, all participants had an active account with Facebook, and over half had an active account with Twitter. Whilst several participants did report having accounts with MySpace and LinkedIn they were not referred to as central to their daily social media routines. Furthermore, whilst several participants reported having previous accounts with other SNSs, for example MySpace or Bebo, they informed the researcher that they had deleted the account or that it was inactive at the time of the interview.
SNS use is part of a wider matrix of social and mainstream media use. Participants’ practices on SNSs are dynamic and are constantly evolving in relation to wider trends in mediated practice and developments in software design. In discussing past and present SNS use, the interviews enquired about changing SNS practices. This was most relevant for those participants who had previously established routines on other SNSs and who, at the time of the interview, primarily used Facebook and/or Twitter. Participants reported how their routines on other sites had been affected by their registration and use of Facebook. For example, a number of participants were clear about how using Facebook had directly impacted upon their use of MySpace or Bebo. Participants reported that increased investment in terms of time and resources into Facebook had reduced the time they dedicated to maintaining their networks on other sites.
As argued, SNSs are part of wider Internet and social media routines, which in turn need to be contextualised as part of a wider matrix of media routines. People have limits on the time they can allocate to media and this time is distributed between different media interests and activities. Participants reported that maintaining networks on different sites took up too much time. As Laurie, a young female recruitment officer from Liverpool explains:
There was just a point where Facebook took over, all my friends on MySpace were now on Facebook so it was easier to just switch and focus on Facebook, rather than try and keep them both up (Interview 11, 2012)
Discussions about changes in SNS routines over time revealed how registration with new sites and the increased time spent using these services could directly impact on participants’ established routines using other sites. This was particularly evident when SNSs were considered to be similar in some wayto one another; when sites appeared to offer comparable features and/or supported similar network connections. In these instances, participants
188
described how one site tended to ‘win out’ over the other; one site would receive more investment in terms of time and effort and overall participation. The more investment a site would receive in terms of time and involvement, the more the site would increase in relative value.
In the case of MySpace and Facebook, participants reported a significant amount of networked competition. Although Facebook and MySpace had distinctive interactive features and network connections were not directly transferable, participants reported that as their Facebook network expanded, it reduced the relative importance of their MySpace network. It is often the case that as a network gathers momentum (i.e. the number of connections increases) the more it increases in relative value – this is sometimes referred to as a ‘network effect’. Participants reported growing similarities between MySpace and Facebook in terms of features, networks and importantly in terms of the overall social value it had. This placed the sites in competition with one another. When this occurred, participants made an assessment about which site they perceived to be ‘better’, for example which site they enjoyed using more and which they believed would provide the most social benefits. Katie, a 26-year-old female social worker and part-time singer explains:
There was loads of hype about MySpace, then all of a sudden MySpace started to die down, and the talk of people saying ‘’I’m not using MySpace anymore, I’m using Facebook’’. MySpace was originally for musicians, that’s why I used it… but then everyone started making their own profile and it became social-networking as opposed to music-networking. Then people who used MySpace for social/personal reasons then starting using Facebook. Facebook was all about socialising at first, I preferred MySpace initially and Facebook was not great for music promotion, but Facebook has changed over the years, and people have started to use it in that way, most of my music stuff and my fans are now on Facebook, I still have a MySpace, but my music related activity and communication is now on Facebook cos that’s where the fans are now (Interview 2, 2012)
Historically, MySpace and Facebook have been characterised by important differences in design and differences in the networks and cultures they support. Whilst they share similarities as a type of social media technology, the micro-architectures of sites display a number of important differences which means they afford different network configurations and practices97. Whilst the sites had different designs and appeals, as Facebook opened up to
97
For example, MySpace was initially popular among musicians and music fans while Facebook was initially popular among students due to its registration requirement of a university affiliation. MySpace typically supported a variety of connections including friends and family, musicians, and ‘randoms’ (other users who account holders connected to on MySpace, where no prior connection existed outside the site). In contrast,
189
the public and, its user-base extended beyond students, the site added additional features that were similar to MySpace, such as music related features, and new forms of connections such as the Subscribe button. For participants, the expansion of the Facebook network, coupled with changes in design, put it in more direct competition with MySpace. This said, Katie, a singer songwriter living in London, and two local part-time DJs - Ben and Daniel, reported staying on MySpace longer than other participants who reported simply using the site for social interaction. This is because MySpace was valued for its capacity to support music distribution and fan bases. However, the musicians and music fans reported that on-going changes in the design of Facebook, such as the introduction of Facebook business pages and, more recently subscribers, coupled with the growing number and popularity of music applications such as SoundCloud has increased the appeal of Facebook as a tool to meet their particular needs. As Ben, a 31-year-old male DJ and Games tester remarks:
I kept the two accounts for a while; MySpace was used for music really rather than keeping in touch will people, for showcasing my music. Facebook was keeping in contact with people but as Facebook developed and incorporated more music related stuff I began to use that... Facebook kept me interested really; it began to have multiple uses, MySpace less so(Interview 5, 2012)
Over half the participants used both Twitter and Facebook and it was clear that they viewed the sites quite differently in terms of the connections and the cultures of practice they support. Participants reported that they were more likely to maintain networks on two different sites if they considered the SNSs to be different; to support different networks connections and have different communicative and social benefits. Participants did not see Twitter and Facebook as in network competition with each other. Rather, they provided distinct reasons for maintaining accounts with both sites. For example, participants who used Facebook and Twitter reported that whilst Facebook provided a way to keep in contact with friends and family, Twitter provided a way to connect to people and topics of interest. Participants reported how Twitter created the opportunity to venture out into new networks and make connections on an interest-driven basis, whereas Facebook remained relationship-orientated (see Zhang 2010). Participants viewed Facebook and Twitter as different types of SNSs, each providing unique communicative benefits and each adding something to the participants’ social media routines and everyday social routines. As such, at the time of the interview, the
Facebook is better known for supporting educational and institutional networks and later networks consisting of friends and family.
190
sites appeared to co-exist alongside one another in participants’ SNS routines, rather than competing with one another for users’ time.
The discussions about how participants’ SNS routines changed over time revealed interesting underlying factors in how social media/ted practice is configured. In particular, they indicate that in order to fully understand how (and why) people use one site, we need to consider their wider social media practices (Light, Forthcoming). Digitally mediated networking practices are configured within broader dynamic and changing social media ecologies. One way to understand changing practices may be to compare the differences and similarities between sites with regard to what they afford and what they can bring to a person’s digitally mediated communicative and social routines. Interestingly, current changes in Facebook’s design reveals a reflexive awareness (and an effort to capitalise on) Twitter’s growing appeal. Facebook’s addition of the Subscribe button mimics to some extent the one- way mode of connectivity, the Follow button on Twitter. The Subscribe button enables Facebook users to subscribe to updates from people who they might be ‘interested in’, even if they are not connected as ‘friends’. Interestingly, the ‘subscribe’ button is set to become the ‘Follow’ button (Facebook 2012) indicating a move to capitalise on Twitter’s design language. This is further illustrated by Facebook’s new feature which shows ‘trending articles’. The on-going development of Facebook over the years reflects a longstanding effort to be in-tune with design developments on rival social media platforms and in popular trends in social media practice. As Bolter and Grusin (1999) argue, media constantly engage in a recursive dynamic of imitating each other, incorporating aspects of competing media into themselves while simultaneously flaunting the advantage that their own forms of mediation.
191