It is really frustrating how lazy bloggers/investors always are rationalizing why great startups should be doing bad, instead of figuring out what makes these "bad" startups do so great.
I don't think Myspace has any merit. I think it's doing well for the same reason that hit songs are doing well: random network butterfly effects. That experiment about showing people which songs were popular vs. not showing them-- due to totally random noise, one song (or startup) will be a little ahead, and then whoosh, it has all the listeners (or users). There's nothing about Myspace itself that makes it more likely among a field of similar, better-designed contenders to do well; it's just the random fluctuations of the market that made it king.
It doesnt matter if you don't think it has any merit, it's the 25+ million unique users per month that matter. Myspace is a great site in that it allows you to craft your profile into any look you want. This identity creation is what teenage users want. Combined with the network effects and you have the reasoning for myspaces success.
better-designed contenders
There are a few better designed contenders such as BeBo and Mixi who are doing very well outside of the US. I don't believe facebook counts as a competitor since it's lack of customisability and requirement for users to 'conform' does not appeal to the same users as myspace.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that the reason for their success is not their own merit, but this random butterfly effect described in the linked study. It's a relevant discussion to have, since it indicates that there's a limit on how much you can control your own destiny in a social startup.
There is a butterfly effect, yes there is a limit on how much you can control your own destiny in a startup. But it's not an insurmountable obstactle. It means you can't just copy myspace exactly, improve it in a few minor ways, and expect to win over all their users.
In terms of competition, you may not realize what your competitor is doing that is stealing all your customers. From what I remember, the main competitor to Myspace was LiveJournal, and the networking features of myspace were far superior. Customized pages with photo albums and links to all the people you know are a lot more intrinsically interesting than an article about taking your cat to the vet. The other competitor I read about was friendster, which had a head start in social networking but was beaten because musicians and their fans used myspace. [0]
I remember the first time I saw myspace, all I really noticed was the music. The random user profiles barely registered, although I remember thinking it would be cool to have a band page with lots of fans attached.
Also, when you said there were better-designed contenders, did you have anything in particular in mind?
Don't forget, myspace was in the first batch (if not the very first) of sites for bands to upload their music and have it streamed over the internet. It had the streaming audio, and the strong community features. The initial communities grew up around the bands. It wasn't completely random that Myspace was successful, they were providing a real and useful service.
is the study in question. No, I didn't have any Myspace competitors in mind; I just assumed that something so badly designed must have at least one better-designed competitor. Maybe a bad assumption, in retrospect.
Nice example.