The Web Is Shrinking. Now What?

We all read the statistics every week documenting the meteoric new growth areas of the Internet, and they are impressive:

Online video is exploding, with annual user growth of more than 45 percent. Mobile-device time spent increased 28 percent last year — with average smartphone time spent doubling. And social networks are now used by 90 percent of U.S. Internet users — for an average of more than four hours a month.

None of this is a newsflash. Every venture capitalist, Web publisher, and digital marketer is hyper-aware of these three trends.

But what’s happening to the rest of the Web?

The Web Is Shrinking. Really.

When you take these three growth areas out of the picture, the size of the hole left behind is staggering: the rest of the Web — the tried and true core that we thought would have limitless growth — is already shrinking.

Here are the facts:

When you exclude just Facebook from the rest of the Web, consumption in terms of minutes of use shrank by nearly nine percent between March 2010 and March 2011, according to data from comScore. And, even when you include Facebook usage, total non-mobile Internet consumption still dropped three percent over the same period.

We’ve known that social is growing lightning fast — notably, Facebook consumption, which grew by 69 percent — but now it’s clear that Facebook is not growing in addition to the Web. Rather, it’s actually taking consumption away from the publishers who compete on the rest of the Web.

And just what is the rest of the Web?

I have been calling it the “document Web,” based on how Google and other Web architectures view its pages as documents, linked together. But increasingly, it might as well be called the “searchable Web” since it’s accessed predominantly as a reference, and navigated primarily via search.

And it’s becoming less relevant.

In the last year, Facebook’s share of users’ time online grew from one out of every 13 minutes of use nationwide, to one out of every eight. In aggregate, that means the document Web was down more than half a billion hours of use (that’s more than 800 lifetimes) this March versus last March. And in financial terms, that represents a lost opportunity of $2.2 billion in advertising inventory that didn’t exist this year.

The Creation of a New, Connected Web

The change in the Web’s direction is a clear indication to me that we aren’t just in the midst of a boom for new interaction modes, but rather in a generational overhaul of the Internet.

What replaces the declining searchable Web is a new and “fully connected” digital life. You may have heard this before. After all, the promise of the Web was to connect pages with hyperlinks. Well, this time, “connected” means much more. It means the Web connects us, as people, to each one of the individuals online; and those connections, ultimately, extend from one of us to all of us.

Just as significantly, this all happens in real time, and at nearly all times.

And here’s what’s different when you connect people, as opposed to pages: Now, the Web knows who we are (identity), is with us at all times wherever we go (mobile), threads our relationships with others (social), and delivers meaningful experiences beyond just text and graphics (video).

The connected, social Web is alive, moving, proactive, and personal, while the document Web is just an artifact — suited as a universal reference, but hardly a personal experience.

The Social Web Versus the Searchable Web

Analytical explanations — increasing smartphone penetration, bandwidth availability, and technology sophistication — fill in some of the gaps as we try to understand this sea change, but they fall short.

Something larger is afoot, and it’s not about science or technology. Rather, as human beings, we have changed how we fit the Internet into our lives.

And the nature of the Web is changing to match. The old searchable Web is crashing; while the new connected, social Web is lifting off.

The implications for publishers are massive.

The last decade has been defined by the rise of Google as the nearly limitless supplier of traffic to digital media properties. And so a generation of digital media publishers developed and followed the same playbook: create lots of content around top keywords, engineer for search engine optimization (SEO) and expand the surface area in search engines to reach more users. The objective was to catch visitors in their net; expand reach — as measured by ComScore — look more impressive to advertisers and capture more demand.

The landscape is changing, and fast.

SEO’s strategic value is quickly fading as Google’s growth slows and its prominence in distribution slides away. In its place, Facebook has become the wiring hub of the connected Web — a new “home base” alternative to Google’s dominance of the last decade. Facebook began receiving as many visits as Google in March 2010, and already garners more than three times as many minutes as Google each month from users, according to comScore. Looking ahead, the best projections of U.S. online reach indicate that Facebook will surpass Google on that metric in less than a year, too.

And with this change, the nature of the relationship between users and publishers is being altered fundamentally — and perhaps forever.

Search offers a utility relationship, connecting users to content for the briefest of transactions; typically, it provokes users to just one pageview so they can find a piece of information, and then they move on.

But social discovery builds a relationship. Leveraging social endorsements and an environment of serendipitous discovery, consumers meet publishers in a meaningful context. As a result, the relationship that forms is stronger — and, more importantly for publishers, it’s branded.

Unlike the ecosystem set up by Google, where the search engine ironically intermediates between users and the objects of their queries (so that users reinforce their loyalty to Google, far more than to the publisher), in the world of social publishing, the Facebook hub enables a direct, if constrained, relationship between users and media brands.

The results — at least for my own company, Wetpaint — are that social media brings more qualified eyeballs and retains them. People who come via social media stay longer on the first visit; and they are more likely to come back sooner and more frequently. Overall, our visitors from social networks have a relationship that’s several times stronger — and several times as valuable when measured in engagement, pageviews, and revenues — than the relationships people form when then arrive through search.

The Human Connection

But it’s not just a change in mechanics. It’s a change in our human relationships.

Lewis D’Vorkin, the Chief Product Officer at Forbes, speaks of it when he and Alex Knapp talk about “live” media, quantum entanglement and mutually rewarding relationships that bind authors and readers on the new connected Web. It’s a sense of the Web moving from static published reference to living digital companion.

But there’s even more, and this vast change foreshadows bigger and better impacts on our lives. The greatest innovators in social media are driving exactly along that edge today. As one friend commented recently on the full potential of connected lives, by being joined more closely together, we can increase empathy and meaning, while decreasing isolation.

Toward a Fully Connected Future

Admittedly, we’re early in the replacement cycle when it comes to the connected Web. Even for strong connected Web performers like Huffington Post, Wetpaint, and others, the sum total of traffic from Facebook, Twitter, video, and mobile may add up to only half the total, or less.

But the trend has tipped, and with that tip has come both the business necessity and the human impact potential of elevating the relationship.

As the document Web of old shrinks, the new connected Web expands and delivers experiences that make our time online more effective, efficient, and enjoyable.

And that changes the role of companies on the Web from mere content publishers or providers to truly connected digital partners for real people.

Ben Elowitz (@elowitz) is co-founder and CEO of web publisher Wetpaint, and author of the Digital Quarters blog about the future of digital media. Prior to Wetpaint, Elowitz co-founded Blue Nile (NILE). He is an angel investor in media and e-commerce companies.


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://twitter.com/UniqueVisitor Jeff Pester

    Thanks Ben, that was helpful and much appreciated.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michal.moreno Michal Moreno

    I really have to disagree on this one…
    First of all – you’re comparing traffic by the time users spend rather than pageviews or conversions.
    If you used any of those parameters – the picture would be totally different:
    Facebook users may engage more, but they hardly convert to sales or leads.
    People just got more focused, and understand information faster. They moved to smartphones instead of laptops and desktops, and do spend more time on facebook – but that time does not make them your consumers.
    The only case people do convert on facebook – is if you offer them freebies, and even then – your conversion will cost you.
    And that’s only the tip of the iceberg as far as what I have to say about this one..

  • http://twitter.com/yaelol yaelol

    love the article, and the great comments.  yet it feels as if the assessment and conclusions are much stronger than reality.
    - removing mobile web creates a bias.  in countries such as China and India, millions get their first access to the web via mobile.  don’t eliminate them from the equation. 
    - the comment about how one FINDS the content one is looking for is so true.  if my friends scan and catch the news and knowledge I’m seeking, i can click on their posted FB links, without having to Google them. do i use Google less?  not really. do i use FB less/more than i use Google? depends on what I’m doing.  i use them for DIFFERENT needs/purposes. 
    -searching for my friends, their whereabouts, catching up with them, belongs in FB, searching for a reference to a presentation I’m working on or to support/backup my next blog post belongs with Google.  different searches, different search engines.  prior to Facebook, one didn’t google one’s  friends to find out what’s up.  SMS, voice, and email were used for that.  and we had less freinds and acquantains than we do now.  think what email did to snail mail.
    - and as searches go, if anything my searches i.e. Google searches are more specific than ever and unfortunately less successful. i want to know which boats brought WWII survivors to Israel in December 1948-January 1949, i want to find all about Atzmaut, the boat that brought may dad and grandparents to Israel on January 1949.  Facebook, neither today nor ever will be able to help me find answers.  unfortunately, as of now, Google fails too.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4Z5Q6MA3SSDV5WGJYA2FP5FGTA RC

    The super highway has become infested with ads and videos for more ads. I hate to get on. When I want something most sites want dna! Too much trouble!

  • http://www.allconsidering.com/ Katinka Hesselink

    I too found this article through twitter, not my Google Reader. 

  • Mark Edmondson

    My most interesting friends don’t sit around putting their stuff on Facebook

  • James Allred

    That’s okay, the criticisms were repeated in later comments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alec-Sevins/100001026837377 Alec Sevins

    What about the fundamental question of WHY everything is expected to GROW constantly?
    The world is FINITE. Why not strive for a steady-state Internet and steady-state economy instead of panicking when something isn’t growing exponentially? For most of human history, growth was not the desperate expectation that it’s become today. In nature, outside of the human economic fantasy, when things try to grow indefinitely, collapse and death is the outcome. Resources are depleted and there just isn’t enough energy per organism to maintain growth. We are seeing that right now with global Peak Oil and economic “stagflation.” The Internet is not immune to the physical limits of the Earth just because it’s in virtual space. It takes energy to power servers, and people may need to spend less on cable & DSL accounts. A species as supposedly wise as Man ought to recognize limits and end growth voluntarily before an inevitable collapse happens. If businesses can’t function without perpetual growth (via fiat money debt), why not question the whole model?

  • http://cant-make-omelette.myopenid.com/ KC_RN

    I think Eben Moglen would write a somewhat different article about the inevitability of Facebook.

  • Anonymous

    I hate Facebook and will never join. I am also tired of people and other sites requiring me to join if I want to do business with them or make comments.

  • Anonymous

    The author’s assertion that facebook is making the searchable content web less relevant seems laughable. Relevance is a relative term used in the context of a specific purpose. Facebook is relevant to people who want to enhance communications around their social webs. The searchable content web is relevant to those who want to acquire information. The author would have us believe the purpose of the Internet as a whole is to attract people to spend as many minutes online as possible. I think only advertisers, who view the Internet as a target-rich environment, would propose such a relevance criteria. And as for using relevance as a veiled value judgement between social connections versus information collection, why go there? As for the future, most folk will migrate to where the signal-to-noise ratio is highest, and that bodes ill for facebook and this blog in the long term.

  • Jason Brown

    Saying the web is becoming “less relevant” than Facebook seems like saying tv is more relevant than books.  Sure, people are a lot more likely to watch tv than read these days, but how likely are you to make it through a college degree by watching even The Discovery Channel?  The author’s statements sound like someone blindly jumping to monetize whatever societal trend is popular right this minute.  Facebook is undeniably big — but even as big as television still is, does it seem as relevant now as it did before the masses started getting online?

  • Anonymous

    We monitor our 14yo’s Facebook, it’s all conversation, goofing around, a virtual playground. Maybe I’m not the norm, I,ve been a programmer for 30 years, and have an understandable aversion to recreation while sitting at a keyboard, but my personal view is that most FB activity I engage in is dealing with all the losers I knew in high school

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3IZQKBJPP47RZF3BVOT6MC2B3Y J Find

    I agree w/ JB and think the writer is fast and loose with the ‘statistics’.  Is good journalism hitting a hot button topic with questionable background? It has certainly lit up some comments here but its a little TMZ I think.

    Social interaction is a great thing and the conduits to it will prosper beyond belief.  I use search, for focused news,  business and personal learning. I connect with the topics that interest me and get deep into them more easily than ever.

  • paul martin

    All my friends are interesting even google reader where I found this

  • http://twitter.com/IngLupisak Ronny Ager-Wick

    I’m afraid that is not possible – there wouldn’t be much left!

  • http://twitter.com/IngLupisak Ronny Ager-Wick

    Having
    come late to the party of slaughtering this article, there’s not much to
    say other than that the value is in the comments…

  • a p

    If I Like you and you don’t Like me, how much is my page view worth?

    Isn’t it about aggregating data and selling that information? Further, doesn’t everyone understand that “I must have absolute realtime data”, means privacy concerns, because that what creates TwitterCents? Verizon tracks me, Google tracks me, and Facebook tracks me – My grocery store has me as a red dot on a computer somewhere, knowing which way I turn-and exactly when I am coming back to their store and exactly what I will buy, when I return at the appointed time.

    25 years ago relationships, which were established and trusted, defined the success of any concern. Today, “Relationship – Friending – Connecting -Twittering – have redefined relationship, but they have not redefined trust.

    The great unknown I consider, is not simply that relationship relative to business is in the midst of an identity crisis, and no one seems certain how or when that identity emerges as a constant , or much more importantly, whether it EVER emerges as a constant, but is repeatedly formed and reformed, before we are ever aware, until it’s three reforms down the line and everyone is talking about something they know little or nothing about and as this article and comments cleverly makes absolutely clear – My realtime data is different, than yours, which means someones data set is more correct AND more important than any of that long list of important things is:

    Forming a probability statement using trends, in very short intervals is workable for an exclusive and short list of goods and services, leaving you blindly stumbling about, with topheavy data, that can’t be bet on, for all else. If you cannot make a probability statement, take the rest of the day off, because you don;t have anything to do. Now, you will have much more time to Friendster everybody. You will have time to Tweet a hundred Tweets a day- You can have five hundred online friends and never arouse the human heart, which means you will get five hundred more, for the Human cannot live without relationship, because relationship provides meaning-Absent meaning, the Will suffers, loses focus, withers and is respawned in the next dataset.

    Another answer to all of this may be, that unemployment is so high, since March 2010 that Facebook  becomes their last and only hope, since it’s such a cheap date. They have all day and all night to sit behind a keyboard and Searching is tedious after a while – So Hello Friendster – I like you  and you like me, but however did we arrive at an agreement, that if you like me and I like you, that has meaning, which translates into wealth of any sort?  I suggest it does not.

    Trust forms and defines relationship in a precise fashion and it will not be Tweeted. Trust will not call Friendster back. Trust sees Google news stories, and Golly-Gee-Wiz-Bang-Hoo-Hah, thats really neat the way they are lined up, connoted, denoted, Spotlighted, Highlighted, and where are the news stories that are omitted? Trust refuses to “roulette wheel” anything and defies attempts at coercion, even when nodding away, and ladies and gentleman, what we have here at every turn, and embedded in all that code, is a construction of reality, which not only refuses to be tested, but in fact refuses to even reveal what it is.

    Next question?

    I believe the author is asking a question, in the form of a story, cleverly (non-perjorative) disguised as “one more thing you thought you knew but guess what, you don’t know anything”. Knowing shall now exist in a parking meter format-Pay for what you know and it expires quickly-Replaced often with something which defines the other as less than accurate? Which then rapidly calls Trust to measure how to compute this, but Trust doesn’t answer- Not even a message, much less a menu option for Urgent Delivery and as you set down the phone and disappear into the grey misty dawn to await your respawn, huddling with all the other people you don’t know, like a 21st Century-fires in a barrel-warming your hands, you think and you realize the thought never comes. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JV3TS3JHZ6S3OBQIHZRC2WXYWQ IanF

    Google Reader ? Whats that ? 

    Anyways, no matter the path to the article the fact remains that “content” always should be above “Social Media” fluff. 

    Further I find it disconcerting how articles have to wait to be “discovered” the initial few “real” readers only then can they attain popularity through other “leech” readers who wait for a recommendation. So there is less incentive to actually read articles merely based on topic and more emphasis based on “recommendation”. If everybody believed that then nobody would read anything new, only old articles being recommended back and forth. 

  • Anonymous

    Since the rate of growth of  registered uses in FB has been shrinking in the US and UK as well as Europe, your inference is skewed. Nevertheless, my discovery of this article did not happen via social media.If what you said were true, it should have been recommended this article via my presence in FB , Linkedin & Twitter. What you are inferring here is one among the many plausible scenarios.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Ben. As far a content publishers are concerned, social media acts as a cementing layer to bind and homogenize the regular traffic that flows in from different sources. However, discovery still will continue to play a predominant role in the near future. What is bound to transform is the  current best practices of web page optimization in order to be discovered more frequently. This optimization may not be only search engine centric.

  • http://foomandoonian.net/ Foomandoonian

    I fixed the chart for you: http://halfblog.net/the-shrinking-of-the-non-facebook-web

  • Mark Whitcomb

    So why are your facebook fan pages just filled with links to real web pages?  I really don’t care to read fb comments like ‘great!’, ‘Way to go!!!!’.  Where’s this content you’re talking about?  Could it be you actually need writers to add value to a page – any page, no matter where it exists? 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5SRZIYLGTKVQBG3CFTZG4P6HX4 L

    Seems to me that Facebook, LinkedIn status updates, etc are just vehicles for sharing content someone deems worth sharing, whether its your friend or a company Facebook page. But that content still needs to be created, “housed” and found.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1536890245 Nick Spreitzer

    The old searchable Web is crashing? Really? “Crashing”? Is that dramatic enough? How about “dying a fiery death” or “suffering super-major cataclysmic devastation”? I mean, if you’re going to try and get readers’ attention with hyperbole, why not go for broke, right? Anyhoo, thinking about my own experience with Facebook, about the only “productive” thing I do with my account is post comments like this on melodramatic articles like these. Beyond that, FB is a little like porn’s PG-13 cousin: a mindless distraction where you spend 90% of your time looking for that one special something that gets you off before you go back to more worthwhile tasks. Say, a juicy piece of gossip about so-and-so getting dumped. Somehow I don’t see that sort of nonsense completely supplanting everything outside the narrow realm of FB/Twitter/et al. When I look for goods and services, I go to google. When I need help solving a work related problem, I go to google. When I’m hungry in an unfamiliar town, I go to google. Are these the sort of things you think are destined to fall under the purview of social media? Maybe I missed the point–I only skimmed the last half of the article–but it seems to me that the rise of social media doesn’t spell the end of everything that isn’t. 

  • Anonymous

    What now?  More concentrated stupidity?

    More good little consumers of Farmville whassup goodness, voluntarily signing up to provide marketing fodder to the AdWord boner medicine merchants, etc?

    Is there anyone left who is wondering why our economies are crap?

  • Anonymous

    What are the consonants for on places like Facebook and Twitter?

    Are they strictly required, for some reason?

  • Anonymous

    That kind of cul de sac used to also be called an echo chamber.   FB and Twitter just made that easier.

  • http://twitter.com/thedarkerside Michael

    This is sort of interesting considering that last week it was announced that the growth of Facebook in established markets is actually slowing. It will be interesting to see how that morphs.

    I can see facebook as the “hub” for many people though, it’s almost the first thing I am being asked for when meeting someone and so far I have refrained from actually using Facebook, I have an account but it’s empty, auto-filled with uploads / info from other services but the number of times I log in in a year I can count on both hands.

  • http://twitter.com/thedarkerside Michael

    Twitter is to Facebook what Google was too Yahoo: The service stripped down to the bare essentials basically.

  • http://www.williamlanday.com/ Bill Landay

    “Unlike the ecosystem set up by Google, where the search engine ironically intermediates between users and the objects of their queries (so that users reinforce their loyalty to Google, far more than to the publisher), in the world of social publishing, the Facebook hub enables a direct, if constrained, relationship between users and media brands.”

    That just does not square with reality. Facebook interposes itself between users and brands in a way very similar to Google — more so, if you consider that Google is just a pass-through whereas Facebook insists that all publishers cram their content into Facebook’s own very rigid format. That is, every page on Facebook looks like a “Facebook page.”

    I agree with your main point about the growth of the social web largely at the expense of the search-driven “document” web, but this article paints way too rosy a picture of Facebook as a benign, transparent platform.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=825970334 Annie Pettit

    Can we have a zero on that chart? Please?

  • http://twitter.com/vengeness vince engeness

    The author is onto something, and it is important. The web is changing and becoming
    a web of people, not just linked documents. Imagine performing a search and
    connecting directly to an author instead of a document. Where I disagree is the
    platform – Facebook. While everyone is on Facebook, this does not provide the
    right framework for this evolution. The correct platform is Twitter -
    information is being organized by people (in real-time). This is a very
    powerful concept.

  • http://ctrl.pragma-tech.com Ramy Ghaly

    Have you considered the semantic approach in search for relevant content? A search made by topic is more powerful than any other methods to that. Adding the social aspect into it, and you will have a whole different platform that combines both values. Here is how I found this article - http://www.ctrl-news.com?art=15 

  • http://twitter.com/techsoc Zeynep Tufekci

    I get the point of the article — Facebook use is now 12% of time spent on the Web compared to 7.7% a year ago. (Went up from 1 in 13 minutes to 1 in 8.) But holy moly, that is one misleading chart. The indexing is done in a way to hide information, not highlight it. There is no legend explaining what that 100 corresponds to in terms of minutes.

    It’s not just that the chart clips at 100 and does not go down to zero –that is already a major no-no and a bad information visualization practice. It’s also that indexing equalizes two very different numbers, makes 7.7 percent look equal to 92.3 percent (rest of Web a year ago–100 minus 7.7).

    The problem is this is a relative-growth chart but one is not warned. The title “Consumption in Total Minutes of Web Use” is very misleading. The only hint to what’s going on is the word ‘indexed’. I am a professor of sociology and I teach social science methods — and I had to really squint and look to figure and go back and forth to figure out out what was actually going on.

    Plus, when one presents a chart, one should put some raw figures, either in a legend or in the text to make sense of it. So, FB is 12% of time and “Rest of Web” is 88% of time. (There, it doesn’t sound like the rest of the Web is dead yet when you put the actual numbers?). How many minutes does this correspond to? (And please tell us the denominator — days, weeks, hours).

    There should also be at least a line about methodology. Sigh.

    Also, my area of research is mostly Facebook use and so-called social web. So, believe me, I get the point of all this. But I’d flunk a student who came up with this chart to represent her data.

    Can we please get some underlying data to make sense of this chart and maybe a better chart which represents the underlying dynamics? It should take five minutes on Excel. Just post the numbers –just the ones used in this chart, there are exactly 26 data points on this char– and I’ll do it.

  • Mark Whitcomb

    You obviously are terribly fascinated by your friends bathroom tile projects, daily horoscope readings and farmville activity.  Or, you must be just like me – all of MY friends fb post on their doctorates on nuclear physics and theories on global economic development.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wolf-Unkelbach/100000339567489 Wolf Unkelbach

    I am semiretired with 64 now and started with McKinsey. If you have really interesting issues I would love to “infographic” them for free. But no routine stuff!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wolf-Unkelbach/100000339567489 Wolf Unkelbach

    I have just made an infographic about the difference in the quality google and facebook diffentiates (nothing spectacular, just the obvoius..) If you are intgerested, I would like to send it to your email…

  • http://twitter.com/adam_hartung adam_hartung

    The marketplace is shifting.  Competitive positions are shifting as well.  As users change the way they use the web, it makes newer solutions – often tied to networks – more valuable than simple searching.  Forbes.com used this in an analysis of why Google is now a much riskier investment http://onforb.es/iPp4sG

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    sure, feel free to send me your contact info – i’m @elowitz on twitter

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kerry-Kobashi/100001819964377 Kerry Kobashi

    Facebook
    ==========================================
      http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

     ”750 million active users”
     ”About 70% of Facebook users are outside the United States”
     
    Simple math:
      30% of 750 million = 225 million US users

    Inside Facebook (150 million US users)
    ===================================
      http://www.insidefacebook.com/.....worldwide/

    Quantcast (139 million US users)
    ======================================
      http://www.quantcast.com/facebook.com

    CheckFacebook (151 million US users)
    =======================================
      http://www.checkfacebook.com/

    comScore (157 million US users)
    ========================================
    http://www.comscoredatamine.co.....-facebook/

    A 68 million discrepancy (30%) is a big difference when the source you cite for your article isn’t even close to what Facebook says it has in US membership.

  • http://www.jon-serveprocess.com Sherman Peters

    This is one thing you can be certain of human minds are easily construed. Whatever society wants the mass population to consider that is where their energy is focus. It doesn’t matter how much attention face book receive, it can never surpass the quality of content, the library of past, today and the future. Content is dominant, the more you provide the more effective your presence. Let’s never forget business is business and that is the point of the World Wide Web. Social media will always take a front stand in numbers because people in generally focus more on social than business. Businesses network on social media’s to make their presence become aware, which is good practice. But never imply that the web is old and social media is the King of the hill, that’s like saying I’m going to take a walk, and  I’ll use my hands and leave my legs home.  

  • Hans Meiser

    The big mistake over here is that FB increases isolation, not decreases

  • Anonymous

    You are right on all arguments. Add to this the fact that more people today is concerned about information overload.  Recently McKinsey published an article on “knowledge work”on this line of thinking… Facebook, Twitter, are more intrusive than search tools which react more on demand by the user, so they create information overload almost automatically. 

    My intuition is Social Media tools may be growing in usage now, as chats in the past also had their moment on the internet.  That growth may slowdown naturally as people will start  finding it boring and move to the next thing (My Space was what?).

  • http://www.michaeledits.com Michael LaRocca

    The “document web” is shrinking because the crap sites are fading away, which is good for the quality sites that I use and hopefully the one that I run.

    As for Facebook, how much of that traffic is users using it and how much of that is businesses buying into the hype? Either way, I don’t see anything on Facebook that convinces me its traffic figures are sustainable.

    It might be a weeeee bit premature to say Facebook’s gonna chew up the rest of the Internet and spit it out. Certainly not in my house.

  • http://www.michaeledits.com Michael LaRocca

    Having said all that, wanna see my cat videos? ;-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KGOABI52YHAFB3UT5PAAKQTB3M Aita

    side-note: Almost every page is an fb page.  Anything with an fb tag (a “like” button or fb-enabled comment box, for example) is an fb page. THIS page, due to the “like” frame at the top, could be counted as an fb page, depending on how the research is done.  I know fb collects (or could, at least, since there’s no direct proof) data from every page with a like button that you visit.  This could easily be a very flawed research, and I’ve no way to tell one way or the other, because nothing involved is shown.  For example, is there a cutoff for inactivity, say someone AFK’d for six hours while at work to leave chat open for new messages, does that rack up 360 minutes for FB?  30? (inactive cutoff), something else entirely?

    Even if it *is* accurate (i.e. only visits to fb.com and associated pages count toward fb), the infographic is flawed for human perception (most people don’t read axes, so it looks far more exaggerated, and it’s based on a starting %, not, say, # of pageviews or whatnot… yes one may be growing while the other is shrinking, but you make it seem like fb has 10x as much traffic as the rest of the web combined by the graphic, and that’s simply distraction.).  Remember that the gist of your article is usually not read by people, and try to keep your graphics meaningful instead of promoting disinformation, intentional or not I can’t tell.

    There’s also a lot of movement for always-on gear, like the Eyetap project, which is web-integration, rather than seeing it as a tool or part of a day, it becomes part of us.  Integration is already happening, just now it’s becoming more popular, I suppose.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KGOABI52YHAFB3UT5PAAKQTB3M Aita

    Pretty sure twitter is hugely used, especially in Japan because the character limit applies differently with Kanji.  They’re frequently used in tangent (I know my twitter is subbed to a lot of information on subjects I find relevant where micro-blog gives me everything I need to stay recent in bite-size at-the-minute chunks.)

  • http://www.socialcubix.com/ Facebook App Developers

    The web has made huge changes to the system lately.

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Delet

Must-Reads from other Web sites

Nick Bilton

Facebook vs. Twitter

David Carr

Maturing as Publisher and Platform

Chris McCann

Peter Thiel’s Secrets of Starting Companies

About Voices

Along with original content and posts from across the Dow Jones network, this section of AllThingsD includes Must-Reads From Other Web Sites — pieces we’ve read, discussions we’ve followed, stuff we like. Six posts from external sites are included here each weekday, but we only run the headlines. We link to the original sites for the rest. These posts are explicitly labeled, so it’s clear that the content comes from other Web sites, and for clarity’s sake, all outside posts run against a pink background.

We also solicit original full-length posts and accept some unsolicited submissions.

Voices is edited by Beth Callaghan.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »