Social Networking: Does it need an audience?

I have a theory. Unfortunately for me it's not a fool-proof theory to deliver the Premiership title to Liverpool (I'll leave that to Benitez...for now!) but nevertheless one that I've spent as much time pondering as the league title challenge - for the vast majority of people, social networking does not need an audience.

Over my limited use of social networking site, primarily restricted to Facebook but evermore increasing to include Twitter, Last.fm and to some extent Delicious, I've started to gain an insight as to why social networking is popular. In short my observations are that social networking is popular because it allows people to:

• Talk about themselves without anyone having to listen
• Peer inside a network to which they don't need to belong 

The second observation is not necessarily a new one. For generations now people have been

partaking in such behaviour in a variety of different forms. The 'soap opera' springs to mind. Peering through the curtains to see what's happening in the world (or the street) was a reality in streets up and down the country in the post-war era where paid for entertainment was in short supply. Moving on through the decades and the same interactions were happening utilising new advances in technology that had made it to the mainstream: elder sisters hogging the landline (they were simply phones when I was younger!), chatting on MSN in the more recent past to social networking in the hear and now.  It seems to me that technological advances determine how we gossip and live our social lives. Social networking is just the latest iteration of the theme. 

Emerging through this timeline is another constant theme. For people to engage in such behaviour, from the curtain peeking and coffee morning gossips to MSN and Facebook, the subject in question need not be affiliated to those taking an active interest - talking about people behind their [virtual] backs! 

The opposite to the gossiping and observation is the person who constantly updates their status but seems uninterested in any further interaction. The person who likes to talk about themselves but doesn't need anyone to respond. Although I'm referring to the 'individual' in this context, such an observation could also be leveled to organisations that use social networking as a means of advertising (and who aren't bothered with the feedback). 

The social networker who promotes themselves without need of interaction I think can survive without an audience to target. The passive networker who is content to be entertained by the networking of others also does not need their own audience. This leaves a final social networker, an active person who interacts with others. Do they need an audience? It's fair to assume the passive networker needs them, but I suspect the active networker does not need them as an audience. 

It's quite confusing really, and in an unintentional way it all works. Everyone gets enough of what they want to thrive. Interestingly, as I was contemplating how to document my theory I looked briefly on the web for any other points of reference and game across this study of social networking by Ofcom. Skimming through the Executive Summary they also categorised social networkers into groups. I was quite surprised how close I'd got! They defined their groups as:

Social networkers differ in their attitudes to social networking sites and in their behaviour while using them. Ofcom’s qualitative research indicates that site users tend to fall into five distinct groups based on their behaviours and attitudes. These are as follows:

• Alpha Socialisers (a minority) – people who used sites in intense short bursts to flirt, meet new people, and be entertained.
• Attention Seekers – (some) people who craved attention and comments from others, often by posting photos and customising their profiles.
• Followers – (many) people who joined sites to keep up with what their peers were doing.
• Faithfuls – (many) people who typically used social networking sites to rekindle old friendships, often from school or university.
• Functionals – (a minority) people who tended to be single-minded in using sites for a particular purpose

I'd say my three fall into Alpha Socialisers (active networkers), Followers (passive) and perhaps Functionals (self-indulgent). As an over-arching disclaimer for my 'theory', I'm not an academic and although I've tried to reference what I've found, it is based on personal experience. Of that experience Facebook has to account for the vast majority. Therefore I don't expect to stand up to academic scrutiny. However I do think social networking is an interesting concept to debate. It has a lot to offer as a medium for communication, and it has its place on the conveyor of communications throughout the years. I still remain skeptical to an extent and belive the technology will ultimately aid business communications rather than social, but that's a post for another day.