Now sadly like almost everywhere Dan brown has a certain amount of prominence (One and Two in the list of popular links) but if you visit the homepage you will see that the list is not without its surprises.
The reason I am pondering this topic today is because of yet another excellent post by Robert Young on Gigaom yesterday. He expands on some of his thoughts on social networks:
When it comes to advertising in mass media, a big name is required since such campaigns are only effective if the viewer already knows who that celebrity is. But in a social network, micro-celebrities who are well known within their network of micro-communities could prove just as effective and potentially even more so, particularly if such campaigns are able to generate buzz, excitement and a cool-factor.
As for MySpace’s role in all this, they are in the unique position to know better than anyone (as the owner of the platform with all the user data) who the “brand-safe” users are within its network.
Thus MySpace can effectively play the role of talent agent by aggregating a list of users who would be appropriate for advertisers within various categories. In fact, the incentive “to be discovered” is likely to spur many users to express themselves in a manner that will position them favorably for consideration. The result is a win for everyone involved.
I wonder if publishers are using such methods as Robert describes yet and if not why not? Understandably there is some reluctance to engage with MySpace and its ilk. That can be overcome and the opportunities exploited with thought and care. The question is if MySpace and the other social networks are permanent additions to the landscape or if they will be temporary and what follows on will be more diffuse networks without the central hub that is the MySpace homepage?