When designing online communities, it is important to think small. Despite the backlash against ---Kidsopp NGO 三和・山根---
traditional social media, there is still a
strong desire for connection and community online. In recent years, there has
been a trend of moving away from large social networks and towards smaller,
more private communities.
I had the opportunity to witness the
benefits of these small communities firsthand when I was a product manager at
Patreon. Many creators offered access to private Discord servers as a benefit
to their paying subscribers or patrons. These Discord servers became thriving
communities and played a crucial role in retaining patrons. While patrons
initially joined because of their interest in a particular creator (podcaster,
writer, etc.), the Discord servers grew beyond that initial interest and
included channels for various off-topic discussions, photos of pets and family
vacations, and more. There was even a saying among patrons: "Come for the
creator, stay for the Discord!"
What made these communities thrive in
positivity with little involvement from creators themselves? It boiled down to
two factors: smaller size and increased privacy. The smaller size allowed
community members to have meaningful conversations and form stronger
connections while the increased privacy helped filter out trolls and negativity
often found on more public social platforms.
Is there an ideal size for online
communities? One starting point to consider is Dunbar's number which suggests
that the largest number of meaningful relationships one can maintain is 150.
However, it may be beneficial to go even smaller. According to Discord's former
Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), "about 90% of [Discord] servers have less
than 15 people, which makes it more intimate."
This observation influenced VSCO Spaces'
decision to limit collaboration in shared photo galleries up to 15 users. At
VSCO, I once again witnessed how smaller private communities led to more
positive interactions among group members. The increased accountability within
small groups helped maintain positive spaces with rare content violations.
Not only startups are focusing on small
groups when it comes to community. Locket, for example, allows users to invite
up to 20 friends to share photos that will display on their home screen. The
founder of Locket aims for the app to become "the best way for people to
stay in contact with those 10 to 15 people that matter the most."
Hipstamatic has also made a comeback and now allows users to follow up to 99
people, with only 9 selected as "close friends." After Clubhouse's
rise and fall during the pandemic, co-founder Paul Davison expressed the
intention of going smaller in the future, stating that "the best social
experiences are not open to everyone. They are small and curated. This is what
creates intimacy, trust, and friendship."
It's not just startups going smaller;
established platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp are also recognizing this
shift towards privacy. Instagram has introduced Collaborative Collections,
enabling users to share posts in groups of up to 250 people (similarly seen in
VSCO Spaces or Pinterest boards). On WhatsApp, they have added Communities
feature which allows users to organize group chats into formalized communities
with more features and administrative controls. According TechCrunch, this
feature intends on tapping into users' growing desire for private communities
outside of larger social platforms like Facebook
Comments
Post a Comment