Interesting thought floating around whether these social aggregators like FriendFeed will ever go “mainstream.” Of course, that begs the question - what is “mainstream,” exactly?

I personally have a pretty high bar for “mainstream.” Here’s some of my criteria:

1. The “Joe Average Test”

I have a general pool of “non tech obsessed” friends co-workers and consider the question - has “X” ever come up in casual conversation? If I asked them “have you heard of “X” would they say “yes” or look at me with a blank stare?

2. The “Spousal Approval Test”

My wife is assuredly not into all this social media and technology stuff. She’s really great for bouncing off the pointlessness of any new site / service the digerati are buzzing about. I’m even unsure if this blog has passed this particular test.

3. The “Aged Relative Test”

Grandma, the in-laws, and their ilk are still getting their heads around USB cables and vibrating cell phones. Yet on the occasion some “website” gets through to them via the mainstream media, I’ll get an email about it since I’m “the guy into computers.” If they’ve heard of it and are trying troubleshoot, or ask if it’s worth trying / buying, it’s mainstream.

4. The “David Letterman Top Ten List” Test

David Letterman is only going to make a joke about something the majority of Americans are going to comprehend, otherwise it falls flat. CBS provides a searchable archive of past top ten lists. I also used Google.

Exceedingly Scientific And Ludicrously Important Chart

So here’s my chart of what’s mainstream and what’s not. Actually, there’s a lot of mainstream technology out there, but a lot of stuff that the early adopter might consider “passe” hasn’t yet hit mainstream awareness:

Based on a half-hour of exhaustive research employing the latest tools, I’d say blogs and YouTube are definitely mainstream with three out of four tests passed. MySpace and FaceBook are on the edge with two apiece. The rest of Web 2.0 has a ways to go.

What Mainstream Users Want

1. Make It So Simple, A Chimp Could Do It: YouTube is a huge hit because it combines Google with television. Type in something you want to see, and you get it. The time investment to learn is low, and the hilarious, short-form content makes it worthwhile for a mainstream user to learn how to do it.
2. Be Useful: The biggest complaint I hear from the “late adopters” is: learning how to use a new website (beyond reading it like a newspaper) is not “fun,” it’s a chore. Therefore, there needs to be a clear reward for the time spent trying to figure it out. A practical need or solution to a problem must be clearly demonstrated.
3. Don’t Make Me Do Anything Hard Or New: “Voting articles up and down” is not a mainstream activity, especially when you need to be logged in to do it. I get the answer “Why would I want to do that?”. “Building your online reputation as someone who recommends good stories” is met with a blank stare. The “online reputation” concept sounds like something out of a video game.
4. Privacy: Mainstream users still aren’t comfortable putting their personal stuff online. The concept of their own website makes them uncomfortable - let alone a profile page. Remember, they’re not interested in an “online reputation.”
5. Email Is Social Enough: It took a lot to get the aged relatives on board with email, and for social purposes it’s “good enough.” The “social network” of email allows them to share stuff (links, music, digital photos) and everyone is in it. Sure, it’s clunky, but I can’t think of any social service that demonstrates enough utility to supersede email.

A Growing Digital Divide: The Video Game Analogy

I agree with the observation that “early adopters” are increasingly leaving the mainstream behind. The tech-obsessed take a lot of stuff that’s old to them for granted, that is still new to everyone else.

Aa hardcore video gamer can figure out how to play a new game without much effort. Meanwhile, I struggle with the multiple controller buttons and incomprehensible game conventions taken from other games I never played. Hence, I’ve given up on the newer consoles as too complicated and frustrating for me to play. And my parents? Forget about it.

I’m interested in video games but the time investment to become an awesome elf is prohibitive. Similarly, social sites have game elements where the more you share, the more you earn respect - take the number “followers.” It takes a lot of time and effort to cultivate this “online reputation.” Many look at the landscape and question the time investment and the eventual reward. And even if the methods of sharing on this new social site are just like flickr, or just like delicious, what if one never used those sites?

(Yes, it’s entirely plausible that all this social networking blogosphere stuff is like a giant MMPORG that has a similarly limited appeal.)

Hence shortcuts appear, like dabbling with the sale of a Twitter account as if it were a character in WoW. Then there’s the example of the Wii, which dumbed down the controller and games to appeal to everyone. Gramps plays the Wii.

Or Just Forget The Mainstream

Maybe Web 2.0 should just give the mainstream the finger and go niche. Not every site needs to be the next YouTube or Google to be successful. A lot of social sites are concentrating on the demographics that “get” this stuff.

Hardcore video games are huge business despite only a particular demographic that can handle the cutting edge experience. Perhaps the “mainstream” is overrated.

And who cares what Dave Letterman thinks, anyway?

 Please subscribe to the Webomatica RSS Feed!

Categories: Humor, Technology :: Tags: :: Trackback URL
Previous Post: Movie Notes: Bulletproof Monk
Next Post: Movie Notes: La Vie En Rose
Related Posts: Grey’s Anatomy And The iTunes Store :: Gilmore Girls: My Last Post :: Technorati Redesigns… Again :: Macworld Notes ::