Do communities compete?

[Carlos Miceli]

Can we apply the same market laws to communities?

Do they compete the same way that other products or services do?

Once you joined Commania, or any other community for that matter, did you close the door to other similar communities?

When a person chooses, conscious or unconsciously, to be part of a community, does he or she follow the same process that when choosing for anything else?

I think that this is a very important question, one that may help us know what should we do when it comes to "selling" our community.

What do you think? What kind of "competition" did you have when you launched your community? How did you promote it?

PS: I think that these questions apply more than anything to unpaid communities.

[Tom Ewing]

I think it's an important question too Carlos - and a big one! (Hence I'm answering it twice!)

There are two kinds of competition: the first is intra-category competition, eg. Commania is theoretically in competition with other community-building communities. For some people, this doesn't matter: they have a thirst for knowledge and are happy to get it from several places. For others, they only feel the need to be in one community in this area. As a community grows, it has the potential to take up more of its members' time.

The other type of competition is between categories, for share of time. Here your community is in competition with everything else on the internet (and off it!). For example, I'm using Twitter a lot more at the moment, and Facebook has suffered directly because of it, even though those sites aren't necessarily direct competitors.

The big difference is that the first type of competition is "winnable" but the second isn't always. So you need to have some idea of how important your community is to your members and how potentially important it could be - the limits of how engaged your members can realistically be.

[Tom Ewing]

There's also a THIRD kind of competition, which is direct conflict on what for want of a better word I'll call "ideological" lines. To use a crude example, a community dedicated to political discussion which has a leftist consensus may be well aware of, and "compete" with, one that follows a more rightist line: if allowed, regulars from one may well show up to argue points in the other. The distinctions can be more subtle, though, and lead to direct competition of the kind you meant in your post - a successful community is likely to generate breakaway communities.

(Which leads to the even WIDER question of how communities scale - a large community can be a benefit for a new member (more knowledge to access) but also a disadvantage (far harder to earn social capital and form relationships) - but that's surely a whole new thread...!)

[Richard Millington]

I love this question. I mostly agree with Tom.

We have 3 types of competition

1) Conflicting communities. By philosophy we're the opposites of spam marketers, short-term promotional tactics and anyone that tries to push messages upon people without offering value. These marketers will never join this community and we'll never join their community (I doubt they have one, mind).

2) Rival communities. We're in competition with other communities for community professionals. We need to make this community more valuable and build stronger bonds to succeed.

3) Time competition. We're up against the time members could choose to spend elsewhere; watching TV, playing football or browsing other websites..

You can draw this in 3 circles. Time is the outer circle: people decide whether to spend their time on online communities or elsewhere. Conflicting communities in the 3rd circle. The people that decide whether they agree with our philosophy, or anyone. Then the 2nd circle is the choice between spending time in our community, or a similar community.

And we're the inner circle. Hi!

You could go further and look at the groups/forums that people participate in within this community.

[Becky]

I counted up the number of communities I belong to - it's about 25 or 30. I average 0-30 minutes a day (mostly 0-5) on most of them. I don't see them all as "communities" as much as a resource. They have information and content I benefit from. My relationships there are limited. Then there communities like this one, Triiibes and DanvilleBusiness where I really spend my time and get to know people. I've changed how I view communities though. After a really, really negative experience on another community, I've taken my relationships offline - via email, private chatrooms and private, invitation only networks. I lurk more, find people (or they find me!) who share similar ideas and passion and strike up a private one-on-one interaction.

I think when moderators fail to intervene in situations like what Angela is experiencing, or they don't really re-enforce the contributions certain people make, this is what happens. People just stop or reduce posts. I'm finding that others like me are doing the same thing. Rather than risk ideas, trolls or unwelcome contact from strangers they don't have the time or desire to interact with, they watch conversations or read bios and reach out to a few. The resulting group connection of three to ten people via listserve or private group is far richer, more open and less "dangerous" than posting in view of hundreds. I see it as an evolution. Those with ideas, people skills, less time and a focus or specific project/need to network will do as many are - which is form very small sub-groups.

Social media is a time suck. Admit it. If you're unemployed, at home sick or otherwise able to engage for long periods of time, you can spend days on a community. If you have goals, little time and a need to meet - either information or a project - it makes sense to micro-manage your time in a community. There are several networks I belong to that do this. Members post a resume or project and other members can either agree to help, refer someone or ignore your post. As people realize time is a commodity, I think this will happen more and more as busier people don't just socialize online but begin to streamline their interactions.

I predict social media and the face and platform for social media will condense, rather than expand. Smaller communities, but richer involvement.

[Paul C.]

I read an article recently of someone who was tired of Facebook and the smiley face community. I like Richard's term, "Welcome to the inner circle." I am here because this community could be really empowering for me at this point in my quest. It's creating this vitality that's an important component of a community that excludes other frivolous interests.

[Carlos Miceli]

I can't agree more. I think that you put it just right. This is exactly why i'm here too.

In fact, i think that this is exactly why most of us are here.

Richard's term, Becky's final prediction, and your motivation for belonging to this community, are all part of the same thing. The future of online communities, and what we will look from them.