A lot gets written up in press releases, blog posts, Tweets, and other communications about the number of members on the various sites. There’s a huge difference though between the number of users each site has and the number of users who are consistently interacting with others.
I recently came across some statistics that I’m going to share. These statistics were revealed in a study by Anderson Analytics and you can view the report by clicking on the company name. The study estimates that there are 110 million people who regularly use Social Networking Sites (SNS).
On average, users of SNS sites login to the sites 5 days a week, 4 times a day and spend about 1 hour on SNS each day. While not explicitly stated this is what I would assume that they consider a regular user. So here are the top sites with the number of users and the number of regular users in parentheses.
- Facebook: 250 million (78 million) 31.2% regular users
- MySpace: 150 million (67 million) 44.6% regular users
- Twitter: 28 million (17 million) *estimated membership 60.7% regular users
- LinkedIn: 45 million (11 million) 24.4% regular users
**membership numbers for MySpace and Twitter are best guess estimates…could not find an official listing and had to estimate from various web resources.
Based on the percentage of regular users it appears that Twitter is doing the best job of engaging their users. This is a little misleading though as its estimated that Twitter only retains about 40% of the people that sign up. There is also is the fact that Twitter users are more likely to have multiple accounts.
LinkedIn appears to have the lowest percentage of regular users. Compared to the other sites LinkedIn is more restrictive in how it allows its members to interact. This limited ability to communicate is both a positive and a negative.
On the positive side it makes it more difficult to spam others. On the negative side the limits restrict the social nature of the site. The other interesting thing about LinkedIn is that it’s regular users are made up of a high concentration of LIONS or open networkers…the very same people that LinkedIn has somewhat taken an adversarial position against.
Invitation limits, suspension of accounts with emails in the name, and connection limits are some of the steps LinkedIn has taken to restrict open networking. LinkedIn might find that its percentage of regular users increased if it focused more on encouraging its users to find new opportunities verses simply opportunities from people they know well.
Looking at the smaller numbers of regular users compared to the focus on total members you might think that they have been overrated as effective business tools. But having generated significant business from using these sites I would argue the point. As people learn how to better leverage these sites the number of regular users will increase. Plus new people are discovering these sites every day.
If you’re one of the regular users you have a head start on your competition. If you’re not a regular user you’re turning your back on opportunities and that’s a bad business decision. It’s not too late to get started.
What are your thoughts?
Related posts:
About Sean Nelson
Sean, while there are limits to the “social” nature of LinkedIn, I like that those are in place. Some of the LION and ultimate networkers are as bad as spammers. Just because they have a big network doesn’t mean that they can add value. I find this especially in the area of recommendations and trust.
The trusted network, the inner circle of folks who know me (or you) well enough to provide a valid recommondation or reference are of great value to me. Someone who is a LION is not going to have that same credibility for a recommendation even if they agree to do so.
I say, let them go play in the other social networks and leave me here with my trusted network so I can do what I need to do.
Steve,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that to some extent the limitations on LinkedIn control potential spam. On the flip side I think I should be the ultimate judge on whether I want to connect with someone or not. I’d prefer LinkedIn not be in the middle of potential connections. At a minimum allow me to let anyone send a connection invitation or select an option to only let those who have my email connect to me.
I also disagree that a Lion cannot have the same credibility as you in providing a recommendation.
Let’s assume that you have a 100 connections that you know very well. There is also a Lion who knows very well those exact 100 people, but also has 900 connections that they do not know. Recommendations to that 100 that both of you know very well are equally credible. The only difference is that the LION has an additional 900 where they would not be able to provide the same quality of recommendation.
The 100 people the LION knows well (the same 100 you know) are not devalued because they are surrounded by 900 unknown connections. The value of an individual connection is only dependent upon that specific relationship.
That’s my opinion. I think each person needs to determine their strategy and not be concerned with those of others. There’s 45 million people on LinkedIn and I guess 45 million ideas of what it should be.
Sean
**Be sure to check out Steve’s blog Steve’s 2 Cents located at http://steves2cents.blogspot.com/
Hi Sean,
Thanks for sharing this information about LinkedIn users. Very interesting. I find LinkedIn has become a bit more “social” this year through features that are being used more regularly:
1. Profile photograph
2. Reading List
3. RSS feeds (e.g. Twitter, Blog)
4. Recommendations / Endorsements
5. Status Updates
6. Group Activity
7. Network Updates via Email
I remember hearing that LinkedIn (the company) brought in some talent from Facebook.
It is starting to show.
Thanks,
Brent
http://www.interviewangel.com
Brent,
I agree that LinkedIn has become more social in the last year. The most important change was in adding group discussions ans the news article features. That changed the game in terms of extending the ability to communicate with others.
From a group owner perspective adding the ability to send announcements has been valuable.
I’d like to see them open up the API and create more applications.
Thanks for the input.
Sean