Bringing Sexy Back to MySpace

Justin Timberlake is now a large shareholder in the MySpace corporation.


Skeptic comments have abounded regarding this recent stock acquisition. Twitter user @donovanwoods tweeted: "This just in: Justin Timberlake also buys Blockbuster Media and a rotary phone factory. What does he see that we don't!?! #myspace" (source cnn.com). And when I first heard about the acquisition, I was equally as skeptical and actually still am. There is, however, the possibility for making MySpace once again a useful space, but it would have to go through a significant FaceLift and would need to be repurposed as an online community rather than a social network.


Currently, one side of the MySpace community (MySpace Music) already seems to be semi-operating under the online community model. It is this side that Timberlake also seems to be most interested in, according to his comment in the news release regarding his purchase of stock in the company: "There's a need for a place where fans can go to interact with their favorite entertainers, listen to music, watch videos, share and discover cool stuff and just connect" (source: cnn.com). I think Timberlake is certainly on the right track - taking his musical skills and experience and letting that be the aspect of MySpace that he decides to build. I think he needs to go the furthest, though, with the sharing aspect of it, turning the network into more of a community wherein artists can collaborate with one another online - having online concerts together, opening for one another in virtual spaces, even remixing one another's works (through secured servers on a case by case allowed access, of course). In this same forum, fans will also be able to comment on artists' work, suggest new song or video ideas, and even request feedback on their own music. The details would, of course, be dependent on Timberlake and other online community experts, but I think that collaboration and increased connections are key to making MySpace a new success - or at least somewhat profitable from its multi-mullion dollar loss that it currently is.


Clay Shirky, in his book Here Comes Everybody, discusses levels of sharing/collaboration, and he explains three different "rungs" up which communities can climb in order to achieve higher levels of interaction. MySpace will be moving from the initial sharing rung to the next, cooperating, rung if it decides to go the online community route. As Clay Shirky points out, this step can be complex because it requires dual synchronization,  and it creates group identity (sub-genres could be created on MySpace, and current genres could be transformed - all with input from fans, collaboration among artists, and the public could witness much of it taking place). This step, though, could backfire on MySpace because collaborative production, according to Shirky, "increases the tension between individual and group goals" (50). MySpace could also potentially move to the third and most difficult of Shirky's rungs - that of collective action, which requires commitment to "undertaking a particular effort together" (51). This action would likely only occur occassionally on certain projects such as intentionally creating a sub-genre, holding a virtual concert, or collaborating on a specific musical piece. 


So, why do I think Timberlake needs to reboot MySpace as an online community rather than a social network? In Howard's book Design to Thrive, he discusses the differences in online communities and social networks. One distinction he shows between them are that social networks are centered and organized an individual user's "one-to-one relationships" while an online community centers its structure around "a shared purpose" (11). Timberlake clearly wants users to have a shared purpose: connecting with music. He wants to turn MySpace into a musical community, giving it a focus rather than letting it be just a poor man's Facebook. Another distinction is that social networks are good for sharing activities in a simple manner that does not require much collaboration. Facebook and other social networks are great for inviting people to parties, sharing photos, posting status, etc.; however, they are not the forum for collaboration. However, Timberlake could try to build some connections with Facebook so that users could invite friends on Facebook to online collaborative concerts in MySpace. Another strength of online communities according to Howard is that they have "tighter secondary connections" (19). Aspiring musicians need these secondary connections to be tight because they need to make connections with people in the industry so that they can get discovered. MySpace can become more of a place for this if Timberlake and his partners organize it well enough. 


MySpace certainly has a long way to go, and they have fewer funds to do it with than they had before. They have a new face, who is connected with both movies and The Social Network. The company has the opportunity to rebrand itself as an online community that can interact with musicians around the world, allowing for increased collaboration among artists and fans as well as serving as a launching pad for aspiring musicians and fans looking for mentoring and feedback from more "known" or experienced musicians. If MySpace chooses to go the online community route rather than the social network route, the company will not only have less of a competition with Facebook (still significant but less), but they will also be able to cut their own company's cost by organizing their company through a similar online community, thus cutting travel costs and flattening organizational hierarchies whilst learning how to operate within and manage online communities. 


Print Sources: 
Howard, Tharon W. Design to Thrive: Creating Social Networks and Online Communities that Last. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2010. Print.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print.