Scitable – Velvet Rope and a Stethoscope

Sports, tinkering for kids, gardening, book discussion groups [goodreads.com] -- are all great 'velvet rope social networks'. Scitable and Black Box have it right on the money.This is definitely a big trend.

Time is limited. I would rather not spend it on idiotic facebook games, but to to catch up on the latest book reads and other stuff I like.

Insightful post Chris.

Cheers,
Anita Lobo

I agree Chis. This is Big Publishing finally responding in a relevant way to the online community. The mother site is obviously a very big subscription site (Nature.com) with hard core print backers. A great example of survival of the fittest publisher.

So, the obvious joke here is that the two sites could be combined for those who'd like to play "doctor".

But I hate obvious. :)

I love the idea of these "velvet rope" networks. That there are places where people of common interests and goals can connect is awesome. This isn't to say, however, that they're any better than sites like Facebook. Just different. More targeted. Each has its own use. There's something about a site like FB that I really enjoy; I like to hear about all of the different things people have going on. That people have such disparate interests fascinates me. But there's great comfort in being among those whose interests mirror my own; people who are "like" me, so to speak.

Both Scitable and BBR, and other networks like theirs (and I'm sure there are many just waiting to burst onto the scene), have got something really good going. I'm titillated.

Oh, and buenos dias. :)

I agree that niche, "velvet rope" networks are the next big thing--but what I wonder is, for how long?

It seems this is all part of a natural cycle from generalist to specialist, inclusive to exclusive that happens in all part of our lives. Don't we all usually "survey the room" before deciding where or with whom to spend more time? Don't we take survey courses in school as a part of not only identifying what we may want to study further, but also to provide greater context for where we choose to focus?

The two ends of that continuum serve very different purposes. One provides depth (useful for expanding horizons of thought, ideas, relationships), the other, breadth (useful for deepening understanding, strengthening connection). While it's normal for the "survey"-style (101-level) of social networks to give rise to deeper, more focused opportuntiies (401-level?), people--because they're people, human--will want and need to continue to be in both.

That, of course, creates an interesting challenge for marketers: do you spend time on breadth? or on depth? or do you try to do both and risk stretching too thin to make any difference?

I'd venture to guess it depends on what your organization is looking to achieve, first of all, but I'd also guess that human nature will play out here, too: in a world of limited resources (time, attention, etc.) people will spend time where they get the most value with the least amount of effort.

So my prediction? 2009 will be about niche networks--and in 2010 we'll be wondering why so many of them have failed.

If I'm interpretting this correctly, you're suggesting that communities will start placing more internal emphasis on measures of authenticity and influence within itself to give members different status levels. Is that your premise?

I believe that the essence of niche communities is that they are so specialized in topic that the topic itself is the velvet rope. That, in and of itself, is not new at all. But there certainly is a proliferation lately thanks to places like Ning and the commoditization of the technology required to build and host communities.

But if there starts to be various measures within communities that create inequality among the members, it will be interesting to see what that does to the community. My guess is such measures would actually undermine the value of the content and conversation contained within the forum, in general. Isn't a fundamental appeal to online communities the idea that everyone in the conversation is on equal footing? Although I'm certain exceptions would exist.

I love the Velvet Rope movement, but haven't been able to figure out how they will be able to monitize these niche solutions vs. free solutions with existing/increasing adoption. Couldn't you achieve the same thing with a well designed and managed LinkedIn group and subgroups?

I constantly update a list of biomedical community sites and there are more than 40 of them. http://scienceroll.com/2008/05/24/community-sit...