I posed a question a while back on Twitter about whether or not business-applicable social media networks like Twitter and LinkedIn rely on some of us not being on the network for it to have value. This brought me to a few bigger questions about what the true meaning of "value" is and how it might apply to the business world and interconnections on social media networks.
If you look up the word "value", most dictionaries include a definition that describes "relative worth" of an item. This implies that value of something is dependent on its relationship to something else not having value. The value of money lies in the availability of one portion of it relative to the entire amount possible. As people get more wealthy, the value that $1 holds is nowhere near the value that that a person at the poverty level might have for that same $1. So I pose my question to you in blog form this time:If we all become connected and are able to leverage each other in an equally accessible manner, do we all lose the overall value of being connected?
If my company can get things done just as quickly as yours because we all know the same people and we are all leveraging the same network, is it really possible to claim that the network has provided either one of us "value"?
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to social networks used in the personal space. I can find great value in being connected with my friends and family and the "relative" part of "relative value" is compared to that of missing out on family photos, friendships, etc. The value here is not dependent on me being more connected than some other entity (i.e. a business), but rather the opportunity cost of not being connected. What do you think? If we get to a saturation point and everyone is leveraging connections equally on social networks, would they still have business value?
