Recently the media is very interested in those social networks services and micro-blogging tools, such as Facebook, Twitter or Plurk. TIME magazine had a cover story in June on Twitter, and the Business Week and many others followed that in Taiwan. Obama is a well-known twitter user, and so is Oprah Winfrey. Many politicians and companies have been trying to gain the same influence or popularity in cyberspace with such tools, but so far I don't see anyone very successful.
From the reports on these media, I found most of their angles are so narrow-sighted or even ridiculous --perhaps that's why they can't benefit from it. The reports are so focused on how much potential it can be to reach so many unknown users in the world and people can hear you with so limited expenses. They pick one or two super-star users to backup their arguments that companies can benefit from this super-long lever. I think that's so wrong from the beginning.
For me, I use such social network tools to satisfy my social needs in the cyberspace to overcome the restraints in the physical world. In Marslow's hierarchy of needs, it's the love and belonging layer or even in the self-esteem layer. However, if such tools are only treated as a cheap marketing option for a company or an individual, it is down-graded to financial security or even the basic needs for food. That's why we see so many politicians hire part-time workers to write for them on Twitter or Plurk, and naively thinks that people can't tell. Believe me, anyone who has real-life friends in the virtual world can tell the difference, not to mention those who have real friends in cyberspace.
