According to Van Dijck:
"Flickr members wanted the owners to invest in user connectedness and were willing to pay for it. On the other hand, Flickr developed a platform for app designers, third parties, and advertisers who regarded the site's mass of generated photographic content as a unique resource waiting to be monetized" (p. 94).
In short the site turned from their community of users, to the commodity of the data they produced. They changed the interface several times, changed their motto, reintroduced stuff they had taken down under new names, and in the end alienated their core users who invested their time and loyalty at the beginning.
This chapter didn't provide a lot of new insight, but it did warn about the dangers for social media when it does not have a firm vision and mission in place.
I feel like if Flickr tried to be more of a Web 2.0 tool and added more social media-like features, it would have to compete with Instagram and that's just not going to happen. Most of the people I know who utilize Flickr are amateur photographers and want to get their photos seen by others through the platform.
ReplyDeleteHi Erin,
DeleteVan Dijck points out that Flickr's uncertain and varied attempts to implement those Web 2.0 features rather than focus on that loyal photographer user base is what has kept it from being successful. If they had stayed true to their original mission and developed a user base within that community, it would have been better off.