According to the Condorcet theorem, bigger crowds do better. If each individual independently decides with the same probability, the collective reaches ’the right’ decision fast. If the individuals can connect, the collective behavior can become very rich and complex. See Linux, wikipedia.

But on social networks, there is no collective ‘goal’ besides connecting, recreation. Still, the chatter can predict the box office receipts. And Google search terms shows where people have flu, better than any medical database. It is also shown that happiness and loneliness is contagious; if many people in your network are lonely, you feel more lonely too.

I’ve been playing with Google+ for a few days now, and find myself thinking: Is this going to be the platform? Are people going to flock to this social network, replacing Facebook and maybe Twitter?

While I was on my bike, riding in the dutch mountains (aka headwind), I thought of a way to look at this, by comparing this to other succesful sites and why they became succesful. I think the reason for the success of many online services is: they make things easier. Easier to communicate, to express yourself, to find things. Let’s look at a few carefully picked examples ;–)

Step 1: Getting acquanted

KLM started with social media to support existing channels. Try things out, like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. Get started first.

Step 2: seizing the opportunity.

The ash cloud was a good opportunity to get started with Twitter and Facebook. Call centre and web site were both overloaded. Had a 24/7 shift system, 4 people on Twitter, 4 on Facebook, 4 rebookers per shift. Management was very involved, encouraged initiatives. Very empowering. Klm added a ‘rebook’ tab on their Facebook profile, which helped in getting the right information from the travelers.

KLM discourages personal reactions by individual staff members. The company often can not do anything with it, and it can give a negative backlash on Klm. See recent incident with Thomas Acda