I still think that "Generation X" sounds cooler than "The Myspace Generation"

I read this article about 4 times before I realized where it was coming from.

To me it was a deceptively written piece talking about social networking. It was written for "Business Week". All I can imagine is some old crusty CEO-type guys sitting around saying things like "Those blasted kids and their newfangled internet might be a use for making us some money". It seemed as though the writer was really trying to hide the clear intent of the piece, but I think that the article was written more as a social networking primer for out of touch business types than for anything else.

It gives numerous examples of all the sorts of tactics that the bigger companies are using to try and entice teens and tweens and kids with their brands. But the article itself seems to do the same thing, it starts off with a neat little anecdote about some teenager using the internet to find other people who like her favorite band, and then it devolves into business practices. After the part about the girl it talks about "Buzz Oven". The article says, 'hey local social networks are cool aren't they? look at this one that's growing.' Then it gives examples of the bigger ones and tells of how much advertising goes into them.

After reading the article I felt that if I were some crusty old CEO-type guy, I would be telling my peons and subordinates to check out this newfangled internet and try to understand what sort of things the kids are into these days.

BUT, I'm not a big CEO-Type guy at all. I'm a college student who uses or has used many of the sites mentioned in the article. I used to have a xanga, back when it was about blogging and not much else. Now I've got a myspace, cause that's where all my friends moved to, and currently use Facebook the most cause I like the nice organization, privacy, and ease of use.

The whole thing with companies trying to sell me stuff through social networking sites, really just makes me feel used, and less inclined to support their brand or products.

"Kids don't buy stuff because they see a magazine ad. They buy stuff because other kids tell them to."

I feel that's really the most truthful thing said in the entire article. And while the article gives examples of company driven social sites that have failed, miserably. It also talks of how major companies have been buying up most of the ones out there. So while major company influences may not be readily apparent, and they might claim to be taking a hands off approach; it's much more likely that they're taking the role of puppet master.

As we've already seen through large companies and their attempts at viral marketing, sometimes those other kids telling us to buy stuff aren't really other kids.