Think about the last dozen times you communicated with a friend in writing. Maybe you were inviting them to lunch or asking about a homework assignment. How many of those times did you do so using a standard instant messaging client, such as AIM, Yahoo! or MSN Messenger? What about the last month? The last year? Next to none? This author too. In fact, even though I have an account with each one of those services linked to Meebo on my phone, I still don't recall my last time using them.
Quite frankly I'm not surprised. As TechCrunch points out in their article 2010: The Year Instant Messaging Finally Died?, instant messaging has largely been replaced by SMS messages or texting and Facebook's built in chat application (which is also linked to my Meebo app and I happen to use it daily). Is this a result of brands losing their focusing in the marketplace and failing to connect with target audiences? Or is it a symptom of something much bigger and more common? This strategist feels it's safe to say it's not the former. IM clients have done nearly everything possible to remain relevant in a mobile world, including rebranding themselves, acquiring new technologies and building multiple smartphone chat applications. But all of this hasn't been enough to tackle the bigger issue at hand that once again our communication preferences and abilities are expanding as technology evolves.
IMing does not and cannot provide us with the simplicity, speed, and global availability that texting permits, nor does it allow for the longevity, mass blasting and pull consumption habits of mainstream social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A text message allows the user to send a short message to multiple recipients at once, without the need for a computer or internet connection, and without having to launch a program. There is no need to wait until your friend is online or gather a series of handles across multiple clients. Facebook and Twitter mirror this effect with the addition of allowing you to post a message to be seen by your entire network at once, when it is convenient for them to read it. And if you still want that instant response (without the inconvenience of a voice conversation, perish the thought), Facebook Chat lives right on the site where you are presumably already spending most of your time, alleviating the need for superfluous programs or screen names.
It is not the individual IM client brands themselves that have become irrelevant here, it is the underlying technology behind them that is being phased out. They are no more responsible for this shift in preference than the Postal Service is for us not sending personal letters anymore (my guess is stamps would be relatively cheaper had we still been sending letters instead of emails). Which reminds me of another dying technology: email. Up until recently, my personal inbox was covered in e-dust and collecting virtual cobwebs. Why would I send a friend or family member an email when I could text them, post on their wall or send them an evite? But unlike instant messaging, which has been branded primarily as a personal or social tool, email still thrives as a business necessity. It has not yet become largely acceptable to send your client's CEO a text message or post on their wall. Partially this is because of confidentiality, paper trail and legal reasons, but primarily it is because these communication methods on a grand scale do not carry the same heir of respect and professionalism that more personal and private communication methods hold. My guess is that over time this too will fade, first internally amongst colleagues and teams, then much later for external communications, but as brands large and small continue to embrace their customers through social networking and allow their operations to become exceedingly transparent, simplicity and social preference will prevail.
On a personal note, please don't interpret this commentary as an opportunity to become an evangelist for your favorite IM client and try to single-handedly resurrect them. Let's simply remember the good times we shared and allow them to pass peacefully.
Quite frankly I'm not surprised. As TechCrunch points out in their article 2010: The Year Instant Messaging Finally Died?, instant messaging has largely been replaced by SMS messages or texting and Facebook's built in chat application (which is also linked to my Meebo app and I happen to use it daily). Is this a result of brands losing their focusing in the marketplace and failing to connect with target audiences? Or is it a symptom of something much bigger and more common? This strategist feels it's safe to say it's not the former. IM clients have done nearly everything possible to remain relevant in a mobile world, including rebranding themselves, acquiring new technologies and building multiple smartphone chat applications. But all of this hasn't been enough to tackle the bigger issue at hand that once again our communication preferences and abilities are expanding as technology evolves.
IMing does not and cannot provide us with the simplicity, speed, and global availability that texting permits, nor does it allow for the longevity, mass blasting and pull consumption habits of mainstream social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A text message allows the user to send a short message to multiple recipients at once, without the need for a computer or internet connection, and without having to launch a program. There is no need to wait until your friend is online or gather a series of handles across multiple clients. Facebook and Twitter mirror this effect with the addition of allowing you to post a message to be seen by your entire network at once, when it is convenient for them to read it. And if you still want that instant response (without the inconvenience of a voice conversation, perish the thought), Facebook Chat lives right on the site where you are presumably already spending most of your time, alleviating the need for superfluous programs or screen names.
It is not the individual IM client brands themselves that have become irrelevant here, it is the underlying technology behind them that is being phased out. They are no more responsible for this shift in preference than the Postal Service is for us not sending personal letters anymore (my guess is stamps would be relatively cheaper had we still been sending letters instead of emails). Which reminds me of another dying technology: email. Up until recently, my personal inbox was covered in e-dust and collecting virtual cobwebs. Why would I send a friend or family member an email when I could text them, post on their wall or send them an evite? But unlike instant messaging, which has been branded primarily as a personal or social tool, email still thrives as a business necessity. It has not yet become largely acceptable to send your client's CEO a text message or post on their wall. Partially this is because of confidentiality, paper trail and legal reasons, but primarily it is because these communication methods on a grand scale do not carry the same heir of respect and professionalism that more personal and private communication methods hold. My guess is that over time this too will fade, first internally amongst colleagues and teams, then much later for external communications, but as brands large and small continue to embrace their customers through social networking and allow their operations to become exceedingly transparent, simplicity and social preference will prevail.
On a personal note, please don't interpret this commentary as an opportunity to become an evangelist for your favorite IM client and try to single-handedly resurrect them. Let's simply remember the good times we shared and allow them to pass peacefully.
