Slices and Networks: Is Demographics Destiny?

I noted that Multiply (disclosure: a former client that I have no financial stake in) raised $16.6M:

[from Multiply, social networking for 30-somethings, raises $16.6M]

[...]

Besides larger social networks, like Myspace, Facebook, Hi5, etc., competitors include Friendster (which is also growing fast), which claims to have already nailed the 30-something market, TeeBeeDee for people over 40 and Eons for people over 50.

The big question for Multiply is whether it can distinguish itself as more 30-somethings join Facebook and other sites. Multiply didn’t rank in Comscore’s recent study of the top social networks worldwide, released in July, because it didn’t yet have the 10 million unique visitors required to be included in the study.

I don't buy the "demographics is destiny" theme of these sites, despite the funding they might attract.

First of all, people's social networks are not neatly parceled into demographic slices. A 30-something dad with kids may spend a bunch of his time palling around with other 30-somethings, but also with people through work, and family members of all ages. Ditto his wife. Ditto his 50-something dad.

Perhaps I am a great counter example, since I am 54 (in a few weeks) and I am connected to professional contacts as young as 19 (Jessica Mah) and a few (a tiny few!) that are actually older than me, and every age bracket in between.

I think people affiliate around ideas, causes, relationships, and purpose. And that transcends age demographics.

I think that locality is stronger than age, but even there, massively open networks -- like Facebook and Twitter -- will ultimately prevail, by simply allowing people to find other local people. Like Facebook's local networks.

If people thought that demographics is destiny, wouldn't Facebook have age groups assigned? Personally, I would ignore it if they did.

Actually, I think the sizzle of Multiply is more the attractiveness to some people of having private networks for friends and contacts. But again, if you can have that in a larger network, as an option, then the argument for Multiply fails to convince.

Still, the world of social networks may be big enough for a thousand offerings to exist, but the benefits of larger network access seem to argue against it. If you are a music nut, you are unlikely to only listen to one genre, so the apparent attraction of belonging to a post-punk-only music network doesn't really work. Ditto sports. Ditto fashion. In every one of these major lifecycle threads, people who are seriously involved would rather be in a broader network.

There seems to be a clear break between sites for music and sites for sports, however; and similar natural cleavages between fashion and high tech. But I think the age-based slicing of networks will fail, with the exception of the youth market.