In the virtual society of social networks, the tragic disappearance of In Koo raises essential questions about the role of technology. Beyond digital advancements, this sad news leads us to ask: is mere online presence enough to establish authentic and lasting connections?
Koo’s Challenges: Lessons Learned from Its Failure
Before truly taking flight, Koo’s yellow bird crashed. Although the app initially generated some excitement in 2021, it failed to establish itself against the giants of social media. This failure highlights the limitations faced by companies trying to create a globally successful social networking platform.
The Lobbyist Game
Creating a social network requires considerable capital in a world already dominated by technologically and financially solid platforms like those from the United States. Recruiting suitable talent, maintaining online systems, and assembling a content moderation team are some of the obvious cost centers. Furthermore, complying with regulations in various jurisdictions requires a team of lawyers and policy professionals capable of working with different lobbying groups to influence regulations.
In India, for example, there is a complex network of lobbying to ensure that companies and the government find acceptable compromises. Companies often have to contend with industry groups predominantly influenced by large tech firms. If a small company cannot afford these costs, it is likely that its perspective will never reach the authorities.
Lack of Capital and the Impact of Funding Winters
Koo’s co-founders highlighted the issue of capital as one of the reasons for the app’s closure. They explained that although they were close to surpassing Twitter in India in 2022, a prolonged funding winter hindered their growth trajectory. Achieving their dream would have required five to six years of aggressive, patient, and long-term capital.
The Importance of Innovation and Differentiation
Creating a social networking platform may no longer be a major technological challenge, but the real challenge lies in offering users an alternative that meets needs unaddressed by other more flourishing platforms. Koo bet on localized content as a differentiating factor, noting a significant gap between spoken languages worldwide and the dominance of English on existing networks. However, this was not enough.
The Impact of Government Engagement
At one point, several government officials tried to promote Koo as an alternative to X (formerly Twitter). This promotion initially generated some traction, but it proved unsustainable. In Koo’s case, despite a period when it was more favorable for creators in terms of engagement, X continued to offer much greater reach and interaction.
Government Endorsement: A Double-Edged Sword
The government’s attempts to support Koo were never fully committed. Unlike Truth Social in the United States, which partly succeeded due to its exclusivity of content with former President Donald Trump, Koo did not benefit from such exclusivities. For many X users, the fact that Koo was promoted by the ruling party was enough reason never to use it, ultimately harming its adoption.
Towards a Better Future for Local Social Networks?
Koo’s focus on local languages was commendable and could eventually find success. However, Koo’s journey reminds us that technology alone is not enough. A global social networking platform requires considerable financial resources, a clear differentiation strategy, and often, sustained support and engagement from users and influential entities.
