As noted in a previous post, we are getting a number of questions about what problem we are trying to solve and how we are different to other networking services. I tried to answer the first question with a previous post and will address the differentiation topic here.

The basic difference is that most social networking services (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) are primarily focused on building and maintaining relationships.  For many, the relationships are the end goal. Any help or favors (social capital) a person extracts from this network is a secondary outcome.

Favorang is the inverse. Our focus is first on social capital and extracting resources from the network (enabling the exchange of favors).  The development of relationships is a byproduct, not an explicit objective.

In the area of professional networking (LinkedIn, Xing, etc.), users have a number of goals. There is a social benefit in keeping up with old colleagues and professional acquaintances, but most professional users have additional objectives.  They can include building and maintaining relationships for the future, using connections to provide endorsements or credibility to a professional profile, and getting an action from a connection (e.g. an introduction, information, etc.).

The traditional services provide great tools for growing and maintaining relationships, and building a credible profile.  In addition, they are helpful in getting help from your immediate network.  However, as you move further out in your extended network, it becomes more and more difficult to get someone to take action.  This is where we believe Favorang will excel.

As illustrated in the conceptual graphic below, traditional Social Networking Services (SNS) will be a better tool for a range of activities.  However, when one has to reach out beyond their immediate network or friends of friends, Favorang shoud start to provide an equal or better framework to get networking help.

What do you think?  Have do we have a differentiated model?