Subscribe
Ryan Paugh graduated from Penn State in 2006 with a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business. After working in corporate communications, freelance writing and reporting, he co-founded 
Email Ryan
Read more from Ryan
New here? Employee Evolution is a part of Brazen Careerist, Inc. Brazen Careerist is an online community and career center for Generation Y. We also consult and speak with organizations on best practices for recruiting and retaining Generation Y and how to effectively use social media to reach your target market. To contact us about consulting, speaking, or how your company can be a part of our Jobs section, please visit our contact page.
If you never thought your connections on Facebook and MySpace would matter in the real world you were right. You have to be a member of an elite online social network to get that sort of recognition.
Let me most properly introduce you to aSmallWorld.com (aSW), the leader in a new wave of socially elite web networks that only accept “the best of the best.”
“We allow our members to connect, reconnect and interact more effectively with like-minded individuals who share the same circle of friends, interests, and schedules,” boasts aSW’s homepage. “We have imposed certain criteria in order to keep the network exclusive.”
A little ambiguous? The classifieds on aSW should make things perfectly clear:
“The site already features ads where people sell classic Jaguars, yachts, and Cartier watches,” notes Catherine Holhan of BusinessWeek. “Advertisers include champagne producer Moët & Chandon and private-jet company Sentient.”
Sounds like the online network at aSW is nothing but a “country club” for Web 2.0.
Critics have already coined a winning nickname – “snobster.” But aSW chairman and found Erik Wachtmeister retorts. “One’s network site is less useful if it is diluted by people you don’t know.” Spoken like a true elitist.
The last time I checked, the true value of online networking was the magnitude of diversity. People with little access to the right people could get connected and share in a way that might not otherwise be possible. But I guess that doesn’t matter if you already know the right people.
When you break it down, I suppose networks like aSW won’t be stealing any more great jobs than the CEO who saves the prime positions for his golf buddy’s sons and daughters. But there’s something so arrogant about the site that I just can’t ignore.
Do affluent Americans really need an online social network to set them apart from the masses? If nothing else, aSW is a tribute to upper-echelon exclusion. It’s disheartening in an age where the best way to prosper is to come together.
There will always be someone trying to taint an otherwise good thing. Fortunately, you can’t ignore the good we’ve seen through internet communities thus far. I’ll keep an optimistic outlook. Let’s just hope enough people look past the conceited aSW network and do the same.
Popularity: 9%
I’d been meaning to blog about this site myself; the Newsweek article almost made me sick. There is value in creating a community of similar-mined and experienced people–trusted resources whose opinions you can rely on. I used to be the director of engineering for the network of sites including www.mtbr.com - a community of mountain bike enthusiasts. We felt that sites like epinions and consumer reports were worthless because the were not populated by passionate enthusiasts in the particular subject matter. The MBTR community was a self-selecting one. At times, opinions became elitist, but there was no “fred police” to exclude people. It just goes against everything we believe in.
Sites that actively exclude people and try to create an aura of specialness by their exclusivity offend me. Here is another one: www.diamondlounge.com
In the interests of fair disclosure, I have to admit that currently, I work for a web site that aims to create a luxury, lifestyle enthusiast brand. So we see sites like ASS-WORLD and Diamond Lounge as at least potential competitors. The “open it up!” or “keep it limited” debate goes on in our planning not because we want to be a bunch of rich snobs, but because we want to build a brand with an aura of exclusivity. I believe it can be done via self-selection and think the exclusionary approach is small-minded. I think the kind of people who want to be a part of those communities are not the kind of people I’d want to know, even if I had tons of money. But we do know that affluent, luxury-minded people are very much turned OFF by sites like myspace, facebook, etc. and say they do not want that kind of experience. So the challenge is how to create a special, exclusive place without resorting to “snobster” tactics.
@Dave: It’s okay to be exclusive when you’re doing it for the right reasons. I like mountain biking too, I wouldn’t want to invite someone who wasn’t as enthused as the rest of us into the conversation.
I think it’s obvious to both of us that aSW and the network you mentioned are excluding people for the WRONG reasons. They can sugar coat it all they want on their home page, but it doesn’t take a genious to read through the lines. It’s a website for rich elitists. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s a website for rich elitists. Nothing more, nothing less.
And? I’m by no means rich, and even if I were I wouldn’t frequent one sites. But what’s wrong with it? Is the active exclusion really any different than sites that passively exclude by not allowing other viewpoints? I don’t think so. You have videogame message boards that cater and excuse discussions of other brands…you have ninjas who wont allow robots or pirates to join…the list goes on and on.
If you don’t want to be a part, don’t. But like you said, it’s essentially an online country club. I’m not a member of my local country club for plenty of reasons, but primarily because I don’t want to be.
This reminds me of the discussion of the “Rich guys with hot dates� or whatever article I just read. Girls who could be models allowed in, and the guys had to hit 250-500k+ a year to make it depending on their age bracket. It’s laughable, but how can you get mad at it, if they enjoy it, let them be secluded in their little bubble and move on. Doesn’t seem worth the effort to complain about.
@Nathan: You’re point is similar to what Dave and I just discussed. It’s okay to be exlusive, for the right reasons.
Why am I against aSW? Because I don’t respect elitists who seclude themselves from the rest of the world based on their bank account. The whole issue of rich people embracing this sort of concept is the exact reason why the rich continue to get richer. So there are some problematic aspects to explore here.
Nobody is really complaining here either. That would be just as petty as aSW’s stupid little club. But why not talk about it? You took the effort to join in the dialogue, so it has to be worth something. Right?
I guess to an extent. I just don’t see the any tangible distinction between “good� and “bad� reasons to be exclusive. Let’s keep up the mountain bike example, because it’s something I am quite knowledgeable about. Would I want the opinion of someone who bought a Huffy at Target if I were looking into replacing the rear coil on my full suspension Specialized Stumpjumper? Probably not, and I’m not going to submit it to Yahoo! Questions either. I might want to belong to an exclusive club and get some worthy opinions…and that’s fine.
Maybe these rich people want to share stories about the quality of 4 carat diamond they just bought, or how they test drove a new Lotus Elise because they’re thinking about picking one up as a summer car. I wouldn’t pretend that’s any worse reason to be exclusive than mine. There is no denying that there is a certain relatability in those who have money, so why not give them a forum to share that. There’s communities based on everything from people who think their vampires, to social clubs, political clubs, any other trait you want. Why isn’t money in particular an acceptable trait to base a community off of?
You don’t like exclusivity based on bank account, that’s fine. But elitist basketball club teams are going to continue to be elitist based on skill, and by embracing this concept they’re going to continue to get better. Is that a problem to explore? I don’t think so, but maybe you do.
Perhaps complaining isn’t the right way to put it, but that’s pretty much how it read. It doesn’t seem like what aSW is doing anything that doesn’t happen all the time in our daily lives, and even things you might (I know I am) part of. The only difference is that it is about money instead of knowledge, skill, whatever niche you can find, and that’s what I’m questioning.
“@Dave: It’s okay to be exclusive when you’re doing it for the right reasons. I like mountain biking too, I wouldn’t want to invite someone who wasn’t as enthused as the rest of us into the conversation.”
“@Nathan: You’re point is similar to what Dave and I just discussed. It’s okay to be exlusive, for the right reasons.”
If you really feel this way, then why would you have a problem with aSW? Rich people’s interests are not your and my interests. Rich people’s concerns are not your and my concerns. If you wouldn’t deny avid mountain bikers the opportunity to set themselves apart for meaningful discussion, why is “wrong” for aSW members to do so?
“Because I don’t respect elitists who seclude themselves from the rest of the world based on their bank account.”
And how do you feel about a mountain biker (for example) who decides that another mountain biker “wasn’t as enthused” as he is, and therefore disincludes the other from a discussion? That starts to sound a bit elitist too, don’t you think?
@Nathan: When you boil it down, maybe the money aspect is the only problem I have, but I think it’s a valid point to be made. Sure, nobody is going to picket march the capital on this issue. Why? Because no matter what anyone says, there’s nothing legally wrong with it. But there’s larger societal issues surrounding exclusion based on wealth.
So it’s worth taking a look at as a case study. My opinion: it only further strengthens the snobby stereotype of the rich and creates further disconnect from the rest of us.
@Sean: I see the point you’re trying to make and thanks for playing devil’s advocate, but it’s important to recognize the difference in impact. I can’t really say more on that without repeating what I said above to Nathan.
I also don’t believe that this site is all about sharing personal interests like mountain biking, etc. It’s about keeping the wealthiest connections in the hands of the wealthy. That’s been a problem way before the Internet even existed. Why would I embrace a technology that makes the age-old tradition even easier?
“@Sean: I see the point you’re trying to make and thanks for playing devil’s advocate, but it’s important to recognize the difference in impact.”
You’re right, I tend to do the devil’s advocate thing, but I’m honestly not sure what “difference in impact” you’re describing. I don’t see aSW impacting me or you in the least. I guess I could understand your gripe better if someone were trying to shut down or take over the social networks that we frequent, but to start a new one that simply has nothing to do with us?
I’m really not trying to insult you or your article, but most of what you’ve written here feels like a jealous rant that you’re hoping will sound altruistic. You describe aSW as “elitist,” and by definition, I can’t deny that. But you also describe it as “nothing but a ‘country club’ for Web 2.0″, “arrogant”, “conceited”, “petty”, and a “stupid little club.” Where’s all that coming from?
@Sean: I think those words all just concoct themselves from the vibe this network gives me. Read more into them, it’s pretty difficult to find anyone who’s willing to back them up.
I know you’re not trying to insult me. I appreciate that. I think the main point I’m trying to make is, wealthy elitists make a point to exclude themselves from the rest of society. It’s a terrible thing when they have potential to make powerful changes outside of their inner circle. From what I’ve read about this company, they’re not about sharing common interests, they’re about keeping up this elitist mentality. When we’re not talking about general hobbies, etc. this has a negative impact on things.
All and all, it’s a bigger social issue than aSW. But I chose to tell the story and share my negative opinion because I think it’s worth noting. Especially since we talk a lot about the value of networking on Employee Evolution.
I just found this site, thread and so please excuse me if I’m not following protocol or something, but I really feel compelled to jump in on this discussion!
Ryan, I think you have the right idea when you say “all and all, it’s a bigger social issue than aSW” and “it’s a terrible thing when [the members of aSW] have potential to make powerful changes outside of their inner circle” but they just “exclude themselves from the rest of society.”
I mean that’s the real issue here, isn’t it? The creation of online social network groups to represent this disgusting trend of rich elitists inhabiting our planet just kind of brings the issue really close to home, as we all seem to be involved with our own social networking sites. Perhaps your real problem has nothing to do with the site itself, but the mere fact that f-ers like that are running around with “all the money” and doing very little to help the rest of humanity.
Call me way too over idealistic, but I can not help from envisioning a better way to function as a human society on this planet! It sickens me that these people who would join a site like aSW even exist. Is it automatically built into the human psyche to be so unkind to the have-nots the minute you might be a have?
Gross, just gross.
Ha, actually I just read that and reflected briefly. Maybe both you and esp. Nathan who consider yourselves mountain-biking enthusiasts are in the same category as the rich snobs! If you guys think mountain biking is so great, why don’t you respectfully and logically explain to the Huffy bike from Target buying person why it might be more fun or enjoyable to look into other bikes? I mean, it’s just kind of rude to lord your particular talents, obscure interests, or carefully honed skills over others! Where is the sense of community, mutual respect, or love in that?!?! I think the true mountain bike enthusiast would be a teacher, activist, and promoter!!
Let me know what you think…
Wow, you all are clueless! Starting, unfortunately, from the initial writer.
Being a member of ASW I can tell you that not all members are rich. However, most may share common tastes, in entertainement, travel, film, and all sorts of other aspects of life. If I want a hotel to stay, someone will give me a recommendation that will most likely fall within what I am looking for. If I need a restaurant in any city, someone will recommend one that will fit my tastes. By controlling membership you exclude all sorts of ridiculous and fake registrations.
There are people on ASW who openly invite members to their homes for a party. Open invitations to all members who may be interested! Would you dare do that on myspace? Open your home to all myspacers? Blindly? I doubt it…
Bitterness is the source of all criticism of ASW.
A few thoughts….
1) I’m not a member of ASW
2) It sounds like a good business idea, especially based on the advertisers they already have
3) Jocelyn - why do people with “all the money” have a responsibility to do anything to help the rest of humanity other than staying within the confines of the law? Simply by spending their money, they are having a positive effect. Furthermore, why do you assume that they don’t advocate/financially support noble causes just because they are ASW members
4) Ryan - you should read the book Atlas Shrugged
No doubt that the creators of ASW had a great idea and are really smart for developing it. I think that what I saw in this company when I wrote this piece reflects what the media was writing about it at the time.
I still find question in having a social network out there based on social status. But to what Snob points out above, if they do allow people in their network that aren’t wealthy that’s not so questionable.
It’s good to hear that from someone, because all I’ve heard is negative things. It’s not so much that I’m clueless, it’s just what everyone was saying at the time.
Thanks for revitalizing this post. It’s fun to revisit topics and see if your stance has changed.
SNOB: Well there seems to be a discrepancy between your description of ASW and that of the media. As Ryan pointed out, most commentary on the site available paints the picture of a “myspace for millionaires” and certainly implies that all members would be more than considerably wealthy in monetary figures.
Are you disputing this? Or merely suggesting how convenient it is for those who fit in this category? If it is simply a gathering ground for the super rich to discuss relevant interests, then I could understand limiting the registrations of those who wouldn’t be able to give top-notch hotel recommendations in both Dubai and Vienna.
So sure, it’s nothing to be criticized. What I was really commenting upon and getting steamed up about is more along the lines of what Scott recognized.
Scott: I can tell that you and I have fundamentally different political interests just from your few phrases. Why should those with “all the money” do anything other than spend their money and act within the confines of the law? Well, if they have human interests in mind, more would have to be done. I’m not so sure economic growth from heavy spending and a high national GDP has much to do with “helping humanity.” Simply by spending their money, they are having a positive effect on economic numbers that leave out a whole lot of important aspects to human life and our world– such as the social and environmental costs!
Sure, probably a lot of the incredibly rich members of ASW do support “noble causes.” Probably a lot do not.
My personal belief is to live for something greater than yourself. It’s just very difficult for me to place a person spending large sums of money on hotels, restaurants, travel, designer clothing, etc. in that category. It is possible to earn a lot of money honestly while pursuing your dreams. That is wonderful and great! It’s how you react to that eventual success that distinguishes one’s character, in my opinion.
Then again, if those with “all the money” do not have other human interests in mind and want to live selfishly or irresponsibly then that’s their deal. I can still state my opinion and focus my efforts on the greater causes of life, though not the easiest task.
I can guarantee you that not all members are filthy rich! There is negative media, and a lot of it starts from people who decide to write an article on ASW only to realize that they cannot because they cannot register! So all the “rich this” “rich that” starts…
It is a limited community - people do watch out who they invite, because people do not want the community to become like myspace or any of the others. I see nothing wrong in that. In order to be able to invite others you need a certain number of friends connected to you.
I may choose to pick one bar to go to and someone else picks another. I may choose a hotel to go to and someone else picks another. If I find an online community that helps me with all that, again, I see nothing wrong.
There are a lot of rich people members. Nothing wrong with that either. There are very active forums in there, no one sits around talking about how much better they are because they are rich. Are there topics about Rolex watches or expensive cars? Yes. So?
I do think that basing a commentary on media reports is of no help to anyone. Look for members, talk to them, ask them to show you what’s in there, ask them what they think.
All the best.
Jocelyn - I believe your heart is in the right place but your mindset is troubling none-the-less.
ASW may leave me with an initial distaste as it clearly does for you, but some of your assertions had little to do with a social-networking website and more to do with a whole host of deeper and more important issues. This article from the the February 7th, 2008 edition of the WSJ reminded me of our discussion.
online.wsj.com/article/SB120235183917849631.html