Why location-based social networks are still worth using

Ask my coworkers, I have always been a fan of location-based social networks. While my use of them has waned over the past couple of months, I still think they have incredible potential. Which is why, when I saw Marshall Kirkpatrick's tweet this evening... "I should write a post simply about why location based social networks are worth using"...I decided to take on the challenge myself.

At the moment, most people I know have become discouraged with location-based social media. A compelling reason for divulging such insights is in all honesty lacking. Mayor? Who cares. Badges? I'm not a Girl Scout anymore. Checkins? I am sick of being that [insert appropriate word here] on the phone the second I walk into a bar or restaurant with his or her friends. And for all of you out there who are thinking about loyalty discounts and rewards, just know this: A free drip coffee for me once a week because I'm the mayor of my local Starbucks means nothing when I drink Chai tea!

This is where my, along with many others, frustration currently sits. The Foursquares, Yelps and now New York Times (wtf?) of the world have, in my opinion, lost sight of the prize. I understand that a startup/media organization needs to figure out a way to be profitable and getting in bed with corporate America is the easiest answer but I feel like that is diluting the real value of this product for the end user.

This is turning people off. Pushing people away. At a point when companies like Foursquare need to push mass adoption. And the only way to do that is by providing a perceivable value.

So here is what the perceivable value of these networks is to me:

In the age of content overload, we talk a great deal about the race to relevancy. For Google, providing relevant information is at the core of it's business model. But my question has always been what if we DON'T know we need to search for that information. It may be highly relevant to us but we just don't know it exists.

Many companies are already onto this but I will use Facebook in this example. They present you with information they think you should know, based on your own usage/interaction with their platform. However, at the moment that information is limited. They can't always account for your actions outside of their world. For example, Facebook knows that I have "liked" volleyball but it doesn't know that I play at an open gym every Tuesday night or that after volleyball, our group goes out and socializes over a beer or two.

Now as marketers and advertisers, our eyes light up and we all think... "Here is a great idea! Local bars and restaurants in the area should really make sure that they are offering happy hour specials or food specials to the group via social networks!" Don't get me wrong this is all good but there has to be value to the end users before this moment.

Back to the open gym...

I lived in the area where my open gym is held for OVER a year before knowing of it's existence. I had to physically go on Google and search for "volleyball open gym" to find a random website that actually had outdated information of the open gym night. Why did I have to do that?

If I had already self-ascribed to being a volleyball player and people who lived around me also "liked" volleyball, then why couldn't my location-based social network tell me that people who like volleyball go to Tuesday night open gym here?

This is the type of relevant information that I would have appreciated because I was living by myself, in a new part of town, after a majority of my friends had left the city. I would find this information far more compelling than a discount or a badge. And this is why I think location-based social networks are still worth using because of their potential to capture and utilize behavioral data for the benefit of their end user.