Fashion brands use marketing, in the sports market to sponsoring. For Nike the relationship to Michael Jordan for instance certainly was a major driver. For Adidas Kanye West became a major pain.
Social Media platforms try the same. They try to get famous people on their platform. Instagram seems to do quite well in that space (I don't have an account there) while Twitter on the one side and TikTok, YouTube and Twitch on the other try to get people on their platforms.
But then it's different: In sports sponsorship you can focus on one side of the person, their atheltic skills. On social media they eventually shout out their views on things, which might upset people and damage reputation. Of both, the person and the platform.
They also cycle their top talent.
Facebook does neither of these.
If LVMH were to design social networks, they’d look nothing like what Facebook has developed and more like members only clubs with glass windows.
Social media is ultimately not selling status though, they make money by reaching as many people as possible and you have to lower the entry fee to achieve that.
Socials need to find worse and worse ways to advertise so line can go up and there are new paradigm-shifting features invented all the time.
FAANG on the other hand aspires to infect every single facet of my life, and they have some glib self-serving narrative about how not only are they right to do so, they have the moral imperative. And so what do they do? They track every single aspect of my life that they can, the invade my privacy, they leak my data, they bilk me for cash at every opportunity. Dark patterns, bad UI, run arounds on the phone, locking out of accounts. I'm sorry but this entire industry is completely fucked, and it's only getting worse. As someone who has been in tech since the 80s, the scene is done. It's been overrun by vultures, bankers, and billionaires with more money than ethics, and they think you are just an NPC in their world, where they are celebrities, kings, and gods.
That is why social tech brands have a shelf life, because none of them can resist the dark side. Nike has a dark side, but at least when I take them off my shoes aren't trying to take over my life.
Shit, even within its own domain, it's failed with some projects long-term (Nike Golf clubs come to mind). They stay relevant by signing young upcoming athletes, some of whom go on to become known worldwide in sports that are popular worldwide like Soccer, Basketball, and Tennis.
Nike does not have a platform, and in a roundabout way also benefits from their competition doing well (the more people that are active, the larger the potential customer base is). FB/Meta does not have that luxury - to them, if you're not on their platform, you're useless. Nike does not have that problem.
Nike wants to own the experience when you're doing something athletic or casually physical (walking around). There's a limit to that as even pro athletes aren't physically active all the time. Since so much of our lives have a technology component to it, Meta wants to own that whole ecosystem , which is much more ambitious than anything Nike ever tried or will try.
The social tech that your parents use can't be cool, by definition, no matter how good it is, the fact that your parents (and grandparents!) generation is already there is a big drawback to coolness. But social tech companies are reluctant (for obvious practical reasons) to periodically create new generations of social networks to capture a new generation of users by intentionally providing them "not your parents' social network".