Discussion
Indeed, thanks for the link. I've just watched it despite the late hour.
I think it's interesting how Facebook's commercial success - or potential greater commercial success - is at odds with the privacy aspect; in order to monetise, it needs to share users' information with 3rd parties, however users aren't comfortable giving up their information to 3rd parties in the same way they will give up that information to their friends.
Something that was very telling was the pregnant pause when the VP of Marketing said to Maitlis about the 'Sponsored Story', "When you 'like' a product on Facebook, you're publicly affirming it." Maitlis shot back, "But I didn't agree to advertise it.." He was somewhat lost for words, and when he finally recovered his composure, his answer was a mixture of adspeak and buzzwords that didn't actually address anything at all.
Another interesting point was raised about the number of 'friends' you 'have' on Facebook, and that having 800-900 people as friends simply isn't real-life. I agree about the number of real, close friends most people have as being probably in the order of 5-10. Facebook artificially extends 'friendships' that would have fallen by the wayside without constant online exposure. I think it actually weakens real friendships as people lose the art of interacting in real life. I spent an evening with a friend recently who was continually on Facebook on her phone, punctuating conversation (and attention) with frenxied tapping on her iPhone. I found it incredibly rude, almost insulting.
I should probably state now that I'm not on Facebook. I'm not on LinkedIn or others either. I had a Google+ account, being one of the 40m who joined up following the launch, primarily out of curiosity because I have a Google account for my Android phone. I used it a little and posted a couple of times, however it struck me that most of the content being posted into my 'stream' was of no real interest to me. What also struck me was that I was being pushed to add people whom I didn't know - they simply appeared as people who had added me to their circles. It all felt a bit 'fake'. I've since closed the Google+ part of my account.
I'm perhaps a little more guarded about my privacy online. Even a Google search for my (pretty distinctive) name turns up only a handful of hits, and even then only because I have to be listed publicly as a company director (no, it's not as flashy as it sounds and no, I'm not powerfully-built). If you were to Google my username to try and link me to other sites, you'd draw a blank - a search for 'funk' will get you several very cool album recommendations and Youtube clips but not me. I'm sure the PH supersleuths have their ways of finding information about me, but truth be known there's not that much interesting to know.
And therein lies the rub; I don't consider my day-to-day activities or thoughts to be of interest to other people. Their activities and thoughts on running basis aren't interesting to me. When I meet up with a mate in the pub or pop round for dinner, he'll fill me in on the best bits of what's new and going on in his life. There's so much emphasis on 'sharing' but there doesn't seem to be any consideration given to whether what people are sharing is actually worthwhile or interesting, even to their real-life friends and Facebook friends, let alone those who don't know them.
I think that Facebook brings out the worst part of people; that of an almost pathological desire to feel important in the eyes of others. Perhaps they're seeking some sort of validation. It's the worst kind of attention-seeking, and often done only to provoke a response from someone else in the form of a 'Like'. I'm sure there are elements of Facebook that enhance peoples' lives; the ability to share photos and such is useful, but then pretty much anything Facebook can do can be done elsewhere (eg. Flickr for sharing pictures).
I think the thing that will change Facebook the most is the requirement to bring the corporate world in, in order to monetise it. People on Facebook aren't there to be advertised to, they're there to 'socialise' (and I use that word loosely!). I heard a statistic saying something like 70% of users don't want to see companies on social networks. Woe betide the company that ventures into that world unprepared and gets it wrong. I was about to liken ads on Facebook to ads on TV, but I realised as I was typing that actually there are fundamental differences between the two; TV adverts merely interrupt your 'downtime' - you're watching a favourite programme and tolerate the ads. However, they don't try and be your 'friend' or ask you to 'like' them. Facebook ads require you to give up your personal information to advertisers, for the sole purpose that they can target you to sell you things, whilst trying to appear to not be doing exactly that. It's invasive, and I'm surprised so many people are willing to divulge as much information about themselves as they do. The very success of the venture depends on the Facebook buzzwords of 'openness' and 'sharing'. Without people giving up that information willingly, what can they do with it?
800 million people have already decided to give up their privacy to Facebook, so Facebook's obviously doing a good job of building the database so far. Google would kill to have access to the degree of 'target market' info Facebook has, that much is clear. I guess it remains to be seen as to whether Facebook falls by the wayside like most other social networks eventually have. The fall will be spectacular if it happens.
I think the thing that could kill Facebook is trying to push adverts too heavily on the site, and giving users' personal information up to businesses for the sake of ad revenue. There will be a tipping point where people go from accepting that something has to be given up in order to keep Facebook free, but Facebook may be inclined to give up too much. The excessive encroachment of businesses on Facebook is what will drive users away.
One thing struck me as odd though; I don't for one moment believe Zuckerberg's motives are as altruistic as he claims ("..to connect the world and allow people to share.."). He's not daft, he can see the dollar signs. He's created a monster that's about to make him even more wealthy, and if he has to give up your personal information to do it, then he will.
I guess only time will tell.
I think it's interesting how Facebook's commercial success - or potential greater commercial success - is at odds with the privacy aspect; in order to monetise, it needs to share users' information with 3rd parties, however users aren't comfortable giving up their information to 3rd parties in the same way they will give up that information to their friends.
Something that was very telling was the pregnant pause when the VP of Marketing said to Maitlis about the 'Sponsored Story', "When you 'like' a product on Facebook, you're publicly affirming it." Maitlis shot back, "But I didn't agree to advertise it.." He was somewhat lost for words, and when he finally recovered his composure, his answer was a mixture of adspeak and buzzwords that didn't actually address anything at all.
Another interesting point was raised about the number of 'friends' you 'have' on Facebook, and that having 800-900 people as friends simply isn't real-life. I agree about the number of real, close friends most people have as being probably in the order of 5-10. Facebook artificially extends 'friendships' that would have fallen by the wayside without constant online exposure. I think it actually weakens real friendships as people lose the art of interacting in real life. I spent an evening with a friend recently who was continually on Facebook on her phone, punctuating conversation (and attention) with frenxied tapping on her iPhone. I found it incredibly rude, almost insulting.
I should probably state now that I'm not on Facebook. I'm not on LinkedIn or others either. I had a Google+ account, being one of the 40m who joined up following the launch, primarily out of curiosity because I have a Google account for my Android phone. I used it a little and posted a couple of times, however it struck me that most of the content being posted into my 'stream' was of no real interest to me. What also struck me was that I was being pushed to add people whom I didn't know - they simply appeared as people who had added me to their circles. It all felt a bit 'fake'. I've since closed the Google+ part of my account.
I'm perhaps a little more guarded about my privacy online. Even a Google search for my (pretty distinctive) name turns up only a handful of hits, and even then only because I have to be listed publicly as a company director (no, it's not as flashy as it sounds and no, I'm not powerfully-built). If you were to Google my username to try and link me to other sites, you'd draw a blank - a search for 'funk' will get you several very cool album recommendations and Youtube clips but not me. I'm sure the PH supersleuths have their ways of finding information about me, but truth be known there's not that much interesting to know.
And therein lies the rub; I don't consider my day-to-day activities or thoughts to be of interest to other people. Their activities and thoughts on running basis aren't interesting to me. When I meet up with a mate in the pub or pop round for dinner, he'll fill me in on the best bits of what's new and going on in his life. There's so much emphasis on 'sharing' but there doesn't seem to be any consideration given to whether what people are sharing is actually worthwhile or interesting, even to their real-life friends and Facebook friends, let alone those who don't know them.
I think that Facebook brings out the worst part of people; that of an almost pathological desire to feel important in the eyes of others. Perhaps they're seeking some sort of validation. It's the worst kind of attention-seeking, and often done only to provoke a response from someone else in the form of a 'Like'. I'm sure there are elements of Facebook that enhance peoples' lives; the ability to share photos and such is useful, but then pretty much anything Facebook can do can be done elsewhere (eg. Flickr for sharing pictures).
I think the thing that will change Facebook the most is the requirement to bring the corporate world in, in order to monetise it. People on Facebook aren't there to be advertised to, they're there to 'socialise' (and I use that word loosely!). I heard a statistic saying something like 70% of users don't want to see companies on social networks. Woe betide the company that ventures into that world unprepared and gets it wrong. I was about to liken ads on Facebook to ads on TV, but I realised as I was typing that actually there are fundamental differences between the two; TV adverts merely interrupt your 'downtime' - you're watching a favourite programme and tolerate the ads. However, they don't try and be your 'friend' or ask you to 'like' them. Facebook ads require you to give up your personal information to advertisers, for the sole purpose that they can target you to sell you things, whilst trying to appear to not be doing exactly that. It's invasive, and I'm surprised so many people are willing to divulge as much information about themselves as they do. The very success of the venture depends on the Facebook buzzwords of 'openness' and 'sharing'. Without people giving up that information willingly, what can they do with it?
800 million people have already decided to give up their privacy to Facebook, so Facebook's obviously doing a good job of building the database so far. Google would kill to have access to the degree of 'target market' info Facebook has, that much is clear. I guess it remains to be seen as to whether Facebook falls by the wayside like most other social networks eventually have. The fall will be spectacular if it happens.
I think the thing that could kill Facebook is trying to push adverts too heavily on the site, and giving users' personal information up to businesses for the sake of ad revenue. There will be a tipping point where people go from accepting that something has to be given up in order to keep Facebook free, but Facebook may be inclined to give up too much. The excessive encroachment of businesses on Facebook is what will drive users away.
One thing struck me as odd though; I don't for one moment believe Zuckerberg's motives are as altruistic as he claims ("..to connect the world and allow people to share.."). He's not daft, he can see the dollar signs. He's created a monster that's about to make him even more wealthy, and if he has to give up your personal information to do it, then he will.
I guess only time will tell.
Funk said:
One thing struck me as odd though; I don't for one moment believe Zuckerberg's motives are as altruistic as he claims ("..to connect the world and allow people to share.."). He's not daft, he can see the dollar signs. He's created a monster that's about to make him even more wealthy, and if he has to give up your personal information to do it, then he will.
I don't blame him, I would do the same given his position.It'll be interesting to see where Facebook goes that is for sure.
At the moment, it's got to be right up there in the top three web sites that immediately spring to mind...
Google - most popular search tool/home page?.
eBay - most people check eBay when buying on-line.
Facebook - even if you don't participate, lots of people just check in to see what others are doing.
And more importantly - why didn't I come up with the idea for those sites
Microsoft Bing tried to steal Google's thunder, but failed miserably. eBid are desperate to invade eBay, but they never seem to get off the ground despite being a much cheaper alternative. And Google tried a Facebook alternative, but failed. Can anyone/any thing topple them?
At the moment, it's got to be right up there in the top three web sites that immediately spring to mind...
Google - most popular search tool/home page?.
eBay - most people check eBay when buying on-line.
Facebook - even if you don't participate, lots of people just check in to see what others are doing.
And more importantly - why didn't I come up with the idea for those sites
Microsoft Bing tried to steal Google's thunder, but failed miserably. eBid are desperate to invade eBay, but they never seem to get off the ground despite being a much cheaper alternative. And Google tried a Facebook alternative, but failed. Can anyone/any thing topple them?
Very interesting post Funk, thanks.
As of April 2011, Microsoft controlled 30% of the US search market and growing rapidly, Google controlled 64% and sinking. Not a total whitewash.
Source: http://mashable.com/2011/04/11/bing-google-stats/
Re: Google+. 40 million signed up by October 2011. Traffic increasing at 25% month on month.
Source: http://google-plus.com/3023/google-statistics-upda...
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Microsoft Bing tried to steal Google's thunder, but failed miserably.
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
And Google tried a Facebook alternative, but failed. Can anyone/any thing topple them?
Not so fast there Doctor...As of April 2011, Microsoft controlled 30% of the US search market and growing rapidly, Google controlled 64% and sinking. Not a total whitewash.
Source: http://mashable.com/2011/04/11/bing-google-stats/
Re: Google+. 40 million signed up by October 2011. Traffic increasing at 25% month on month.
Source: http://google-plus.com/3023/google-statistics-upda...
Edited by evenflow on Monday 5th December 13:06
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Google - most popular search tool/home page?.
eBay - most people check eBay when buying on-line.
Facebook - even if you don't participate, lots of people just check in to see what others are doing.
I think Amazon belongs in that list as well. I almost exclusively use it now, only need to venture outside it for unusual things.eBay - most people check eBay when buying on-line.
Facebook - even if you don't participate, lots of people just check in to see what others are doing.
What struck me was the potential valuation of the company come next year when it gets floated on the stock exchange.
This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
fizz47 said:
What struck me was the potential valuation of the company come next year when it gets floated on the stock exchange.
This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I agree, I don't think that there is any real value in the website. I can't imagine that there is any real mechanism to convert viewers into purchasers of products.This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I imagine that advertisers will soon start to see the real deal about facebook and its value will drop accordingly.
Simpo Two said:
A great story but really its all smoke and mirrors. Nobody is doing anything useful. There are clever people at the top making money and X million mugs at the bottom inputting crap thinking its a life.
1000% Agree. It's amazing how many people run their lives via FB. Scary infactfreecar said:
fizz47 said:
What struck me was the potential valuation of the company come next year when it gets floated on the stock exchange.
This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I agree, I don't think that there is any real value in the website. I can't imagine that there is any real mechanism to convert viewers into purchasers of products.This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I imagine that advertisers will soon start to see the real deal about facebook and its value will drop accordingly.
youngsyr said:
freecar said:
fizz47 said:
What struck me was the potential valuation of the company come next year when it gets floated on the stock exchange.
This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I agree, I don't think that there is any real value in the website. I can't imagine that there is any real mechanism to convert viewers into purchasers of products.This is just me being pesimistic but I'm of the opinion there is going to be another Dot-com collapse.
Just look at Groupon and Linkedin and already their value seems to be falling.
Really impressed by those guys who have started companies pretty much doing only Facebook related work even though they dont work for them and seemingly doing well out of it.
Also Zuckerberg's roomate who could have been a co-founder - his parents must be kicking themselves now.
I imagine that advertisers will soon start to see the real deal about facebook and its value will drop accordingly.
Melman Giraffe said:
Simpo Two said:
A great story but really its all smoke and mirrors. Nobody is doing anything useful. There are clever people at the top making money and X million mugs at the bottom inputting crap thinking its a life.
1000% Agree. It's amazing how many people run their lives via FB. Scary infactAs for the bloke who paid a dollar for a case to put his virtual dog poop in........ffs!....
Robb F said:
Funk said:
One thing struck me as odd though; I don't for one moment believe Zuckerberg's motives are as altruistic as he claims ("..to connect the world and allow people to share.."). He's not daft, he can see the dollar signs. He's created a monster that's about to make him even more wealthy, and if he has to give up your personal information to do it, then he will.
I don't blame him, I would do the same given his position.The clever money would have been on getting out at the $1bn or $15bn stage. He was a smart guy and most have seen the downfall of myspace happening by his own hand.
Anyone interested in only making money would have ducked out at that point knowing full well that in the .com business a competitor can just push you out quite easily.
That along with the fact he doesn't seem to enjoy much of the things that great wealth affords you (Cars, houses, nice clothes, own office, etc) makes me think he's genuinely as altruistic as he says.
The money is wasted on him, frankly.
That said, the valuation of $100bn for facebook as madness. Its yearly turnover is $4bn odd.. How can they value it at 25x turnover. Not even profit.
Add to that that you're basically paying $1.20 per user at that valuation, but the sad thing is that the users are mostly useless. As they said on the show, they're not looking to buy anything so advertising is a lot less effective.
Sure, you can target very specific markets and people but the one thing you can't tell is if they want to actually buy something. That's what google has in it's favour, they can tell when someone is looking to purchase goods and that's their trump card.
As a market research tool FB is great, but it's not $100bn great. Not by a long shot.
Edit: Also, I believe they're reaching critical mass at 800m users. I think they'll get to the 1bn user mark but then things will slow down dramatically. I expect them to get to 1bn by the end of next year. At that point there's really not many places they can go other than trying to push more crap no one wants and being more intrusive. Eventually there will be a backlash, a competitor will come along who is offering better service and that'll be the end of facebook.
Edited by Frankeh on Wednesday 7th December 00:01
I went to a presentation on 'Social networking' a few weeks ago. It was related to press intrusion into investigations. It was very, very scary.
Some of the facts that came up were that over 50% of mobile internet use in the UK is concerning Facebook.
Google only searches 0.04% of the internet.
Using what were referred to as deep search engines (available to anyone), the presenter was able to find out just about everything about a Police Officer. It was a very sobering day.
Some of the facts that came up were that over 50% of mobile internet use in the UK is concerning Facebook.
Google only searches 0.04% of the internet.
Using what were referred to as deep search engines (available to anyone), the presenter was able to find out just about everything about a Police Officer. It was a very sobering day.
Simpo Two said:
Elroy Blue said:
the presenter was able to find out just about everything about a Police Officer. It was a very sobering day.
Do you mean by what he had posted on FB (ie voluntarily) or stuff held elsewhere like banking details etc?Elroy, got any links or names of these search engines?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff