Lurker Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 The Facebook Fallacy The company makes a pitiful and shrinking $5 per customer per year, which puts it somewhat ahead of the Huffington Post and somewhat behind the New York Times' digital business. (Here's the heartbreaking truth about the difference between new media and old: even in the New York Times' declining traditional business, a subscriber is still worth more than $1,000 a year.) Yeah, and the freaking funny thing about New York Times is that it is only one of the top news media for many a decades and centuries. To compare that against Facebook is ridiculous. To make a fair comparison compare Facebook against say Miami Herald, although even the latter would have lot more history, and see how the latter is dieing and former making money. I have always wondered how far this whole "free content" thing will take you. Google, Facebook and many an internet website has provided free content on their own, or links to the same, thereby killing the structure that, in my opinion, provided fair play. You want to read you gotta pay for the hardwork that was put behind it.
Crookbond Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Yeah, and the freaking funny thing about New York Times is that it is only one of the top news media for many a decades and centuries. To compare that against Facebook is ridiculous. To make a fair comparison compare Facebook against say Miami Herald, although even the latter would have lot more history, and see how the latter is dieing and former making money. I have always wondered how far this whole "free content" thing will take you. Google, Facebook and many an internet website has provided free content on their own, or links to the same, thereby killing the structure that, in my opinion, provided fair play. You want to read you gotta pay for the hardwork that was put behind it. I doubt the content is "free" anyway. If you're not paying for it, "you" are the product. I wouldn't necessarily say paid is better than free or vice-versa. Currently on the Internet, the "Freemium" model is working quite well.
Crookbond Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Facebook is currently trading at 28.8, Down 9.62% [1]. [1] http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1338366029869&chddm=1173&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:FB&ntsp=0
Lurker Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 I doubt the content is "free" anyway. If you're not paying for it, "you" are the product. I wouldn't necessarily say paid is better than free or vice-versa. If "we" are the product then we make for a real cr@ppy product. The advent of "free" press, pun intentional, has also coincided with the demise of good journalism. I am yet to hear from anyone that standards of journalism has gone anywhere except South. Currently on the Internet, the "Freemium" model is working quite well. Model works good for who? Look at the example given in one of the articles. Facebook makes as much money as Huffington Post and New York Times (I paraphrase). Of the 3 only NYT is a collosal of an institution. Huffington Post is nothing but an online-aggregator. It does NOT produce any content on its own but begs, borrows and steals from all media outlets. Even left wing comic like John Stewarts routinely made fun of it. To think that such a website makes as much money as NYT who has people and process invested in news domain is absolutely ridiculous.
Swing_n_Speed Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 If "we" are the product then we make for a real cr@ppy product. The advent of "free" press, pun intentional, has also coincided with the demise of good journalism. I am yet to hear from anyone that standards of journalism has gone anywhere except South. +10000
Crookbond Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 If "we" are the product then we make for a real cr@ppy product. The advent of "free" press, pun intentional, has also coincided with the demise of good journalism. I am yet to hear from anyone that standards of journalism has gone anywhere except South. You got it wrong. Your(user's) personal data for "free" access is the barter system followed on the Internet. I made no comments on if it was good or bad. I would want to hold my horses before I decide on if it's good or bad. I was merely pointing our the mechanics of the current online world.
akshayxyz Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 You got it wrong. Your(user's) personal data for "free" access is the barter system followed on the Internet. I made no comments on if it was good or bad. I would want to hold my horses before I decide on if it's good or bad. I was merely pointing our the mechanics of the current online world. ++ people pay millions for some authentic public survey data, which no one likes to respond to ( or not honestly) Facebook/Google like platforms aim to do that - non-intrusively, by keeping track of behavioral data w/o explicitly 'asking' to fill the forms. So, FB is better compared with someone like Google.. and not the news agencies/newspapers / original content producers.. Why FB was hyped so much was because of: - that real users actually spend lot of time on FB, allowing FB to collect more metrics about user behavior and preferences. - since avg FB user is most of the time 'looking' at the page for longer than any other similar websites, it is more probable that user would notice and click some relevant advertisement. When comparing with Google ( in terms of efficiency of advertisement based revenues): The main problem has been - typical FB user comes with intention of some leisure activity. So, he is not in the mental state of purchasing a product/service. While on Google, user 'searches' with the intention of purchasing some product/service. But that is about success of direct click-through of the advertisements. FB still has access to lots of user data, so - it is far from being dead - at least not until some competitor comes with more engaging competing platform..(Google is not dumb that they are investing lots of resources in similar platform - G+.) Sitting on top of so much data, FB (and such time-pass websites with high user engagement) - just have to figure out innovative ways of showing relevant advertisements, trying to figure out when the user might be in 'let me buy something' mood...or build up user into that kind of mood... or other ways of showing value ad to the advertisers. E.g. brand building campaigns, something that is a long term exercise, and may not directly translate in immediate sales/revenues...essentially 'injecting'/'seeding' some product information into subconscious of the users - since they spend so much of time on FB.
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Sitting on top of so much data, FB (and such time-pass websites with high user engagement) - just have to figure out innovative ways of showing relevant advertisements, trying to figure out when the user might be in 'let me buy something' mood...or build up user into that kind of mood... or other ways of showing value ad to the advertisers. E.g. brand building campaigns, something that is a long term exercise, and may not directly translate in immediate sales/revenues...essentially 'injecting'/'seeding' some product information into subconscious of the users - since they spend so much of time on FB. That's going to be the biggest challenge for Facebook and optimism that it can do it is the reason for it's high evaluation. From a technological standpoint I feel it is achievable given their ability to hire the best brains and to effectively kill off any competition in the social networking segment for the next few years. However, they might have to overcome some tricky legal issues about invasion of privacy and the likes. Most of their high revenue market is still going to come from the Western countries, and over the years it remains to be seen how existing privacy laws or new ones align with the kind of data and usage that Facebook and Google aim to do.
yoda Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 FB will be a great company and will grow tremendously revenue wise. The biggest challenge in terms of stock price is finding the correct initial valuation based on current earnings and expected growth. I have heard numbers ranging anywhere from $9-$30/share.
akshayxyz Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 That's going to be the biggest challenge for Facebook and optimism that it can do it is the reason for it's high evaluation. From a technological standpoint I feel it is achievable given their ability to hire the best brains and to effectively kill off any competition in the social networking segment for the next few years. However, they might have to overcome some tricky legal issues about invasion of privacy and the likes. Most of their high revenue market is still going to come from the Western countries, and over the years it remains to be seen how existing privacy laws or new ones align with the kind of data and usage that Facebook and Google aim to do. And optimism is the reason, these people will keep putting efforts/resources in that direction, and someone will figure out some solution(s), or at least x-y% improvement over existing algorithms. As for legal/privacy laws - if FB/Google show some real value, laws may be tweaked around by rich and powerful lobbyists. They can always say (and have been saying) - we are not reading/sharing any private data, machines do the reading, we share/sell only anonymized user stats..- and all this is for the betterment (efficiency) of the humanity. Also, there are other parts also (for the advertisers/sellers/corporates) - targeted for this class of users ( who spend time online): - insights from the user data - for building a future product/service, or bettering an existing one.... - dynamic pricing, based on user sentiments..hence, better management of inventories. - competitor analytics. - (conspiracy stuff) - public psyche manipulation :) - and since FBs are for leisure stuff...services for leisure product manufacturers, media/entertainment business etc .. and so on... Possibilities are endless - but which are feasible and are good RoI in immediate future, no would know - definitely not w/o trying. Its like 5-800 million users are looking at a billboard, and leaving behind filled up survey forms too - (happily & honestly).
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 And optimism is the reason, these people will keep putting efforts/resources in that direction, and someone will figure out some solution(s), or at least x-y% improvement over existing algorithms. I agree. I don't see technological implementation of these ideas to be Facebook's biggest challenge given the willingness of some of the best brains in the world to work there as well as their strength in the market to buy off any viable competitor. As for legal/privacy laws - if FB/Google show some real value, laws may be tweaked around by rich and powerful lobbyists. They can always say (and have been saying) - we are not reading/sharing any private data, machines do the reading, we share/sell only anonymized user stats..- and all this is for the betterment (efficiency) of the humanity. It might ultimately happen that way, but I don't see the legal route to be as straightforward. Technology companies do not have a strong lobby like oil companies in Washington. Moreover, people in America are a bit too paranoid about privacy and there is no shortage of old school politicians to play up that sentiment for political mileage.
Crookbond Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 On Facebook, ‘Likes’ Become Ads But this new twist on advertising has already proved to be tricky. Users do not always realize that the links and “likes” they post on Facebook can be deployed for marketing purposes. And Facebook has already agreed in principle to settle out of court a class-action lawsuit over the practice in California. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/technology/so-much-for-sharing-his-like.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 http://www.worldcrunch.com/why-facebook-must-die-internet-freedom-flourish/3825 WHY FACEBOOK MUST DIE FOR INTERNET FREEDOM TO FLOURISH Let’s leave privacy issues out of it, and assume the best case scenario, which is that every single Facebook user understands what registering that kind of information on Facebook servers means (while hoping, of course, that the data-managing giant will soon be forced to become more transparent with regard to the ways it uses the information). Let’s also leave moral issues out of it. The fact of the matter is that Facebook and Google are quite simply out to market information that will make the value of their companies go up.
Lurker Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 The fact of the matter is that Facebook and Google are quite simply out to market information that will make the value of their companies go up Quite surprising how that line fails to catch attention even after a decade of it happening. The free (down)loading generation has ensured that private information are now well in the hands of mega corporations. Companies like Google and Facebook sell people's information - demography, housing, age group, gender, searches etc etc and make money. And people are only too happy to provide that information. Remember how many folks would be excited to pull their house on Google maps as a matter of pride :cantstop: What makes it worse (perhaps) is that it is Okay for Google/Facebook to look at your personal information, snoop around and sell it but somehow if Government wants it everybody gets against it, even if it is for National Security
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 http://plugg.io/infographics/facebook-valuation-by-year-2003-2012
Crookbond Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Facebook changes everyone's listed emails to '@facebook.com' http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-changes-emails-20120625,0,2962878.story Without asking for permission, Facebook has changed users' listed email address to one ending in "@facebook.com." The changed was discovered Saturday, and has resulted in either users having their @facebook.com address being listed or simply having all of their other addresses be hidden, as happened in my case. Privacy will al ways remain Facebook's bete noire :headshake:
Crookbond Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Ever since Facebook made its stockmarket debut on May 18th, its new shareholders have had ample reason to grumble. The companyÃÔ shares have been trading for much less than the $38 at which they were first offered. The social-networking giantÃÔ first quarterly results as a public company, unveiled on July 26th, did little to cheer shareholders up http://econ.st/MKkppp
Jersey #10 Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 This company isn't worth more than 25billion. If that
yoda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 They lost money in the most recent quarter and this supposedly better than analyst expectations. WTF!
Recommended Posts