Tag Archive for 'Facebook'

Will You Be My *Friend*

Published by Ben Kepes on November 14, 2008 in Society and Web x.0. 1 Comment

Yeah OK - So it’s most probably an urban myth but I can help but giggle at the story of Hal, a nice enough sounding guy who, having amassed a personal war chest of 700 Facebook friends - decided to congratulate himself by holding a party.

How to publicise the party? You guessed it - he invited all of his Facebook friends.

To cut a long story short - he invited all his friends, had 15 definite attendees and 60 possibles (which in itself is interesting - if I hold a dinner party I’d expect the vast majority of those invited to attend - Hal’s response rate was pretty goddam low)

But it gets worse.

Out of those definites and maybe, you know how many turned up?

ONE

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - a Facebook friend may be a real friend, a real friend may be a Facebook friend but any definitive expectations of that type are unsound.

Share the love...
[Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

I’m all for disruption but….

Published by Ben Kepes on September 21, 2008 in Design, Efficiency, IT and Strategy. 1 Comment

TechCrunch waxes poetical on the threat to Microsoft, and in particular the exalted position of Outlook, that Facebook poses.

TechCrunch says that;

Facebook succeeds because it is the killer web application for communications and personal information management. Facebook Mail is not without its problems, but the combination of Facebook Mail, Facebook Chat, and what is functionally an auto updating address book, makes Facebook into the new Outlook not only for those who are inside of Silicon Valley, but for anyone of the millions of people who use Facebook as either their sole or their primary digital identity

Now don’t get me wrong - I’m an evangelist for web-based solutions and I’m also a fan boy (does that term work for anything other than Apple) of disruption in general - but lets look dispassionately at this one. The statistics are pretty telling, Outlook has massive market share in the business world (read - where the dollars are MS is) and rather than being disrupted outright, my view is that Microsoft will iterate their products to meet the market. We’ve already seen some things along these lines (check out Xobni if you haven’t already - great search and social aspects for Outlook) - at one stage Microsoft was rumoured to be in the process of purchasing Xobni, this never eventuated but clearly it is an area where Outlook may move.

As TechCrunch says;

what is the take away from all of this? For Microsoft to pick up the proverbial ball and start running with it, it will need to listen to what the consumer wants, and design products that fit those needs, rather than assuming that the consumer will buy whatever it is that Microsoft hands them, just because it is a Microsoft product. And, the young consumers of today, the big spenders of tomorrow, want products that are focused on mobility, ease of use, speed, and simplicity

I agree entirely - but caution people not to write of Microsoft just yet

Share the love...
[Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

What hope if free only achieves 20%

Published by Ben Kepes on August 13, 2008 in Business, SaaS, SocialMedia, Society and Strategy. 4 Comments

Really interesting article over here looking at the uptake of social media. The gist of the post is that Facebook and MySpace have only roughly a one in five uptake in the US market. That is only 20% of consumers with Internet access are utilising their services.

The question is whether one in five signifies a plateau or an early stage uptake. If it indicates the latter, and user numbers will head north of 50%, then the immense valuations being put on some of these properties might be valid (notwithstanding their lack of clear monetisation paths - if you own a massive chunk of Internet users, there must be something you can do to convert them).

If however this one in five figure is indicative of a plateau, there is a real problem. Bear in mind that it’s discovering new users that accounts for much of the stickiness of these offerings, if their growth slows then so to does their stickiness for users. Lowering stickiness results in lowered visits. Lowered visits limits monetisation options and potential size.

Me - I’m picking a slowing in the growth of these properties. They won’t suffer a real plateau for another couple of years but growth will definitely begin to slow over the next six months.

Share the love...
[Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, what were you thinking?

Published by Ben Kepes on July 26, 2008 in Business, Design, Efficiency, Governance, IT, SaaS, Strategy and Web x.0. 4 Comments

I like Sarah Lacy, I kind of felt for her when she was torn apart for her interview of Facebook founder mark Zuckerberg last year. True she came across that time as something of a sycophant - but she didn’t deserve the evisceration that she got.

But then in my feed reader this morning I read something that Sarah had written. In it she says;

Facebook Continues to Focus on Product, Not Revenues. That’s a Good Thing. While the drumbeat for Facebook’s need to generate bigger revenues grows louder, it was a clear message that Zuckerberg & Co. aren’t done focusing on the product. And as we enter an era of slower ad spending, I think that’s wise. Facebook is break even with a hoard of cash: Right now the product is more important than juicing revenues at users’ expense.

Is she out of her mind - I mean has Web 2.0 got so screwed up that it’s now OK to admit publicly that making money doesn’t rally matter for a business, that it’s the product that matter more than anything. In her defence (slightly) she didn’t say that revenue doesn’t matter at all, just that Facebook has the cash to fund product development for the next little while - so revenue isn’t an immediate imperative.

But let’s be clear here - there is a vast difference between not focusing on making revenue now, and not focusing on how you will make revenue ever - I hope like hell that Facebook is in the former, rather than the latter, camp.

To correct the sense of off-balance that Sarah’s post created, I was pleased to read Phil’s post where he actually mentions the fact that it is a concern that Web 2,0 businesses are so lacking focus about revenue. His points were made in relation to SlideRocket, the online presentation builder that is going to (shock, gasp) charge for the use of its product. Phil says;

It’s good to see that SlideRocket, unlike so many of its Web 2.0 brethren, is equally emphatic about its decision to charge users for its services. At last, there’s a faint glimmer of a monetization strategy coming into sight at the end of the Web 2.0 tunnel.

Nice to see you haven’t completely got caught up in the Web 2.0 hysteria Phil!

Share the love...