4 ms·
Except the author doesn't say "like a ponzi scheme" it's unsustainable -- they say it is a ponzi scheme. I know this is just semantics, but the whole premise o
by dantheman 17y ago
Except the author doesn't say "like a ponzi scheme" it's unsustainable -- they say it is a ponzi scheme. I know this is just semantics, but the whole premise of the article is flawed... facebook doesn't need each successive generation of advertisers to be bigger than the previous which is what causes ponzi schemes to implode.
Now if we're saying that they need their advertising revenues to grow so that they can maintain growth -- well that's the same dynamic of almost every company.
- rhl 17y agoActually I think he is saying that they need their advertising revenues to grow in order to maintain perceived momentum in advertisers' minds, in order to have revenue at all. So it's more drastic than what you describe, assuming of course that the OP is right and that retention of FB advertisers is null (which I'd love to see data about).
- rhl 17y agoI guess I can see too how using the 'Ponzi scheme' word is not warranted, as it makes it sound illegal.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nailer 17y ago> Except the author doesn't say "like a ponzi scheme" it's unsustainable -- they say it is a ponzi scheme Not the author, but I've addressed that elsewhere. Anyone who has used Facebook knows that Facebook doesn't solicit money from it's users or return money to it's user. This is hence clearly an analogy, no more than if I said Facebook was crap, a black hole, a dinosaur, or anything else. > facebook doesn't need each successive generation of advertisers to be bigger than the previous which is what causes ponzi schemes to implode. I believe the article is saying that Facebook needs each successive generation of users to be bigger than the previous, which is indeed what causes ponzi schemes to implode.