3 ms·

I disagree. It may be too late for Myspace to be Facebook, but any business with an audience, no matter what size, has potential. Many struggling businesses wou

I disagree. It may be too late for Myspace to be Facebook, but any business with an audience, no matter what size, has potential. Many struggling businesses would kill to have a fraction of Myspace's brand awareness; to make a left turn and have someone care. Instead of losing hair wondering why people are leaving in droves, they should reverse their attitude and kick people out. They should go very narrow, maybe create a premium service priced to almost insult people, and and play up the privacy angle. Or, be what Facebook was and probably should have stayed; an easy to use student-only network.

fredoliveira 16y ago
It depends on your audience. I agree with your point that they should reinvent themselves (I explicitly say those words in the article), but I don't agree that any business with an audience has potential. Lets put it this way, actually using your example: If they do reinvent themselves as a student-only network, they effectively have no audience, because as you know, those folks are on Facebook. If they create a premium service and play the privacy angle, they'll be trashing 99% of their functionality today, and also alienating their audience. Things are definitely not that easy as "having audience" -> "being successful". Not in this case anyway.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dasil003 16y ago
Potential for what though? MySpace was purchased for $580mil, expectations were high. Who wants to turn MySpace into a little $10mil niche product? Certainly not Murdoch. And anyone with that ambition probably would rather start from scratch that associate themselves with a failed brand. It's all psychological.
- dooshydoo 16y ago
  Well put. I wasn't taking the half billion in acquisition cost into consideration. However, I think with their still-huge current audience, a couple of cool-by-association acquisitions(pandora,indeed) and celebrity spokespeople, it stands in a very good place. As a competitor to Facebook, they're sinking. But if social networking in this capacity turns, taking their medicine now for poor-sighted assumptions could make a so-so company poised to look smart in hindsight, should they right the ship. I agree, there are major disadvantages to having this kind of link to old industry money too(being slow, hackneyed CEO culture, etc.) But, Murdoch is wily and buys talent. I wouldn't bet against them; if for nothing else, their vehement protection of pride.
  - whopa 16y ago
    > Murdoch is wily and buys talent. Eh, Myspace was an eyeballs acquisition, not a talent acquisition. Myspace's lack of a proper engineering culture contributed to its fall from grace; Facebook's faster load times, quicker feature additions, and app platform play all stem from a better engineering culture, and helped it overtake Myspace. That's actually one of Myspace's biggest problems: they have a history of shoddy engineering and architecture, so they can't attract top talent.

fredoliveira 16y ago

It depends on your audience. I agree with your point that they should reinvent themselves (I explicitly say those words in the article), but I don't agree that any business with an audience has potential. Lets put it this way, actually using your example: If they do reinvent themselves as a student-only network, they effectively have no audience, because as you know, those folks are on Facebook. If they create a premium service and play the privacy angle, they'll be trashing 99% of their functionality today, and also alienating their audience. Things are definitely not that easy as "having audience" -> "being successful". Not in this case anyway.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dasil003 16y ago

Potential for what though? MySpace was purchased for $580mil, expectations were high. Who wants to turn MySpace into a little $10mil niche product? Certainly not Murdoch. And anyone with that ambition probably would rather start from scratch that associate themselves with a failed brand. It's all psychological.

dooshydoo 16y ago
Well put. I wasn't taking the half billion in acquisition cost into consideration. However, I think with their still-huge current audience, a couple of cool-by-association acquisitions(pandora,indeed) and celebrity spokespeople, it stands in a very good place. As a competitor to Facebook, they're sinking. But if social networking in this capacity turns, taking their medicine now for poor-sighted assumptions could make a so-so company poised to look smart in hindsight, should they right the ship. I agree, there are major disadvantages to having this kind of link to old industry money too(being slow, hackneyed CEO culture, etc.) But, Murdoch is wily and buys talent. I wouldn't bet against them; if for nothing else, their vehement protection of pride.
- whopa 16y ago
  > Murdoch is wily and buys talent. Eh, Myspace was an eyeballs acquisition, not a talent acquisition. Myspace's lack of a proper engineering culture contributed to its fall from grace; Facebook's faster load times, quicker feature additions, and app platform play all stem from a better engineering culture, and helped it overtake Myspace. That's actually one of Myspace's biggest problems: they have a history of shoddy engineering and architecture, so they can't attract top talent.