6 ms·

Is underdog LinkedIn poised to beat flashy Facebook?

25 points by prakash 18y ago

compay 18y ago
That's like saying organic brown rice is going to replace sugar.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
pg 18y ago
Is underdog Yahoo poised to beat flashy Google?
- mdasen 18y ago
  It's true that it's unlikely, but LinkedIn has been able to do something that Facebook hasn't - monetize. Search had been around for a long time, but Google is who made it really profitable. So, there is a chance that this is more like Google and Yahoo circa 2000 where it was underdog Google and flashy Yahoo. Granted, being able to monetize doesn't matter to your users, but if you keep running through your VC, you eventually can't keep up development at the same pace.
  - pg 18y ago
    Facebook makes money. They seem to have roughly the attitude that Google did around 2000. I.e. they're making some money, could make more if that was their main focus, but their main focus in the short term is to evolve the site. Not to say that FB is going to be as big as Google. Outliers on that scale may only appear every couple decades. But they have a similar hackerly vibe.
    - prakash 18y ago
      But they have a similar hackerly vibe. Couldn't the same apply to Linkedin? In a way all the attention is on facebook, linkedin is getting as much attention as google did in 2000.
  - rodmaz 18y ago
    Let's do an interesting exercise. Facebook has 100 million users. Let's suppose 10% of that user base would be willing to pay a $1.99 to have a premium account (like unlimited number of photo albuns, customizable look&feel etc). That would mean almost $20m dollars monthly revenue, much much larger than their burn-rate. College students don't pay for SMS? Why some of them wouldn't then pay this small amount to Facebook? Sure, this is a very rough estimation based on old subscription-based business model. A product in a free market operates much differently than if you charge US$ $.01. But it only shows that Facebook has many ways to become successfully profitable. They are only being cautious.
    - aston 18y ago
      10% conversion rate would be astronomical for a site like Facebook.
      - netcan 18y ago
        These calculations are sorta dangerous. Online Newspaper X has over 20m online readers. Most of them have at some point subscribed to print publications @ $200+ per year. If it was a membership site at just $2 per month, wouldn't they be able to keep some readers? 10%? 5%?. You're not telling me someone making $80k per year would replace the newspaper she reads every day to to save a few cents a read? Wouldn't people pay to use google? What if it was just $0.50 a month? or $0.01 per search? The concept that if people use a site, it's worth money, has not proved itself.
    - brm 18y ago
      it would be far easier to get 1% to pay $10 than 10% to pay $1
      - rodmaz 18y ago
        Yes, I agree! We can debate the conversion rates. My whole point is that simply asking whether Facebook will be ever profitable is a simplistic question. They can become profitable already. The question is that there are probably much better ways to monetize their site and typical audience than requiring subscription. Like PG mentioned, when Google came along, the best way to monetize search engines was to become a "media" portal and pollute browsers with ads and pop-ups.
angstrom 18y ago
I signed up for both in 2005. I haven't used FB since. I still use LinkedIn. FB is a liability to your career, LinkedIn is not. LinkedIn captures the social network that matters to business. FB captures the social network that matters to pyramid schemes.
- indigoviolet 18y ago
  IMO, the majority of people in the world are interested more in their "social" social network than in their "business" social network.
  - angstrom 18y ago
    Agreed, but you're less likely to find falsified information on a LinkedIn page. The people on LinkedIn in are more likely to be real. That has considerably more tangible value IMO.
    - blurry 18y ago
      If you mean name, gender and location, then yes, those are less likely to be falsified. Everything else - everything that actually matters such as job titles, job descriptions, recommendations - is just as unreliable. I personally know many people who lie on their profiles. One of my former startup partners lists herself as a CEO, except we were never structured that way, and she was never the top in command. People inflate their resumes all the time - if they have a one-man consulting company, they are the Lead Architect, if they received options as part of their incentives package, they are a Founder, etc. Just look at all the recommendations. Literally everyone is Bill Gates and Mother Theresa rolled into one. I have yet to see a recommendation that simply says, hey - this guy is a competent programmer. Everyone is "world-class", "exceptionally talented", etc. In contrast, none of my friends falsify personal information on Facebook. The incentive simply isn't there.
  - tomsaffell 18y ago
    This is true, FB's volume potential is higher than LI. But it is also true that those people who are interested in their "business social network" are accustomed to paying for services that create business value, sometimes paying handsomely. Those people interested in their social network are less accustomed to paying for "social services", and may be less able to put a value on the service (telecommunication services excepted).
crosscompile 18y ago
Not when your occupation is to get laid, unless I've been using linkedin wrong.
Mistone 18y ago
LI has always been a mystery to me. I find little reason to be there often, its a place I turn in need, or to do a little catch up but is so rare. fb is a daily stop, while frivolous entertainment, i find it fun and therefore valuable. the two a clearly different - linkedin is networking/contacts tool, fb is a social network.

25 points by prakash 18y ago

compay 18y ago

That's like saying organic brown rice is going to replace sugar.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

pg 18y ago

Is underdog Yahoo poised to beat flashy Google?

mdasen 18y ago
It's true that it's unlikely, but LinkedIn has been able to do something that Facebook hasn't - monetize. Search had been around for a long time, but Google is who made it really profitable. So, there is a chance that this is more like Google and Yahoo circa 2000 where it was underdog Google and flashy Yahoo. Granted, being able to monetize doesn't matter to your users, but if you keep running through your VC, you eventually can't keep up development at the same pace.
- pg 18y ago
  Facebook makes money. They seem to have roughly the attitude that Google did around 2000. I.e. they're making some money, could make more if that was their main focus, but their main focus in the short term is to evolve the site. Not to say that FB is going to be as big as Google. Outliers on that scale may only appear every couple decades. But they have a similar hackerly vibe.
  - prakash 18y ago
    But they have a similar hackerly vibe. Couldn't the same apply to Linkedin? In a way all the attention is on facebook, linkedin is getting as much attention as google did in 2000.
- rodmaz 18y ago
  Let's do an interesting exercise. Facebook has 100 million users. Let's suppose 10% of that user base would be willing to pay a $1.99 to have a premium account (like unlimited number of photo albuns, customizable look&feel etc). That would mean almost $20m dollars monthly revenue, much much larger than their burn-rate. College students don't pay for SMS? Why some of them wouldn't then pay this small amount to Facebook? Sure, this is a very rough estimation based on old subscription-based business model. A product in a free market operates much differently than if you charge US$ $.01. But it only shows that Facebook has many ways to become successfully profitable. They are only being cautious.
  - aston 18y ago
    10% conversion rate would be astronomical for a site like Facebook.
    - netcan 18y ago
      These calculations are sorta dangerous. Online Newspaper X has over 20m online readers. Most of them have at some point subscribed to print publications @ $200+ per year. If it was a membership site at just $2 per month, wouldn't they be able to keep some readers? 10%? 5%?. You're not telling me someone making $80k per year would replace the newspaper she reads every day to to save a few cents a read? Wouldn't people pay to use google? What if it was just $0.50 a month? or $0.01 per search? The concept that if people use a site, it's worth money, has not proved itself.
  - brm 18y ago
    it would be far easier to get 1% to pay $10 than 10% to pay $1
    - rodmaz 18y ago
      Yes, I agree! We can debate the conversion rates. My whole point is that simply asking whether Facebook will be ever profitable is a simplistic question. They can become profitable already. The question is that there are probably much better ways to monetize their site and typical audience than requiring subscription. Like PG mentioned, when Google came along, the best way to monetize search engines was to become a "media" portal and pollute browsers with ads and pop-ups.

angstrom 18y ago

I signed up for both in 2005. I haven't used FB since. I still use LinkedIn. FB is a liability to your career, LinkedIn is not. LinkedIn captures the social network that matters to business. FB captures the social network that matters to pyramid schemes.

indigoviolet 18y ago
IMO, the majority of people in the world are interested more in their "social" social network than in their "business" social network.
- angstrom 18y ago
  Agreed, but you're less likely to find falsified information on a LinkedIn page. The people on LinkedIn in are more likely to be real. That has considerably more tangible value IMO.
  - blurry 18y ago
    If you mean name, gender and location, then yes, those are less likely to be falsified. Everything else - everything that actually matters such as job titles, job descriptions, recommendations - is just as unreliable. I personally know many people who lie on their profiles. One of my former startup partners lists herself as a CEO, except we were never structured that way, and she was never the top in command. People inflate their resumes all the time - if they have a one-man consulting company, they are the Lead Architect, if they received options as part of their incentives package, they are a Founder, etc. Just look at all the recommendations. Literally everyone is Bill Gates and Mother Theresa rolled into one. I have yet to see a recommendation that simply says, hey - this guy is a competent programmer. Everyone is "world-class", "exceptionally talented", etc. In contrast, none of my friends falsify personal information on Facebook. The incentive simply isn't there.
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  This is true, FB's volume potential is higher than LI. But it is also true that those people who are interested in their "business social network" are accustomed to paying for services that create business value, sometimes paying handsomely. Those people interested in their social network are less accustomed to paying for "social services", and may be less able to put a value on the service (telecommunication services excepted).

crosscompile 18y ago

Not when your occupation is to get laid, unless I've been using linkedin wrong.

Mistone 18y ago

LI has always been a mystery to me. I find little reason to be there often, its a place I turn in need, or to do a little catch up but is so rare. fb is a daily stop, while frivolous entertainment, i find it fun and therefore valuable. the two a clearly different - linkedin is networking/contacts tool, fb is a social network.