12 ms·
Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda). Display
by cletus 14y ago
Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda).
Display advertising works best when you have sufficient, quality inventory (publishers whose sites serve ads) such that you attract advertisers in sufficient quantity and quality. Targeting in display ads works because from the publishers, the intermediary has information to figure out what your interests are and so on. A common misconception from fearmongers is that your data is being sold. It is not. Advertisers are paying to have their creative put in front of a particular audience.
The most important strategic move Facebook made in the last few years (IMHO) is the Like button. Whether or not you "Like" things is irrelevant. The main purpose of that "Like" button is (IMHO) as a tracking cookie. Visit any Like-enabled site and you see a small piece of content from Facebook that tells Facebook all the sites you visit. It's a tracking cookie like any other and personally I have no problem with that. Just make no mistake why the Like button exists.
Facebook also has a wealth of information in terms of who your friends are, what your interests are, your relationship status and so on. It's this alleged treasure trove that people point to as the real value of Facebook (combined with the network effect).
I disagree. I think that information is largely useless for a number of reasons:
1. Because of social games and the like who your friends are on Facebook loses a lot of meaning. In the very least Facebook has to filter that information and determine who your real friends are (which it probably does anyway for News Feed filtering and so on);
2. Where people go and what people do is far more accurate than what people will tell you about themselves. As House says--or used to say--"people lie". When you ask someone their interests or opinions it will pass through various filters of what that person thinks you want to hear, what they want the world to believe, what they themselves wish they were and so on. It's a distortion.
It's a bit like dating or job hunting. You look at any online profile or CV and you'll see lies, distortions, omissions and so on. As Chris Rock said, for the first 6 months you're not dating them, you're dating their representative.
Facebook has no search engine. Whatever you say about the size of display ads, search advertising is still far bigger. With search you have intent. People want to find things by their actions. On Facebook ads are an annoyance.
It's the difference between wandering the streets shouting "does anybody want ice cream?" versus putting an ad in front of a bunch of people who have already told you that they're looking for ice cream.
Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft. Mobile (IMHO) poses an existential risk to Facebook, which in part explains the exorbitant price tag paid for Instagram (it has nothing to do with any alleged "bubble"). Much of the engagement on Facebook is because of games. Those games are increasingly going mobile. This is bad for Facebook.
At $100B IPO valuation that put Facebook being worth half of Google with 5-8% of the revenue and significant strategic risks. Of course it was overvalued. It's still valuable but it will take some time to figure out exactly how much it's worth.
- polemic 14y agoAgree with just about all of that. > "Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft." A majority of non-techy types I know bought smart phones because they "do facebook". There is a deeply symbiotic relationship there, and woe is the mobile maker that couldn't provide a Facebook app.
- ssx 14y agoI bet you those same non-techy types would by MySpace phones.
- sgift 14y agoSure, but did you notice how they use Facebook? I've watched (and asked) several of my non-techy friends and there reaction was always the same: "Yeah, I just update my feed, look for updates of my friends and that's it." I don't see how Facebook wants to make money of such an usage pattern, so at the moment it doesn't help them very much that people have smart phones to "do facebook".
- sipefree 14y agoIf people have access to Facebook 24/7, in their pockets, they are more likely to become dependent on it in their daily lives. The mobile app fuels the addiction which keeps people logged in and coming back every day on their browser.
- lmm 14y agoQuite the opposite, in my experience. I can read my feed on my 'phone, with a better UI than the website (turns out native app beats webapp, even when it's tiny screen vs. desktop), so why would I ever bother going to the website?
- pmjordan 14y agoMost of my FB friends seem to use the mobile app mainly for uploading photos, if my feed is to be believed. From that POV the Instagram acquisition makes sense. How they're going to make money from it I'm not sure, but location-based ads and third-party apps come to mind. Though I still have a hard time imagining the developer appeal for their hypothetical but inevitable mobile app platform.