4 ms·

It seems there are two different "Facebooks" - one for people, a real "scoial' network, the other for commercial entities and their customers. And this unacknow

• ryangilbert 14y ago
  The reason it works for companies right now too is because everyone and their mom already on Facebook. I doubt a new "companies only" Facebook would really do well.
  • stevewillows 14y ago
    It would essentially be a 'like' button on Superpages.com -- and like you said, it wouldn't catch on. Communication would be glorified, targeted mailing lists.
• jonursenbach 14y ago
  "There might be a huge opening here for a "companies only" facebook clone, where you can only get updates from your favorite brands and service providers, not socialize with friends." Isn't this just Twitter?
  • josefresco 14y ago
    No it's called LinkedIn. And while valuable in it's own right has no where near the engagement numbers of Facebook.
    • hoka 14y ago
      I don't think LinkedIn is good for this at all. I see things like earnings press releases on LinkedIn, or "XYZ, Inc. invents new 2nm transistor that won't be around for 300 years." on LinkedIn. LinkedIn presents itself as a social network for professionals, and I think they cover that quite well. Twitter doesn't quite fit nsns's description as a 'Companies Only' social network, as much of it is social. I don't necessarily know that anyone would willingly sign up for a companies only social network, despite what companies may dream and pray for :-)
    • wamatt 14y ago
      On the surface it may seem similar, but are actually quite different: LinkedIn is mostly about connecting professionals to each other and companies Facebook (in a business context), is mostly about connecting brands with consumers. Consumers are not professionals, although the underlying people that participate in those roles may largely overlap (if you think about it as a Venn diagram)
• jopt 14y ago
  And a separate subway, with just the billboards and no travelers!
• imjk 14y ago
  I don't understand. You can only have a Facebook for brands platform if the audience is there first(ie the social network). Who are the brands going to promote to without the social network there to consume and spread the brand's content. The audience is an integral part of it. That's how it was for Facebook, Twitter, and even MySpace.
  • TeMPOraL 14y ago
    The difference lies in that companies think that Facebook users are an audience which is there to listen to them (aka. eyeballs), whereas a normal user is on Facebook to interact with their friends, to share photos and funny stories, organize parties and share their thoughts. With friends, not with companies. But brands, in their pursuit to monetize the "audience" somehow forget that it's not them the users are here for. And so they ruin the experience for everyone.
    • NoPiece 14y ago
      I don't think most people want to limit their interactions to their close social circle. The Dallas Mavericks have 2+ million likes - I'd guess a majority of those fans would want every single update they make in their feed, and would value those updates much more than the photo of an ex-coworker's baby making a mess. Do they want Walmart updates? Probably not, but I think the Twitter model for the feed works better for users than the Facebook model (unsubscribe to things that clutter your feed).
    • nsns 14y ago
      It should be acknowledged however that today for most people some commercial entities are "friends". If a small publisher I like publishes new books, my favorite sport team has some important news, etc., I'd like to know about it, and Facebook slowly became the best facilitator of such "friendships". I think it is somewhat different from normal advertising, and was slowly transforming the perceptions of the commercial entities themselves. But now, FB has strated breaking that model, differntiating between human friends and the other (paying) kind.
• AJ007 14y ago
  What would be more likely is a "people only" Facebook clone. The more a particular company or service (or musician for that matter) deviates from the original product that attracted its user base in the first place, the greater its susceptibility to clones becomes. I think all people want is simple and private social networking among their friends. Facebook no longer offers this. Google+ certainly never did. There is a strong case that Myspace fell because at the time, Facebook offered more simplicity and more privacy. Myspace was being deluged by spam during the summer of 2008 and that marked the beginning of the end for them ( http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=facebook%2C%20myspace&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=facebook%2C%20myspace... ) Facebook is becoming equally noisy, except they are getting paid for the "spam." As Facebook continues to aggressively attempt to increase its monetization, both on desktop and mobile, I think its going to get worse. There is clearly an opening for a competitor coming along. I'd like to think of them as the Dropbox of social networking.