Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Twitter Explosion

Twitter ExplosionDo you use Twitter? In a span of one week, we saw several events unfold in the Twitterverse. These were some of them. Read them through and let me know what you think.

The Celebrity Connection
Ashton Kutcher beats CNN on a race to 1 million Twitter followers. And Oprah joins the Twitter bandwagon.

vs The Corporation
Twitter was used to spread the word against businesses who have done something unacceptable, offensive, or scandalous.

Ever Increasing Exposure
As more people join social media types like Twitter, it gets more powerful. How Twitter will use this power to forward their own interests, it's still not clear right now.

The Twitter Bubble?
Twitter might be getting too big for its own good. And People who started using it because of its exclusivity will be turned off eventually because "everybody is already in Twitter" (as of this time, I am not a user of Twitter).

Twitter-Quitter
As I already wrote about Twitter before. I also wrote how Somebody Hates Facebook. Now somebody hates Twitter.

I personally believe in the exponential power of any network. But for me, I am just gonna it this one out. I've got my hands full with other things right now... who am I kidding? I just don't want to join - no need to make excuses. How about you?

References:
Twitip.com
- Twipocalypse Now: Warnings of a Twitter Bubble

LATimes.com
- Ignore Twitter? Major brands learn they'd better respond -- and quick

Blog.Zap2it.com
- Twitter: Ashton Kutcher passes CNN, Oprah tweets

Blogs.ZDNet.com
- Twitter's Oprah-tunity: Time to get down to busines
- Can Twitter’s backbone handle sudden jump in popularity?
- Twitter’s celebrity appeal: Growth model or downward spiral?
- Twitter and news media: A long-term relationship or just a fling?

News.Cnet.com
- I'm officially dropping out of the Twitter gab fest

Read the rest of this entry

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Facebook Twitterized

Facebook is copying from the Twitter playbook. It has undergone several new changes to its website to make it more appealing and functional. Facebook is maybe trying to copy from the success of Twitter. I am not sure if any of these moves really change the bottomline - Facebook is not making money.

Check out these articles for more in-depth reading:
Facebook’s Response To Twitter

Facebook vs. Twitter: How will you stream your world?

Read the rest of this entry

Monday, February 23, 2009

Somebody Hates Facebook - Yikes!

So with me blogging in my previous post about how Facebook Revolution will rock the world, it seems fair to blog about the other end of the spectrum. I have nothing against the people who are in Facebook (my wife is so hooked on it). But for me, just like what I did with the rest of the social media hypes that came before Facebook, I plan to sit this one out. So it's just not true that everybody is on Facebook now (as of this time, I am still not a user of Facebook).

Why I hate Facebook

The social networking wunderkind may be cool. But enough already! How's it ever going to make money...especially in a recession?

By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- I need to take a break from all the gloom in the markets and economy for an Andy Rooney-esque rant. Indulge me.

I don't know about you. But I'm sick of all the Facebook hype.

For the record, I am not on Facebook, and the recent fuss about privacy doesn't affect me -- I'm not a disgruntled user with an axe to grind.

What I don't get is how Facebook has become such a phenomenon. Our sister publication Fortune even recently published a story about the company called "How Facebook is taking over our lives." It's a great story...even though Facebook hasn't taken over my life.

Don't get me wrong. I realize some people swear by Facebook. I understand its addictive charms. My wife is a recent convert and she loves it.

Also, I am by no means a Luddite. I break out into cold sweats if I haven't checked my BlackBerry for more than 10 minutes. I believe that the invention of the DVR is proof that some supreme deity exists. And I even sometimes use my BlackBerry to program my DVR.

But I honestly don't have the time to commit to Facebook. My job, especially since the implosion of Lehman Brothers in September, keeps me insanely busy. And after sitting at a computer typing all day, the last thing I want to do when I get home is sit in front of another computer so I can upload photos to my Wall and read 25 random things about a high school classmate I haven't spoken to in 18 years.

I also don't feel the need to constantly update an entire network of friends about the daily minutiae of my life. My brother recently harassed me over the phone about why I wasn't on Facebook. My response was, "You want my status update? I'm about to hang up on you."

I may be in the minority. The Facebook universe is now 175 million users strong. But how is this company ever going to generate meaningful revenue and post profits from this massive user base?

Popularity's nice, but profits are cooler
In the Fortune story, there is a chart showing how quickly Facebook got to 150 million users compared to other technologies such as the iPod, cellphone and television.

While it's impressive that it took Facebook only 5 years compared with 7 years for Apple to "sell" 150 million iPods, who has the better business model?

Facebook merely signed up people to use their service...for free. Apple sold a product...and a pretty pricey one at that. What's more, Apple makes money when people buy music from iTunes for their iPod.

Facebook board member and Netscape founder Marc Andreessen said on an appearance on PBS' "Charlie Rose" show this week that if it wanted to, Facebook could start monetizing its user base immediately by selling more ads.

But how much money would it really make? The site already has some advertising. But are they effective? I argue that Facebook or any social network can never truly be a major generator of ad revenue. Users of Facebook like the site because it allows them to easily connect and communicate with friends. It's the 21st century version of Ma Bell.

By that very token, how happy would you be if you had to listen to an ad when you picked up the phone before you were able to get a dial tone? Even if users tolerate ads on Facebook, I'm not sure they'd actually click on them.

Why Facebook isn't Google
Facebook is a completely different animal than the other Web wunderkind it is often compared to: Google. The beauty of Google is that, despite all its efforts to diversify, it really is all about searching for information. If I go to Google to find the best airline fares to Buenos Aires, a sponsored search result may actually be helpful as opposed to being obtrusive.

If I go to Facebook to try and top my friends' best score in Scramble, I'm there to freaking play Scramble. Even a "contextually relevant" ad for Boggle is going to irritate me. Yeah, Facebook may be "stickier" than Google. But I'm not hanging around waiting for an ad.

I'm also skeptical about Facebook's plan, unveiled earlier this month, to offer user information to companies so they can target specific users for online polls. For one, it sounds like another privacy backlash waiting to happen...similar to the Beacon service Facebook launched in 2007.

With Beacon, Facebook partnered with online retailers that would track a users' credit card use. So if you bought something online, friends in your network could see that. Problem was that when Facebook set it up, all users were automatically enrolled in Beacon. Not a smart move. After an unsurprising uproar, Facebook changed it so users had to opt-in.

Also, don't most people hate consumer research polls? When is the last time you decided it was a good idea to waste 15 minutes of your life happily chatting with a telemarketer?

To me, Facebook seems to be growing for growth's sake without a plan for making money. And that's really risky in a recession as bad as this one. Not only is Facebook faced with the prospect of ad spending declining this year; it also has to likely deal with the rising costs to manage the increased amount of data as it signs on more and more users.

So while I applaud Facebook for its ability to attract a loyal base of users, I just don't get how it will ever be a financial success.

The Fortune story closed by saying that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want to sell to Microsoft because he wants to build the next Microsoft. But Bill Gates didn't become one of the wealthiest men on the planet by giving away operating systems for free now did he?

First Published: February 20, 2009: 12:20 PM ET

Article Source: CNN.com

Read the rest of this entry

The Facebook Revolution

Facebook CEO Mark ZuckerbergFacebook is gonna rock the world! When previous skeptics get converted, you know you've got something special (insert sarcasm here). Read through this rather lengthy article about how Facebook has changed people's lives. This is not the first article talking about the Facebook Revolution, and I'm sure this won't be the last one too (as of this time, I am still not a user of Facebook).

How Facebook is taking over our lives
President Obama used it to get elected. Dell will recruit new hires with it. Microsoft's new operating system borrows from it. No question, Facebook has friends in high places. Can CEO Mark Zuckerberg make those connections pay off?
By Jessi Hempel, writer

(Fortune Magazine) -- Facebook held no appeal for Peter Lichtenstein. The New Paltz, N.Y., resident had checked out so-called social networking sites before, and he wasn't impressed. ("MySpace," he recalls, "was ridiculous.")

A chiropractor and acupuncturist, Lichtenstein was already a member of a few professional web-based user groups. The last thing he needed was another message box to check. Then a buddy posted a link to photos from a trip to Thailand and India on his Facebook page and flatly refused to distribute them any other way. The friend's assumption: Duh - everyone's on Facebook.

And so Lichtenstein, 57, recently became an official member of the Facebook army, 175 million strong and, Facebook says, growing at the astounding rate of about five million new users a week, making it a rare bright spot in a dismal economy. If Facebook were a country, it would have a population nearly as large as Brazil's. It even edges out the U.S. television audience for Super Bowl XLIII, which drew a record-setting 152 million eyeballs.

But these days the folks fervently updating their Facebook pages aren't just tech-savvy kids: The college and post-college crowd the site originally aimed to serve (18- to 24-year-olds) now makes up less than a quarter of users. The newest members - the ones behind Facebook's accelerating growth rate - are more, ahem, mature types like Lichtenstein, who never thought they'd have the time or inclination to overshare on the web. It's just that Facebook has finally started to make their busy lives a little more productive - and a lot more fun.

Try logging in to quickly check a message, and you may find yourself scrolling through new baby photos from that guy who used to sit next to you in Mr. Peterson's English class. How did such a goofball end up with such a cute baby? And how'd he find you here anyhow? Soon you're checking the friends you have in common. This addictive quality keeps Facebook's typical user on the site for an average of 169 minutes a month, according to ComScore. Compare that with Google News, where the average reader spends 13 minutes a month checking up on the world, or the New York Times website, which holds on to readers for a mere ten minutes a month.

The "stickiness" of the site is a key part of 24-year-old CEO Mark Zuckerberg's original plan to build an online version of the relationships we have in real life. Offline we bump into friends and end up talking for hours. We flip through old photos with our family. We join clubs. Facebook lets us do all that in digital form. Yet we also present different faces to the different people in our lives: An "anything goes" page we share with pals might not be appropriate for office mates - or for the moms and grandmas who increasingly are joining the site. Basic privacy controls today allow users to share varying degrees of information with friends, but when I recently met with Zuckerberg in Palo Alto, he waxed philosophical about eventually giving a user the ability to have a different Facebook personality for each Facebook friendship, a sort of online version of the line from Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself": "I contain multitudes."

His ultimate goal is less poetic - and perhaps more ambitious: to turn Facebook into the planet's standardized communication (and marketing) platform, as ubiquitous and intuitive as the telephone but far more interactive, multidimensional - and indispensable. Your Facebook ID quite simply will be your gateway to the digital world, Zuckerberg predicts. "We think that if you can build one worldwide platform where you can just type in anyone's name, find the person you're looking for, and communicate with them," he told a German audience in January, "that's a really valuable system to be building."

Just how valuable is subject to great debate. Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) in 2007 invested $240 million for a 1.6% stake in the company, giving Facebook a valuation of about $15 billion. But according to a June 23, 2008, court proceeding, the company values itself at $3.7 billion. (With a 20% to 30% stake, Zuckerberg quite possibly is the world's youngest self-made billionaire, on paper at least.) A big part of the challenge in assigning a valuation to Facebook is that its financial results don't come anywhere near to matching its runaway success signing up members: The site pulled in estimated revenues of just $280 million last year, and sources close to the company say it didn't break even.

Indeed, sometimes it seems as if everyone but Facebook is capitalizing on the platform. The Democratic Party in Maine is using it to organize regular meetings. Accounting firm Ernst & Young relies on the site to recruit new hires, and Dell (DELL, Fortune 500) will soon do the same. Microsoft's new operating system has a slew of features lifted straight from Facebook's playbook.

Zuckerberg knows this is a make-or-break moment for the company he founded five years ago in his linoleum-floored Harvard dorm room. He must figure out how to continue to add new members and make Facebook vital to its mass audience without alienating the kids and early adopters who helped popularize the site. (Growth has leveled off at MySpace, the original mega--social networking site with 130 million members, and it may wind up as a playground for music lovers.)

He'll have to fend off search giant Google, which has its own grand plan to profit from social networks. And he has to live up to his change-the-world bravado: The Net is riddled with examples of companies and services that promised to be the next great communications platform - AOL (owned by Fortune's parent) and Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500), to name two - but failed to do so.

To help Facebook figure out how to profit from its scale and popularity, Zuckerberg has brought in a chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, who built Google's money-minting AdWords program. YouTube's former chief financial officer, Gideon Yu, runs the finance operation. And the board is packed with old-school cred (Washington Post publisher Don Graham and venture capitalist Jim Breyer) and tech smarts (PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Netscape founder Marc Andreessen). Zuckerberg, who favors jeans and T-shirts, has taken to wearing ties beneath his black North Face jacket because, as he tells his colleagues, "2009 is a serious year."

And not just for Facebook. Few ultra-young tech company founders manage to hold on to the CEO reins as long as Zuckerberg has. They either go on to become the stuff of legend (Bill Gates) or flame out fabulously. There are certainly those who wonder whether the wunderkind is in over his head, punting on profitability when every other company in Silicon Valley is under enormous pressure to make money. And what's a stiff, reticent guy who'd rather be writing code doing in the CEO's job in the first place? Sure, Zuckerberg's done pretty well so far, creating a site that has won a rabid following among mainstream web users. But a lot of those people were once passionate about their AOL accounts too. Zuckerberg has our attention. What's he going to do with it?

A digital world
Mark Zuckerberg has always liked to build things. I first spoke with him in the summer of 2005 when he was still crashing on a friend's couch in Menlo Park, Calif.? He was on his cellphone, pacing back and forth in the backyard as he explained his parents' reaction to his project: "The thing I made before Facebook almost got me kicked out of school," he said, referring to Facemash, a site that let people rate photos. He went before the school's administrative board to answer questions about how he gathered data. "When I started making Facebook, [my parents] were, like, don't make another site." Then all his Harvard classmates - as well as students from the rest of the Ivy League - joined, and he spent the remainder of his college money on servers. So much for school.

Even in our initial interview, Zuckerberg was clear that he wasn't simply creating another online tool for college kids to check each other out. He called Facebook a "social utility" and explained that one day everyone would be able to use it to locate people on the web - a truly global digital phone book. And he also knew that if the site were easy to use, a combination of peer pressure and the so-called network effect would, like, totally kick in. Since that summer afternoon Zuckerberg has passed legal drinking age, found an apartment, accepted more than $400 million in venture capital, and attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, several times.

But Zuckerberg makes it clear to me that he's still intensely focused on connecting the entire world on Facebook - only now his vision goes well beyond the site as a digital phone book. It becomes the equivalent of the phone itself: It is the main tool people use to communicate for work and pleasure. It also becomes the central place where members organize parties, store pictures, find jobs, watch videos, and play games. Eventually they'll use their Facebook ID as an online passkey to gain access to websites and online forums that require personal identification. In other words, Facebook will be where people live their digital lives, without the creepy avatars.

To achieve that goal Zuckerberg has brought in plenty of seasoned veterans, like Google's Sandberg, but he's also surrounded himself with young enthusiasts who share his view that Facebook can change the way people live and work. Like the early employees at Google, most won't see 30 for a long time. Pass by a receptionist, a straw-haired woman with funky glasses, and you'll notice she's updating her Facebook profile. Stroll through the stretch of University Avenue in Palo Alto that houses the company's different offices (it is getting ready to consolidate operations in new digs in April) and you'll be able to differentiate the Facebook employees from the venture capitalists who toil in offices nearby: The Facebookers are the super-young brainiacs in ratty T-shirts and jeans.

At times it may seem hard to reconcile Zuckerberg's lofty aspirations for Facebook with the utterly commonplace content that users create on the site. Consider 25 Random Things, a new take on the chain letter that has grown so popular it was written up in the New York Times Style section. You list 25 supposedly random things about yourself and send the note on to 25 of your friends (who are supposed to do the same), but your randomness also ends up on display to any gawker who may be surfing your profile. The items range from the banal (No. 17: I never, ever, ever throw up. Like five times in my adult life) to the intimate (No. 2: I knew I was gay in the sixth grade but didn't tell anyone until I was 19). The feature is high profile - some 37,500 lists sprang up in just two weeks - but taken as a whole it just seems like a lot of user-generated babble.

Yet it is that very babble that makes Facebook so valuable to marketers. Imagine if an advertiser had the ability to eavesdrop on every phone conversation you've ever had. In a way, that's what all the wall posts, status updates, 25 Random Things, and picture tagging on Facebook amount to: a semipublic airing of stuff people are interested in doing, buying, and trying. Sure, you can send private messages using Facebook, and Zuckerberg eventually hopes to give you even more tools to tailor your profile so that the face you present to, say, your employer is very different from the way you look online to your college roommate. Just like in real life. But the running lists of online interactions on Facebook, known as "feeds," are what make Facebook different from other social networking sites - and they are precisely what make corporations salivate.

The stream
Every user on Facebook has two feeds. There's a personal feed, which you'll find on your profile page along with your photo and list of interests. Every time you log a status update, comment, or video post, that interaction is captured and stored for your review; those changes also become fodder for a second news feed that runs on your home page, the first page you see when you log on to the site.

That feed keeps tabs on all the interactions your friends are having (and alerts friends to updates you've made on your personal feed). If your brother RSVP'd to a dinner party, for example, you might be notified about it, even if you weren't invited to attend. And if you change your profile photo, it may let your brother know. Like Facebook itself, the feeds are subject to the network effect: The more data you share and interact with, the more robust your news feed becomes.

Zuckerberg calls the sum of those interactions the "stream," and it's his newest obsession. Unlike Google, which uses complex algorithms to serve up advertisements based on what you search for, Facebook lets you help "curate" your feeds. The information that pops up is partly a result of controls you establish in your privacy settings and feedback you provide to Facebook. But Facebook also can track your behavior, and if the site notices you're spending a lot of time on the fan page of a certain movie star, for example, it will send you more information about that celebrity.

Needless to say, marketers would love to tap into that information. "If there are 150 million people in a room, you should probably go to that room," says Narinder Singh, chief product officer for Appirio, which helps big companies like Dell and Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500) find ways to connect with users over the site. "It's too attractive a set of people and too large a community for businesses to ignore."

Yet because businesses haven't yet effectively infiltrated Facebook, its users may be under the mistaken impression that they aren't under surveillance. "What I like is that it doesn't bombard you with advertisements, so it feels really personal," says Heather Rowley, a 35-year-old photographer in Berkeley. It seems inevitable that some members will feel betrayed or uneasy when ads based on casual chats with friends start to appear on their feeds.

Facebook already has had one brush with member backlash in 2007 when it introduced a feature called Beacon, which allowed members to see what websites their friends visited, and even showed purchases on e-commerce sites. Users protested vehemently - one even filed a lawsuit on privacy grounds - and Facebook apologized.

Now the company is trying a slightly different approach. A feature called Facebook Connect lets users log on to company websites using their Facebook logins. The system, which dovetails with Zuckerberg's vision of a Facebook account as a form of personal ID on the web (privacy settings and all), appeals to advertisers for a couple of reasons. When a user logs on to a third-party site using Facebook Connect, that activity may be reported on her friends' news feeds, which serves as a de facto endorsement. The tool also makes it easy for members to invite their friends to check out the advertiser's site. Starbucks, for example, uses Facebook Connect on its Pledge5 site, which asks people to donate five hours of time to volunteer work. If you sign in using a Facebook account, a new screen, a hybrid of Facebook and the Pledge5 home page, pops up with information on how to find local volunteer opportunities. A tab on the page asks you to "help spread the word." Click on it and your entire address book of Facebook friends pops up, enabling you to evangelize Pledge5 with just a few keystrokes.

So far most of the organizations using Facebook Connect are social enterprises, like Pledge5, or news outlets, like CNN, soliciting members for discussion groups. Who knows how Facebook users will react when a brokerage asks a member to spread the word about its services. Of course, members can ignore the exhortations to invite friends, the same way they might decline to forward their 25 Random Things.

He also insists that marketing on Facebook isn't obtrusive, and that users can control what kind of advertising they see: Each ad contains a small thumbs-up or thumbs-down button. If a user finds an ad irrelevant, repetitive, or offensive, she clicks thumbs-down, and Facebook records her dissatisfaction. Eventually the inappropriate ads will go away. And when ads are useful, many online users do click on them. Rowley, the California photographer who values Facebook's intimacy, says she recently clicked on a Virgin America ad for tickets to the East Coast when it popped up on her news feed. "I was going there, so it made sense," she says.

Still, the company couldn't have picked a worse time to start wooing marketers in earnest. Online advertising growth is expected to decelerate in 2009 from 17.5% last year to just 8.9%. And historically most of those ad dollars have flowed to portals and other online destinations, not experimental sites and social networks like Facebook. When Sheryl Sandberg arrived at Facebook, a substantial chunk of the company's revenues were still coming from a 2006 deal with Microsoft in which the software behemoth sold traditional banner ads on Facebook pages and the parties split the revenue. But attempts to sell traditional online ads on Facebook and other social-networking sites have failed miserably: Banner ads can sell for as little as 15 cents per 1,000 clicks (compared with, say, $8 per 1,000 clicks for an ad on a targeted news portal such as Yahoo Auto) because marketers know that members ignore them.

Sandberg acknowledges that Facebook has much more work to do to secure advertisers. "What we have to figure out is, How do we build a monetization machine which is in keeping with what users are doing on the site?" she says. "It's about execution, doing things faster and better, getting more users and more advertisers."

Facebook's march to 200 million users began in earnest in January 2008. That's when the site made translation tools available to international users. Today more than 70% of Facebook users are outside the U.S., and most of them read it in their native language. But anecdotal evidence suggests that American baby-boomers have discovered Facebook in a big way: Some, like Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, use the site to keep an eye on their kids' online activities. Others are using it as a networking tool in a bad economy.

The fastest-growing demographic on the site? Women 55 and older, up 175% since September 2008. Cynics might say that if Granny is on Facebook, the site absolutely has jumped the shark. Quite the contrary: Having a broad swath of users is exactly what Zuckerberg wants. The arrival of an older, less web-centric crowd suggests that he has succeeded in making the site easy to use. And Facebook can't become a standardized platform if only cool kids use it. Besides, there doesn't currently seem to be another hot social-networking site that is drawing young users away from Facebook in large numbers.

But the Facebook juggernaut still could very easily go awry: Remember AOL's Instant Messenger? Teenagers lived on it and companies started using it in lieu of e-mail. But AOL never figured out a way to make money on it.

Facebook could meet a similar fate; indeed, it is a little worrisome that neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg seems to feel any particular urgency about putting Facebook in the black. Zuckerberg prefers to leave the question of revenues to Sandberg, who punts: "I think what's really important is that we are able to fund our expansion, and we're very focused on that," she told me in mid-February. Investors seem pretty passive about it as well. Early board member Jim Breyer, who put in $1 million of his own money and $12.7 million from an Accel Partners fund, says that profits are "a secondary consideration in this stage of the growth." He wants to get a return on his investment, but he's not pushing anything now.

And then there's Microsoft, which is in the unusual position of being a Facebook owner, a partner, and, through its Windows Live social network, a competitor. Since taking a stake in Facebook, Microsoft has been working closely with the site to create links between Facebook and the Windows Live social network so that when members update their status message or upload photos on Facebook, that information appears on the Microsoft site too.

Facebook has influenced Microsoft in other ways. Its new operating system, OS 7, features a list of interactions, news, and information that happens to look a lot like Facebook's news feed. Could Microsoft end up buying Facebook outright? Both sides would have much to gain from the arrangement. Facebook investors could get their money out, and Microsoft, which has been searching for a way to deliver more of its software applications over the Internet, would own a viable online platform for selling a new generation of services. But Zuckerberg, like that other famous technology-loving Harvard dropout, seems determined to create a business empire that touches virtually every computer user in the world. Zuckerberg's not interested in selling to Microsoft; he wants to build the next Microsoft. And with 175 million "friends," he's off to a helluva start.

REPORTER ASSOCIATE Beth Kowitt contributed to this article.

First Published: February 17, 2009: 6:20 AM ET

Article Source: CNN.com

Read the rest of this entry

Web 2.0 Is So Over

CNN has been writing several stuff about Social Media in the recent months. The article below struck a chord in me. It reveals that however popular Myspace and Facebook has become, they are not making money. Therefore nobody really knows how bright their futures will be as businesses. I don't know about you, but it seems not anymore a good idea to invest time (read: your entire day) browsing through and updating your profile in these and similar Social Media sites. Read away and tell me if you think so too.

Web 2.0 is so over. Welcome to Web 3.0

Facebook and Twitter may be more popular than ever among users, but what are they worth?
By Jessi Hempel, writer

(Fortune Magazine) -- Financially speaking, Web 2.0 has been a total bust.

Social-networking companies such as MySpace and Facebook have loyal fan bases, but they're not exactly minting money. MySpace's projected $600 million revenue in 2008 falls far short of parent News Corp.'s billion-dollar sales target for the site. Messaging service Twitter has no business model. Video-sharing site YouTube was the only big sale; Google paid $1.65 billion for it two years ago but still hasn't figured out how to make much money off it.

Social media's champions hoped 2008 would be a watershed year for Web 2.0. (That's the term tech publisher Tim O'Reilly coined four years ago to describe a new wave of Internet innovation that let users publish and share content.) Instead, the past 12 months have been a disappointment. Almost no new game-changing companies have emerged since Twitter burst on the scene in 2007, and while it's true existing sites have changed the way we interact on the web, they've failed to deliver new ways to cash in the way their Web 1.0 predecessors, such as Amazon and Yahoo, did.

One reason is that the economic climate for today's web startups is a lot chillier than it was during the first dot-com frenzy. The door for initial public offerings has all but closed: Just six U.S. venture-backed companies went public last year, and none were web outfits. And potential acquirers - from Internet companies like Yahoo to traditional media conglomerates like CBS - have big problems of their own.

Not that being bought is a panacea for social-networking firms. Few of them have seized on a viable business model. Most rely on display advertising - a.k.a. banners - to make money. But marketers have cooled to display ads on the web, and they're especially skeptical of such advertising on social-networking sites.

Fact is, when you're looking at photos from last night's holiday party on Facebook, you're probably ignoring that teeth-whitening ad. And with all the user-generated content, these sites have so many page views that Web 2.0 companies can't command the same rates as, say, portals. Yahoo's news site, for example, can charge more than 30 times as much as Facebook for a banner ad.

Most industry watchers bet on Facebook to develop the silver bullet for advertising on these sites. In fall 2008 CEO Mark Zuckerberg debuted Beacon, first billed as a "social ad" strategy that would monitor and distribute information about a user's e-commerce preferences to his friends. Zuckerberg caught flak from the privacy police, and Beacon was significantly downplayed.

The site recently launched Facebook Connect, which lets users access other sites with their Facebook log-in. Web publishers are excited about it, but for now, the company still relies heavily on "traditional" slow-growing forms of web advertising. Revenues for 2008 are expected to be about $275 million this year, according to several sources, and it is still not profitable.

Accel Partners' Jim Breyer, the largest outside investor in Facebook, remains optimistic. "Thus far the home-run outcomes have not yet appeared, but I firmly believe we will see them over the next couple of years," he says, explaining he thinks these companies are still in their infancy. In fact, Accel just announced two new funds, totaling a billion dollars, dedicated to investing in early-stage social-media companies.

Indeed, the Facebooks and MySpaces of the world could still grow up to be economically powerful. Consider that Amazon once was just an online bookstore, and that Google started out simply as another search engine.

But today's Web 2.0 companies may find themselves transformed or even eclipsed by yet another wave of web innovators. New companies are cropping up to expand the utility of the web, creating location-based services and financial payment systems that can be bolted onto existing sites. Often bootstrapped, they are frequently profitable and may get acquired quickly. Even in today's tough environment, these upstarts are the ones raising money and trying to score a life- or business-altering hit. Welcome to Web 3.0.

First Published: January 8, 2009: 6:15 AM ET

Article Source: CNN.com

Read the rest of this entry

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The Youtube Pope

The Youtube PopeThe Youtube Pope. What do Youtube and Pope Benedict XVI have in common?

In my previous post, Obama was called out using his Youtube account to address the public. He has been regularly doing this since he won the presidential elections.

Now, it's the Pope's turn to have his own Youtube channel. It covers the Pope's daily activities and relevant Vatican events. In 2000 years of conservative Roman Catholicism, to call this move as a radical one might be a gross understatement.

The Vatican hopes it will increase the Pope's reach and would help provide the Pope's image according to what they want.

If until now you still don't get Youtube, maybe The Pope can change your mind.

Read the rest of this entry

Friday, January 16, 2009

Twitter

TwitterThere is no denying internet social media is radically changing our internet habits.

Last September, a well written NYTimes article talked about the quick rise in popularity of Facebook and Twitter. It also talked about how social scientists analyze the phenomenon as it happens real time, providing terms such as "ambient awareness" and "weak ties" to help explain their observations.

In the case of Twitter, it was designed for exactly one purpose: so people can constantly send "micro updates" to a group of followers. Just like any other social media product, is just a tool. Twitter People started using Twitter and now they are experiencing something entirely new in their lives (as of this time, I am not a user of Twitter).

I used to ask, why do we need to send micro updates? Or why do we need to receive micro updates from other people? I have come to realize there is no unique answer for these questions...

NYTimes Article: Brave New World of Digital Intimacy

Read the rest of this entry

Obama and the Social Media - Part2

Obama and the Social Media

Obama is now being called by CNN as the first 'wired' president. We will most likely see his presidential inagural speech on Youtube.

As seen in this picture, Obama uses his Youtube account to address the public. He has been regularly doing this since he won the presidential elections.

"...Obama has more than 1 million MySpace "friends" and more than 3.7 million "supporters" on his official Facebook page -- some 700,000 more than when he was elected in November. His campaign also has a database of almost 13 million supporters and their e-mail addresses..."

If until now you still don't get Youtube, maybe Obama can change your mind.

Just my 2cents from the CNN article
Obama poised to be first 'wired' president


Read the rest of this entry

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Obama and the Social Media

Obama and the Social Media

The internet is changing everything including how Washington is going to work. Facebook is becoming a part of American political history.

As Barack Obama "built up a network of millions of online supporters", he should be able to utilize his support base to encourage more active participation in community service and/or support further his presidential agenda. He should also be able to use internet as a communication tool to keep in touch with his millions of online 'friends'.

Just my 2cents from the CNN article


Read the rest of this entry

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Facebook Users Reach 150 Million

facebookLast January 7, the social network announced that it has reached the 150 million user mark.

I am sure the Filipino members are numbering in the hundred thousands at least (as of this time, I am not a user of Facebook).

Read the rest of this entry

Credibility and the Social Media Expert

Credibility and the Social Media Expert
Is credibility important in social media? Are the social media experts giving advice worth following?

In my pursuit of continuous improvement for my blogging skills, one of the things I did was to study about Social Media and how it relates to blogging. In my initial search about the topic, I was overwhelmed with the amount of information available. I was also amazed with the number of people who give helpful tips and tricks on how to get better results from using Facebook and Twitter (as of this time, I am not a user of both of these tools).

Then, I stumbled upon Michael Gray's post where he recently tried to correlate the validity of the social media "advice" with the credentials of the social media "expert" giving the said advice.

To me, it all boils down to credibility which is highly valued by any society. Social media helped create the web 2.0 environment where you can learn something from just about anybody. We regard some people as the experts in social media because they seem to know more about Facebook, Twitter, etc. than we do. They also have the most "mileage" and the most extensive use of these tools; even though if we look more closely, sometimes, these experts seem to not follow their own rules...

So, how does this affect me? Based on my experience I found out I am good at separating the messenger from the message. If the advice makes sense to me, I don't give too much fuss about who said it. On the other hand, if the advice sounds wrong, the most highly regarded experts would not be enough to convince me.

photo credit, carrotcreative

Read the rest of this entry
Important Privacy Notice:
Starting May, Google will have access to your internet usage via a cookie. This cookie will help Google provide the most appropriate ads for my blog, and any other website using Google Adsense, basing on your internet history. For example, if you frequent websites about Blogging, Health and Fitness, or Personal Finance, Google will show health or finance related ads in my blog, and any other website using Google Adsense. The reasoning is that you will be more interested in these ads and will help you find what you are possibly looking for.

For more information about these changes and how it affects our privacy, go to Google Privacy Center. Also, if you think these changes are not acceptable for you, there is a blue "opt out" button you can click. If you opt out, you will still see Google ads in my blog, but they will be based on the content of my posts, not on your personal internet history.

Please take time to read more. Whatever you do, make sure you understand the effects to your privacy.

  © Blogger template 'External' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP