headermask image

header image

Why Facebook Will Fail

From MediaPost Counterpoint 16 June 2009
Jim Banister, Jun 16, 2009 06:31 PM
Last reports I saw had Facebook at over 200 million active worldwide unique users (and growing) and an estimated $200m-plus in annual revenue in 2008.

Pretty kooky to claim it’ll be a failure, eh?

Let me start by saying that social networking itself is a utility that is not routinely differentiated by any particular protectable intellectual property. It’s a utility that demonstrates a better way for the online and mobile web audience at-large to connect with each other. But it’s also a utility that ultimately threatens to be its own worst enemy.

The context of Facebook is “social networking.” It’s all the rage right now-the novelty of connecting or reconnecting, of building your network, of watching the torrent of trivia flow to and from your network of peeps. But ultimately we as people-at least most of us-aren’t social networking hobbyists. It isn’t one of the “three things” I’d choose to do in my leisure time. But I do ski, mountain bike, camp, fish, and adventure travel. We are pet owners, golfers, mothers and fathers, gardeners, foodies, and a myriad of other passions, hobbies and industries.

Facebook simply cannot be the best at serving each of those niches or mega-niches, and what Facebook offers at its core *will* be offered as well (and likely better) by niche social media programmers. In fact, as frameworks for utilities such as social networking, media sharing, micro-blogging, etc. improve and evolve, and the understanding of how to employ them becomes more pervasive. The “tribe leaders” for those multitude of affinity groups are more and more likely to be classic magazine publishers, narrowcasting cable nets, specialty web destinations or other media companies (old and new) who cater specifically to that niche market.

There is no barrier to, say, a soccer gear company or a soccer magazine to offer to their specialty community of millions of street soccer players an iPhone app that sits side-by-side to the Facebook iPhone app. If the gear company or magazine *gets* social media and how to properly create and program that app for their community, at any given time the soccer lovers will activate the soccer app long before they open Facebook for anything that relates to their passion/hobby of soccer.

Some might say-well, Facebook could just offer “groups functions” to its users. Yep, it could (and does).

Two reasons this is fraught with problems:

(1) “General” is rarely as good as “specific” in engaging an audience, given equal utility.

Generalizing a technology platform to accommodate all the idiosyncrasies that might appear across thousands of affinity groups and their native behaviors isn’t easy, and perhaps not possible… at least not likely as doable as a singular entity focused on a singular community; and

(2) Competing directly with trillions of dollars of economic momentum is hard.

Classic media has woken up to social media. Facebook will be competing directly with major media groups (and savvy brand marketers and advertisers) who are now “getting social media” and have awoken to the fact that they should not be intermediated in their relationship with their affinity group communities… and don’t have to. Online and mobile web now have achieved primacy as a mechanism to engage humans. Companies who spend the time, money and effort to engage an audience of any kind via other media-print, television, film, radio-are getting better at using that existing relationship and marrying it with a web/wireless engines of engagement that they ultimately lead and influence (I hesitate to say “control” as that would be antithetical to a well-considered social media strategy).

So where does that leave Facebook? In trouble. With depressed CPMs around general social networking “content,” the context of which they cannot assure advertisers will be safe or appropriate, and fighting with big media brands who know how to serve large slices of the Facebook audience better than Facebook does. Even potentially fighting with big advertising brands who may have social media aspirations of their own (read: can more cheaply and effectively reach a target affinity group using their own engines of engagement than “buying space on Facebook”). And certainly fending off upstart “next generation” social networking engines, while struggling to keep users who have a very low cost of switching to the next best thing, and that next best thing may indeed be a social nichework led by subject-matter experts.

While it is likely that Facebook will find a viable and scalable business model somewhere within the monthly engagement of 200 million people, its future is anything but certain.

Very McGuire

Back in October last year, my friend and advisor Buzz Wurzer wrote a compelling manifesto for local newspaper franchises.  It was kinda like the Jerry McGuire memo-cum-mission statement (from the film of the same name).  Except that Buzz was already retired from a long and illustrious career at Hearst, so no one could take him to lunch to fire him for saying what needed to be said.

His words are insightful not just because he’s had a lifetime in the newspaper business and so has unparalleled perspective, but because it’s a thoughtful and useful treatise on how a local newspaper business needs to think in an age of networked and social media.  IMHO.

Buzz says:

A checklist for 2008 Newspaper Publishers…..

  • I would fire myself as Publisher and rehire myself as CEO, Local (Your Market) Information Utility
  • I would reinforce my leading and trustworthy local brand identity by unifying all my existing and future channels of news, information and advertising in both digital and print formats
  • I would aggressively and continuously promote my brand and various information channels locally, especially to young consumers
  • I would lead a culture change throughout my organization that all future strategic plans would be initiated digitally and then employ traditional formats such as print in a supportive role
  • I would retrain as well as hire staff to retool existing products as well as to create new products to fulfill our company mission as our local markets leading information utility
  • I would insist that what makes any and all content we produce compelling and necessary is that it provides local context to help consumers better understand how news affects them and have advertising content available to make the goods and services they buy of greater value
  • I would embrace outside vendors to initiate search and behavioral target marketing efforts
  • I would embrace any and all rich media embellishments to maximize time spent on my sites
  • I would make available multiple links to other information channels to enhance the content I provide
  • I would retrain my sales force to provide consultative advertising advice as well as the ability to place additional advertising in other pertinent advertising mediums
  • I would join any and all advertising networks to add traffic to my sites, to use their ad serving technology and to allow placement of their advertising via behavioral targeting techniques at increased CPM’s
  • I would invest in as well as join any source that can best measure the effectiveness of all the content I provide
  • I would require that any and all content I produce starts digitally and thus can be redistributed to my entire market in a platform neutral manner
  • I would continuously rework financial modeling efforts to best understand the changing margins on ongoing print and web revenues and expenses in order to radically change the current broken business model we are operating under
  • I would be vigilant on a daily basis internally to staff and externally to consumers and competitors to promote the ever increasing share of the audience in our market we enjoy given the multiple channels of information we provide
  • I would tell my story and successes to my industry peers and encourage all of us to direct our trade association to tell our collective story which is that the information industry is alive and well and your local information utilities (formerly newspapers) are leading the charge

Written 10/20/2008

Buzz can be reached as follows.  Please do.

Wurzer & Assoc. LLC
460 Village Lane
Vero Beach, FL. 32963
772 234 3034
772 713 4427 Cell

hkw36@earthlink.net

“Outliers” is just that…

Outliers Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell



My review


A very insightful book. Par for the course for Gladwell. I actually thought this was more diverse in applicability than some of his previous works. Gladwell effectively takes the “magic” out of why certain people or companies can be so super-successful, and provides a sort of “math” with which to consider how to deconstruct those successes, if not manufacture them.

The group I’d most recommend it to is parents, actually. I’ve long said that if there’s one thing a parent can and should teach a child, it’s *not* a musical instrument, a sport, doing homework– it’s discipline, pure and simple. Teach it however you can, by whatever means. And then provide as much opportunity to your child as you can (without becoming crazed and obsessive ;-)


View all my reviews.

Stimulus Schmimulus

Give the money to entrepreneurs, not to NOTrepreneurs.

The economic history of the United States is a history of the pioneering spirit of entrepreneurs and inventive minds.  So why is there not one farthing of Mr. Obama’s (or, previously, Mr. Bush’s) stimulus package going to venture capital?

Yes, there is some money for basic research in areas like stem cells and alternative energy, but if one *really* wants to create jobs for the everyman (vs. the PhD researchers), then give some money to inventive commercial entrepreneurs.

Levi Strauss and Ray Kroc and Jim Clark didn’t have to do primary research to create zillions of jobs (and whole new industries). They needed capital, a good (and usually simple) idea, and the moxy, stick-to-it-ness and commercial sense to build companies.

I’d bet my last dollar that if you took $100billion of that economic stimulus package and spent it on thoughtful venture capital for the industries and geographic areas worst hit by the economic downturn, your return-on-taxpayer-investment would FAR exceed what we’re going to see from bailing out badly managed and grotesquely bloated banks, insurance and automotive companies.

Consider the latter.  Take a tiny fraction of the economic stimulus package– say, $500million– and set up shop in Detroit.  Break it up into $500k-$5m chunks and promote the “What would you do with $1 million?” campaign.  Yes, you’d get a lot of lookie loos and garbage ideas, but I’d bet my bottom dollar there are hundreds of great ideas waiting to bubble up, and some super-hungry pioneers who’ve been waiting for those cracks in the concrete of the automotive-hegemony so their ideas can sprout.

Venture capital is considered relatively high-risk investment.  But the way most of the bailout money is being spent is infinitely higher risk.  I acknowledge I have not “run the numbers,” but my internal algorithms and experience tell me that putting our taxpayer money with hungry, clever and committed entrepreneurs– the Entrepreneurial Stimulus Package– is a far better gamble for creating jobs, and general economic stimulation, than propping up moribund businesses.

And the billions of VC dollars currently sitting on the sidelines would be quickly loosed, for fear of being left behind in the explosion of new businesses that would spring forth.

Mr. Obama– put a few billion down on the entrepreneurs.  That’s where I’d like my taxpayer money to go.

Menage “i” trois?

Blackberry or iPhone…  can we all live happily together?

I have a long and sordid history with computers as they relate to “brand.” My very first personal The Inimitable HP150!computer was an HP150.  Notwithstanding the fact this carbon-dates me to the Big Iron Age of computing (or very nearly), that little touchscreen computer was a ball.  By most standards, it was an odd choice.  It ran MS-DOS, but had a whole bunch of proprietary OS wraparound.  Touchscreen in 1983?  I had to have it.  I went HP because of my exposure to the super-duper HP9836 (are you impressed I can still recall the model name?) scientific computer. That workhorse-with-the-hi-res-monochrome-graphics-display puppy was largely responsible for my move into computer graphics, but also influenced my personal PC choice. (’course it also helped that I had an aunt who worked for HP who got me a ridiculous discount on that HP150).

Anyway, so that HP9836 pushed me towards the realm of IBM and MS early in my career, even though *technically* my first experience with a computer was the Apple IIe (on which I wrote my senior thesis as an undergrad).

So naturally when I went to work with TRW, and they put me in charge of the computerization of the department…  I went with IBM PCs.  But in the late 80s, Apple started whispering in my ear.  As I became more and more immersed in computer animation, the siren song of the Mac called to me.

I made an about face to the Mac II when it first came out in 1987.  And for nearly 10 years I never looked back to the world of DOS/Windows.  I *still* own that first Mac luggable (sitting out in the garage).  Classic.  From desktop publishing to computer graphics to games… Mac was my platform of choice.  Remember the game Marathon?  Man I spent some hours on that one.

Then, in the mid-90s two things happened: (1) I started working in the web biz; and (2) I subsequently discovered messaging mobility in the first Blackberrys.  The former dictated that I go into the whacky world of Windows, given the vast majority of internet users were using the PC platform, so I had to see what they saw if I were to be an effective creator of web programming.  The latter… well… the ability to surreptitiously send messages to my co-workers while they were sitting on the dais participating in a conference panel was too difficult to resist.

So I’ve been a PC and Blackberry user for over 10 years now.  And I just got an iPhone (for… ahem… “research”).

I love the Blackberry full keyboard.  I’m used to how easy it is to sync with Exchange. It works, and it’s always worked for me.  But the iPhone… ah, the iPhone.  The user-interface is compelling, yes, but the thing that’s drawing me is the explosion of applications.  Steve Jobs has said it before (and I paraphrase)– “people don’t buy devices, they buy applications (software).”  He’s got me nailed.

So here I am with my Blackberry 8830 and my iPhone 3G.  I’m carrying them both at the moment.  They don’t like each other much… constantly whining for attention.  But I just installed Active Sync Exchange on the iPhone and my Blackberry has dropped a notch on the must-have ladder.  If it weren’t for the fact that I cannot forward text messages from my Blackberry to my iPhone (which I can do for voice calls), I’d probably be all the way over on the iPhone.  For now, they’ll have to share the same belt-loop.

BTW– I’m looking at Mac portables again!

Monkeys, bananas and a fire hose…

I simply had to re-publish this great anecdote re-told by James Bennett (and slightly edited by me), and will tell you why after you read it!

Why do big corporations do things the way they do.  The explanation can be explained with monkeys, a cage, a banana and a fire hose.

You build a nice big room-sized cage, and in one end of it you put five monkeys. In the other end you put a banana. Then you stand by with the fire hose.  Sooner or later one of the monkeys is going after the banana, and when it does you turn on the fire hose and spray the other monkeys with it. Replace the banana if needed, then repeat the process. Monkeys are pretty smart, so they’ll figure this out pretty quickly: “If anybody goes for the banana, the rest of us get the hose.” Soon they’ll attack any member of their group who tries to go to the banana.

Once this happens, take one monkey out of the cage and bring in a new one. The new monkey will come in, try to make friends, then probably go for the banana. And the other monkeys, knowing what this means, will attack him to stop you from using the hose on them. Eventually the new monkey will get the message, and will even start joining in on the attack if another monkey goes for the banana. Continue to swap new monkeys for the original monkey.

After repeating this a few times, the time will come when none of the monkeys in the cage have ever been sprayed by the fire hose; in fact, they’ll never even have seen the hose. But they’ll attack any monkey who goes to get the banana. If the monkeys could speak, and if you could ask them why they attack anyone who goes for the banana, their answer would almost certainly be: “Well, I don’t really know, but that’s how we’ve always done things around here.”

Institutions– companies, governments, religions, etc– who are older than a human lifespan (say 25 years) *all* suffer from this dynamic.  Especially those seeking to “protect their brand.”  The reason they do things has long been abstracted from the original reasons for doing so.

I know I’m a social media pundit, but it occurs to me that the emergence of many-to-many media and the ability to engage in conversation between institution and constituency is the first-best chance to break this kind of institutional inertia.

After all, every institution is reliant on humans– as employee/devotees, or as customers/constituency.  It is these latter groups that should be inventing or reinventing what that institution should stand for, produce and espouse.  *All* of them, not just an elite group within the institution (as they more often have incentive to serve institutional inertia).

There are infinite examples of institutions that could benefit, and thus benefit us as individuals, some more topical that others (US Government? American auto-makers? Wall street? Credit reporting agencies?).

The faster we use social media to create institutional transparency, the better off we’ll be as employees or constituency, and the healthier institutions will become.

The Brand Bubble

Jeff Nolan’s blog post just came across my virtual desk with this “white paper” excerpt from the book The Brand Bubble: How Business Speculation in the Consumer Marketplace Threatens Our Economy.  A synopsis by one of the authors John Gerzema:

Today’s housing bubble and the tech stock bubble from the last decade reveal a widening gap between market speculation and how typical Americans value things.If you thought those bubbles were bad, get ready for another, even bigger one on the horizon that represents over $4 trillion dollars in S&P market capitalization. That alone makes it twice the size of the sub-prime mortgage market. But, unlike other bubbles, the assets that are at risk cannot be traded away or hedged against uncertainty. Rather, they are the fundamental drivers of competitive advantage for most companies—their brands.

The notion of brand erosion supports, and may in fact dictate the strategy of offering community or social media “engines” to users, the usage of which imbues a brand with value. And, of course, through which users can then decide what that brand means to them. But community does not mean message boards, micro-sites, and widgetry. It means employing a brand-building (or brand evolving) strategy based in part on “engines of engagement,” the key differentiator and common thread through the top success stories in social media in the last 14 yrs.

The engines-of-engagement approach involves an social media application aimed at “capturing and nurturing” a naturally occurring or cultivatable audience/user behavior, or a behavior only possible through the use of social media. And the engine can never stop evolving based on what users actually do and express (vs. what ad agencies and the best marketing minds in the world think users want). This ultimately creates intense brand affinity, since users feel a sense of ownership or influence over the things they use.

Engines can (and probably should) take the place of microsite (a promotional site or pop-up community with a pre-planned shelf-life), or use widgetry and message board like features; and it shouldn’t cost any more to distill a site’s design into sustainable features and functions—that is, an engine of engagement.

This approach promises to shore up brand erosion, among other valuables characteristics… like creation of earned media assets, potential perpetual audience engagement and others.

IMHO

… and There Oughta Be a POLITICAL Word

There Oughta Be an OFFICE Word

What’s your word?

These are mine!  Yes, I know, I’m… well… addicted to the Addictionary.  ;-)