by Teresa Valdez Klein on September 27, 2007
MySpace has launched an offering for advertisers that targets their content to users based on their profiles. The Wall Street Journal seems to think that this means that MySpace is losing ground. Fox Interactive’s Chief Revenue Officer Michael Barret fired back:
I don’t agree with the statement that Facebook is growing at the expense of MySpace. There is nothing that shows that. Our growth has plateaued, but it would be pretty hard to get any more penetration than what we do in the U.S. … You are starting to see a world in which people can have multiple profiles and multiple networks. … What does MySpace do for them that a Facebook wouldn’t? It seems that they are watching a lot more videos on MySpace. They are listening to a lot more music. Meeting new people. … Now that [social networking] is so mainstream, I don’t think anybody is going to have a monopoly on social networking.
What’s clear is that as Facebook becomes more mainstream, it’s hitting some of the same snags that have plagued MySpace. Problems with sexual predators and privacy concerns are popping up out of the woodwork. Our speaker Nick O’Neill writes:
The entire site has been completely open for Facebook employees since the beginning. A comparison of the privacy policies of Facebook, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft proves that Facebook does absolutely nothing to restrict internal employee access of information while each of the competitors restrict employee access to personal information unless it is critical for their job. This could result in a massive security leak at Facebook. I’ve had AOL employees tell me of their lack of access to user data and analytics of anything outside of their department.
I cannot start to explain how bad of a business practice this is. Facebook is going to be in some serious trouble as they rush to build an internal system for restricting access to information.
Is this the tallest poppy syndrome or what? Facebook isn’t the hot new thing anymore. It’s officially gone mainstream and it is now suffering the slings and arrows that come with that designation. That includes the obligation to restrict employee access to user data and to protect minors from sexual predators.
Welcome to our community! If you like what you see, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed!
by Teresa Valdez Klein on September 25, 2007
It’s pretty simple, really. Microsoft sees Facebook as a key to developing a comprehensive ad delivery platform to rival Google’s.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Some industry executives believe the Internet today is facing the sort of turning point that the computer-operating-system sector confronted two decades ago: Whoever controls the technology platform for buying and selling online ads could hold tremendous power over the Internet industry for years to come — much as Microsoft was able to use its Windows operating system to shape the personal computer.
And considering that Google is reportedly hot for Facebook as well, Microsoft is willing to pay a premium to make sure that it doesn’t fall into enemy hands.
From the New York Times:
Facebook is seeking a minimum valuation of $10 billion but interested bidders have expressed a willingness to value it as high as $13 billion, on the assumption that, in the future, Facebook will become a powerful player in the online world.
These numbers might have little basis in actual revenue or profit. Facebook is a private company and does not reveal its income. But earlier this year, a Pali Research analyst, Richard Greenfield, estimated that the company brought in $60 million to $96 million in annual revenue, with no real profit. Much of that revenue comes from a year-old advertising relationship with Microsoft, which places display advertisements on the site.
Mr. Greenfield said the investment price that Microsoft was considering might have more to do with keeping the prize out of the hands of its powerful rivals. “There may be competitive reasons to be connected to this asset beyond what the specific valuation is today,” he said. “You may be paying a premium to keep others out.”
But with Facebook’s disappointing .04% click-through rate, is it really the solution either giant is dreaming of?
Update: Kara Swisher thinks the $10-$15 billion valuation is ludicrous.
by Jason Preston on September 21, 2007
I realize that the trickiest part of Facebook’s new “flyers pro” advertising feature might simply be finding it, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the sweet baritone of my voice for a few minutes while I walk you through the process of buying one.
Actually my voice sounds a bit odd, but that’s because my mic gain was turned down pretty low and I had to talk extra loud to make it work right.
Any flyers you buy show up in the Facebook lefthand sidebar. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, log in and check the left under the navigation. That’s where they go.
I’ve also uploaded the video to our WCF group on Facebook (this is Revver, since I can’t embed FB video elsewhere).
by Teresa Valdez Klein on September 14, 2007
Is Facebook a Google killer? Probably not. At least not yet. But the question no longer seems quite as outlandish to ask given the recent launch of targeted, cost-per-click, pay with a credit card advertising.
You can target ads by political spectrum, sex, age, profile keywords, relationship status, education level and even workplace. Whether that’s a more effective way to target advertising than what John Battelle has called the database of intentions remains to be seen. But it certainly has a great deal of potential.
I have no doubt that we’ll be launching some of these context-based ads for the conference and reporting back on our ROI.
Do you have any plans to use these ads? What is your strategy?
by Jason Preston on September 12, 2007
I think people are finding out that there’s a fine line between what’s pushy, dumb advertising and what’s smart, fun advertising. More and more often, I’m finding that people resent ads that are deceitful, and ads that are too overt.
What does that leave? Not much. But I think a sponsored gift of Facebook is a pretty good sweet spot.
Having a sponsored gift is a definite plus for Skittles from a branding perspective, and it’s plain as day that they’re promoting a new product. But I think the hook is that they’re letting people choose to promote it.
Sometimes having a choice is more important than what the choice is. In this case the choice is whether or not to give or accept a skittles icon in your Facebook profile.
