Facebook No Longer Exclusive
Posted 9/11/2006 04:52:00 PM |
From what I gather, Facebook will still be a "bound" network. New, unaffiliated users will be placed into geographic networks. Geographic networks have existed for some time in Facebook - they are non-verified networks that let users connect to others outside of their "exclusive" (college and work) networks. New users will not be able to view the profiles of those outside of their networks - though they will be able to friend people outside of their networks who reciprocate.
In the article, a spokeswoman for Facebook states:
"Whenever we've opened our network, our existing members have reacted negatively, even though they've always adjusted," she said. "We're sure this will be no different, but we think it's in the best interest of the community."While I'm sure Facebook's confidence in this move is slightly lower following the feeds debacle, their logic is grounded in fact. As long as the fundamental DNA of Facebook is not changed - meaning exclusive groups remain - this won't be a tremendous change. However, for Facebook users, the symbolic nature of the change from exclusive to non-exclusive could be viewed as strongly negative. Each incremental change (so-far) was ultimately rationalized by Facebook users because notions of exclusivity remained. With the new Facebook, there is no longer a notion of exclusivity - Facebook is just another SNS, albeit with a exclusive model that can now be mass-appropriated by competitors.
For a userbase primed by the feeds fiasco, this move could be spun extremely negatively. danah boyd, commenting on the nature of user control, wrote: "While digital communities are fantastic, one of the issues is that people don't actually own the turf in which they're creating cultural artifacts. When earthquakes rattle digital streets, it's not Mother Nature at work. It's the work of a Corporation." The Facebook is a unique place because its users feel a strong sense of ownership and involvement - a sense spawed by the fact it was exclusive, that it was their own space. With this new move, this sense of ownership is lost; the Facebook is no longer its users' space - it is everyone's space.
Update: I am cited in Rachel Rosmarin's Forbes.com article on the story, echoing the sentiments I've expressed here.
Permalink |
|
to this post
View blog reactions | Post to
10 Comments: (Post a Comment)
-
At September 11, 2006 5:55 PM,
said...
-
Am I the only one that thinks this really sucks? Why can't other people be satisfied with myspace?
-
At September 11, 2006 6:21 PM,
Ryan Stewart said...
-
Woody, nope - this does really suck. I mean I get the "business decision" behind it, but I think Zuckerberg has lost his touch. People are going to be mad about this.
-
At September 11, 2006 6:29 PM,
jeremy said...
-
consider me off of the facebook.
-
At September 11, 2006 6:55 PM,
jkd said...
-
Whatever else you think about this, they really don't have a choice. Facebook is a company with a lot of buzz but very little in the way of actual revenue stream. In order to maintain that buzz - which is the only thing that makes Facebook's self-valuations of ten figures remotely plausible (and is also what keeps adoption rates in the 90% range on college campuses) - they need to maintain an upward trajectory in terms of both new members and page views.
Only problem is, they're so successful with their current user-base - college students - that it leaves them literally nowhere to go unless they expand their potential user-base. Cell phone companies in the global North have the same problem, but the costs to entry for new competitors are pretty high, there. The same is not true for SNSes - a good new idea, some good code and a little bit of buzz and voila!, the MySpaces and the Facebook go the way of the Friendster.
So they need to expand, because they die if they don't, even if they die if they do.
But I don't think they will, unless there really is a new SNS waiting in the wings, complete with cool new features - such as, say, oh I dunno, a totally open API and exportable profile and friends list, and integration with other Web 2.0 applications? Otherwise users, especially those who've expended considerable social capital in Facebook (and for whom Facebook is a considerable source of social capital), don't really have anywhere else to go. Yet. -
At September 11, 2006 7:03 PM,
Fred Stutzman said...
-
+1 to JKD.
Were the Facebook not 50MM+ into VC's, they might have some leeway in this matter (there's nothing wrong with being a hugely successful niche play - not all web applications must have Napoleonic tendencies). Unfortunately, they are 50MM into VC's who expect ROI. As it stands, the Facebook artificially limits its network by constraining it to certain populations - no matter how deeply FB undestands its own culture, they have obligations to make money for their investors. No argument about culture is going to stand up to 50MM, which is a sad but true fact.
With Feeds (see my argument about the falsity of less pageviews with feeds) and new global Facebook, I think we're seeing a service that is desparately trying to straddle the line between user expectations and financial obligations. I've got a number of thoughts on how FB could approach this reality with their userbase - but that's for another post another time :) -
At September 12, 2006 3:39 AM,
Karel said...
-
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
-
At September 12, 2006 3:43 AM,
Karel said...
-
Zuck's first (and second and third) company priority is Growth, because along with stickiness (how often and how much an average user is on the site, a metric where facebook rules), growth decides which social network will be relevant.
Facebook can't grow fast enough since it has saturated it's eligible, core demographic. This plan has been in the works for over a year, with the questions revolving around how to track fraud and group people meaningfully.
The uninformed will holler again about privacy, but they should go complain instead to myspace, which as noted in my book, opens up all user information to just about everyone. Facebook will likely not change how college networks work. It may allow unvalidated friends to accept invitations, but would almost certainly track the referral/registration history, to be able to prune away bad branches of the invitation tree.
As a closed network, Facebook has gained success by modeling real life networks, towards which multiply.com is also narrowing its focus. Real life networks have a large geographic component, and they naturally include friends outside of school or work associations. However, I also have many people here in my geography who are not my friends, and who I don't want to share in my information. As the book describes in detail, people closeness categories or some other meaningful way of sorting my "real friends" away from everyone in artificially bloated networks is increasingly necessary. I do not know that Facebook has a planned solution for this problem. -
At September 12, 2006 5:31 PM,
said...
-
I have a facebook and a myspace. If facebook opens up to everyone, their base might expand more immediately, however their inital demographic would most likely leave. The limiting factor of what type of people could register was the attracticve factor... taking that away is not a good move by anymeans, money driven or not. Many people I know have myspace and facebook, but if facebook opens up to the general public, then it is just another myspace, friendster, etc. and most of the would leave because of what information the do have on there. They would not feel safe no matter how many privacy options their are. Limiting the type of people that were on the SNS made the people who could register feel safer. I would NEVER use an email address that I actually use to log in or register for and SNS. however facebook I did and specifically why I felt safe about it is because that was how it prevented other people from getting into the system. I'm sure they could look at other possibilities of creating revenue, or maybe looking at a way to seperate their ideas into 2 different servers/sites... however it is so that attractive reason, the feeling of security, stays in tact. Also it is not just the safety but also the forums that will be affected. The common interest between the people on facebook was that most were college students and could relate specifically because of that fact. There is already commotion with high school students getting into forums and starting arguements with immature statements and not even focusing on the inital intent of the the forum. This is not going to get better with an all access facebook. Many college students talk in these forums because they feel like they can relate to the people they are discussing with, no matter how much they disagree about topics.
-
At September 12, 2006 10:22 PM,
said...
-
As if it weren't bad enough that future employers can already see every move we make on facebook... now they can join in on the fun :(
-
At September 13, 2006 3:25 PM,
jasarius said...
-
Its a bit of a let down, but understandable from a business viewpoint. The objective is to make money, but I think the overwhelming cost of letting everyone in all at once may not be such a great idea. Facebook makes people feel special and part of the exclusive group - like the cool kids table at lunch or haning out at the Peach Pit on 90210.
Should they let everyone in? Not all at once. The benefit they have is that they can learn their market and even change the behavior of said markets since they have specific target markets. The clean and easy to use interface also is an advantage that shouldn't be overlooked.
What they can do instead? Well since I'm making a compliant, I should at least offer a solution. They started off on the right foot with Facebook mobile. They need to expand that even more and connect with other popular portals for even better access such as Google, Yahoo and MSN. I can see it now, Facebook Mobile powered by Yahoo. They can also expand on a nice little concept started a few years back and the Google purchased: Dodgeball.com.
Facebook could also integrate PayPal, Google Pay (or whatever its called) or something along with another nice concept called Billmonk. I've got tons of ideas that probably won't work, but the main point is to expand customer utility more than you do customers. Someone mentioned it earlier about mobile phone companies reaching saturation. The next step is maximizing the amount of revenue generated from each customer. I think that should be the first step. Granted you will always find new features, but I think there should be a basic step of finding new ways to maximize revenue first and then expand on a working model. If you find a model that works use it and expand, if it doens't expand your base to include new segments and try again.
I know this is long, sorry, I just got done with MKT 609: Marketing Programs so I'm in the zone even though there are all types of holes in my suggestions. Its the thought that counts. Oh well. Thanks for reading this monster post. :)
