Comments on: Facebook’s passive-aggressive friendship http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/ Where media and technology meet Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Freshp http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-395470 Thu, 24 May 2012 22:13:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-395470 Built on the knindness of strangers…… Love it! But that’s being way to trustworthy for a co. Of this magnitude if you ask me. But hey he got us hooked and somehow we’ve been playing nice, or not this far. but does that say anything about ad rev….. And banking on strangers, when everybody is coddled together sharing tip bits about their day to day? FB has a 99% vision, while Google has a 1% insight…… So the approaches are different, so the set up will be different. zuck never wanted ads and banners in the first place, so why would he worry about it now? He’s basically did his job, and did it very well……. Now the smartest guys and gals in the room at FB should have seen this along time ago. So depending on strangers to build your stockpile of cash for shareholders will be a tuff sell……. 900mil users are under the impression we can share photos and videos with friends and family for free, we buy goods online at Amazon and eBay and searching and getting ideas to buy from google, So what this is saying…… Facebook has to take the time out….. To change the culture of it’s social network

]]>
By: WeWereWallSt http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394844 Fri, 18 May 2012 01:00:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394844 John, no need to post this comment, but you missed the big one, ie, the link to the other Reuters article that says “100 times revenues” (paragraph 3). Changing that to 25 times revs or 100 times earnings works and is still a big #. Thanks for the note in any event!

]]>
By: John C Abell http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394795 Thu, 17 May 2012 18:48:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394795 @WeWereWallSt: Correct! And fixed.

]]>
By: John C Abell http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394794 Thu, 17 May 2012 18:40:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394794 @WeWereWallSt Correct! Fix coming.

]]>
By: maGiK http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394791 Thu, 17 May 2012 17:18:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394791 All said on Google and Facebook takes the world to a ‘new digital have and have not community’. Reminds me of the news I read on the other day about a young boy who ordered on ebay a gaming console but was shocked to find he was delivered a bundle of unaccounted cash. That made me sit straight and ask; if the boy had approached the retailer with a more traditional way of asking for a product and checking it before buying, the catastrophe of a sale would have been averted.

]]>
By: PAndrews http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394785 Thu, 17 May 2012 13:52:02 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394785 I suspect that even the Wall Street analysts realize that the company has very little real value. They are hoping that this isn’t noticed in between the time of the IPO and the time they time they bail out.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394765 Thu, 17 May 2012 09:14:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394765 The problem is perhaps that Facebook is a platform for community activity (grass roots, bottom-up collective organisation/ product referrals), but the advertising model is presently oriented toward top-down, product-pushing, predictable, boring “LOOK AT ME!” banner ads targeted according to legalised spyware. PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THIS.

If Facebook could somehow catch onto the potential of their system to more effectively analyse and publicise GENUINE personal product recommendations, this could make for a step-change in their effectiveness here.

Instead, their whole technical ecosystem is currently being polluted by “apps” that generate fake personal product recommendations (like, pretending that my best friend read some dodgy article in The Washington Post). Nobody knows what they can trust on Facebook any more… It’s devaluing their entire product.

]]>
By: tangogo68 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394763 Thu, 17 May 2012 06:25:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394763 I’m basically blind to internet advertising — I know it exists, and I know that (akin to Free-to-air TV) when I use a free service I become the product, but I just visually tune the ads out.
I have a Facebook account, but have never used it — I just acquired it years ago to ensure that no-one else got one with my name. The number of actual individual persons who hold FB accounts is much lower than the 750-800 billion range that lazy journalists continually repeat.
When I search, I use either Google or Bing so that my personal digital crumbs are not wholly known to one or the other.
There are tens or hundreds of millions of other folks online who are also wary and weary of mega-corporations having undeserved and unwarranted access to the melange of attitudes, behaviours, emotions, ideas, knowledges, and thoughts that constitute a person.

]]>
By: WeWereWallSt http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394761 Thu, 17 May 2012 04:19:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394761 We agree the thing is overvalued and a pump-and-dump royale, but you’ve got to get the numbers right if you’re going to shout them.

Facebook’s revenues last year were $3.7 billion, not the billion you link to. The billion was for the past quarter. Their last year’s net was $1 billion on the dot, per their S-1.

]]>
By: BajaArizona http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/05/16/the-facebook-problem/#comment-394739 Thu, 17 May 2012 01:10:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=34755#comment-394739 Agree that Facebook is overvalued in terms of its ability to make money. Also agree that Facebook has no serious competition. Unless they seriously fumble, the sheer size of the network ensures the relevance of the network.

The question I have is what will be the effect of becoming a public company on the management? I realize that Zuck will retain a controlling share. Yet the requirements of running a public enterprise may make the decision making process less nimble.

It’s all about the fumble. If Facebook does things to offend users in the name of making enough profit to prevent the stock value from correcting, it could lose its assured dominance of social media. If it allows a competitor (Google + can afford to wait patiently for such an opportunity) to gain market share, it will lose it’s only real advantage. In such a situation it could decline with AOL-like speed.

]]>