SevenCubed - 6:43 pm on Feb 1, 2013 (gmt 0)
First of all I'll point out that Clarence and I are obviously approaching this from a different perspective. He's seeing it as an ultimate marketing channel and in his own words says it's not a social network. That much we agree on, it's not a social network. That's simply what the marketing community has successfully presented it as in order to corral consumers.
This latest quarterly report was seriously lacking in any good news from a financial perspective.
Mobile revenue represented approximately 23% of advertising revenue for the fourth quarter of 2012, up from approximately 14% of advertising revenue in the third quarter of 2012
I would expect that to be so when you consider that period was one that revolves around the apex of marketing for retailers. I would imagine that much of the economy depends on high sales during the last 2 months of each year. Needless to say most advertising budgets would splurge during that time. Ads must have been running rampant. Any advertising network should be able to make a profit during that time span. But, let's see them sustain that throughout the year.
"We enter 2013 with good momentum and will continue to invest to achieve our mission and become a stronger, more valuable company."
"In 2012, we connected over a billion people and became a mobile company,"
A mobile company? What kind of a senseless statement is that? Are they now selling facebook branded smartphones? No. Did they become a telecom provider? I think I remember reading somewhere that they now offer voice calls? Can that be done to landlines or just between other mobile users? Is it across all types of devices or restricted to certain platforms? I still can't see how that makes them a mobile company. How will they generate revenue from that? Will people have to listen to a voice advertisement prior to being able to make a call? That should go over well. If making their site accessible to mobile users makes them a mobile company then I guess most of us will also become mobile companies in 2013-14 too.
So why make a senseless statement like that? Simple. Because all the hype surrounds mobile these days so he has to throw that in for good measure to perpetuate the myth of value. Just like a few months ago they were "becoming a search engine". Then a week or so before this latest quarterly report they let the "Graph Search" out of the bag (in very early beta, sounds like alpha to me). They're simply trying to ride on Google's coat tails of success by implying that because google made large fortunes from search they will have access to those same fortunes. Wrong. It's all about intention. It's that simple. Intention for accessing a search engine increases the odds of wanting to purchase something. Intention for accessing facebook -- to catch up on gossip for many youngsters or for some more realistic interaction between families separated by large distances.
Monthly active users (MAUs) were 1.06 billion as of December 31, 2012
Very highly unlikely. We've discussed this before. Many mega corporations have individual accounts for each of their brands. One I looked into has 19 major consumer product brands, each has their own facebook persona.
Many people have multiple facebook accounts, one for each of their alter-egos, or their cats, dogs, babies, events, on and on. Facebook cannot weed out all the multiple accounts per household or per business.
The highest adoption rate for facebook has already peaked, it's behind us. Any further growth can only come from developing countries where ads will be mostly useless due to lack of disposable income.
It's beyond my understanding why some newspaper or other media outlet doesn't ask MZ a very simple straightforward question: Do they equate their stats as 1 billion users or accounts? Has it been asked anywhere that I am not aware of?
Facebook is only riding on their earlier adoption rate just like google. Now in desperation facebook is flinging dung all over the place to attempt to bring in streams of nickle and dime revenue -- gifting, gift cards, and so many more that I can't even remember them all. If advertising revenue was going to save them there is no way they would be wasting time and effort in the nickle and dime stuff.
As for all their numbers, the GAAP stuff, take it with a grain of salt. They can weave and rearrange all kinds of scenarios to fit the market apprehension they are attempting to alleviate.
Needless to say all of the above is just my humble opinion of course.
I love pessimist.
I don't know where you get that impression from. I'm probably one of the least pessimistic people on this rock. I'm an eternal optimist and never let shades of illusion influence my thinking. I always accept each day and what I will learn from it. On some occasions I may drift towards feeling slightly overwhelmed but I don't let it sink to the point of pessimism. I'll alter my path before it gets to that point. I'm realistic.
...you would see that Facebook's growth is far larger then a destination...
I strongly disagree but if a way of expressing my disagreement doesn't come to my thoughts in less than 30 seconds I have to let it slide or my mind will get in the way.
In a lot of circle it's has become a means of communication a step above email.
It stopped being used as a Social network "per se" a few years ago, now it's more of a communications channel.
As a communication channel I think Twitter is more effective based on my observations. But they don't have the souls of consumers up for auction so I can see why it's considered less attractive for marketers. By the way, I am a marketer too -- a passive one, and it works for me and fits well into my lifestyle.
I would call it evolution. Smoke Signals, Mail, Telegraphy, Mail, Radio, Telephone, Cell Phone, Email, Instant messaging, Video conferencing, now Face-booking.
Good grief. Queue the violin music.
People use it as their main median to communication with their large network of friends, associates, and Now Whole families.
Play it again Nero.
It's less of a destination, and honestly more of a dependences now days.
There's help available for that.
And with marketing Dollars flooding in, it will get bigger, and make it harder for a replacement!
Marketing dollars might be flooding in, maybe yes, maybe no, but floods recede in due time (Summer 2014).
I will bump this thread in a few year ;)
That's your right. One of us might be wrong, one might be right. However if it works itself out as I foresee, based on cold hard facts, I won't be looking this thread up to come and rub your nose in it. I'm more of an Aikido type, I prefer to just let others defeat themselves while I stand back and watch them flailing all over the place.
Second, in the age of search where more of our traffic is going through a single destination "Google" which is restricting our data, i would think web master would welcome and support a new and better way to reach and engage their target audience?
Yes I agree. But it's not available through any of the current choices. I have a personal project coming up and I have made a definitive decision to block ALL google IPs to the site as well as display a message to Chrome visitors that their browser isn't supported, they will be welcome to reload the blank page with a different browser to get the content. I'm going to attempt to use Twitter to promote it. That way I can just push info to the ether without infringing on anyone's right to privacy and they can find me by choice through hashtags or electronic word-of-mouth. I suspect it will be high quality traffic. I WILL NOT have any type of "social" media account other than Twitter.
The page for my main site is now 56,000 Fan strong and i do more traffic from Facebook now then Google, and I have been able to build a large email list from Facebook then Google, and i can target my fan through Facebook ad for pennies per click generating consistent traffic and engagement.
In a previous post somewhere here on WW you've said before that you spend "large amounts of money on facebook advertising". At that time I was going to jump into the thread to suggest you might be able to get better value and more highly targeted traffic for less dollars with Google Adwords, but I didn't. However "large amounts of money" is a relative term but "pennies per click" and "large amounts of money" contradict each other.
I wish Facebook was bigger.
There's a subliminal thought being expressed there that in it's current state it's not adequately producing enough for you?
I think i should go and invest in some Facebook stock.
Well with your highly successful venture into facebook marketing you must surely be able to afford to risk a few hundreds of thousands of dollars so go for it!
My stance with facebook is that I have no doubt it may be beneficial for a select few niches. It's like everything else, there are exceptions to the rule. But as far as I'm concerned the rule is that it's a total waste of time and effort for most businesses.
Finally I just want to add my post here is not an attempt to be vindictive toward Clarence. All is expressed strongly, but with no ill intentions. I just like Clarence's ability to stir me into debate through deeper thinking and expression.