Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#51

Post by Joeboy »

greenlblue wrote: post #45

When was the last time anyone here used facebook to get something done and I really mean get something done and create something of value? Anyone? As long as facebook caters to teen type activities like gossip and displays of vanity it can not compete with google in any serious way. The best it can do in the long run is become a glorified dating site where your friends recommend and vote on your dates and that is all…

I wish I could agree, but the reality is that my (physical, real life) social life is increasingly organised through Facebook. I'd miss out on a lot of social activity if I wasn't on it.

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#52

Post by IdeaHamster »

revorad wrote: post #7
vaksel wrote: post #4

this is the same crap we used to hear about myspace and friendster. Techcrunch needs to lay off the crack...facebook might be a billion dollar company...it might even be a 2 billion dollar company...but there is no way it'd beat Google. They compare it to Google revenues...but Google's ad product is a lot more effective. On Google the user is searching for widget, and Google tells them "hey widgets are 90% off at thi…

The funny and scary point this post made was that maybe (just maybe) Facebook is bringing back the inefficient TV ads that Madison Avenue loves in the form of Facebook banner ads. Facebook ads might make more money than Google ads precisely because their effectiveness cannot be measured (just like TV and billboard ads). Sure, engineers will cite poor CTRs but "brand managers" will be eager to dismiss that as oh-so-20…

Madison Avenue loves these "inefficient" ads because they get to play the part of "cop" in the classic prisoner's dilemma.

Let's say you release "Brand New Purple Foobars!" and hire my ad firm to advertise them. Sales are up, so what's your conclusion? Well, maybe my ads really helped push your product. OR maybe your product was just so awesome on its own that it didn't need any advertising. The question is, if you don't know for certain which it was, do you take the risk of not hiring my ad firm next time? What if you don't, but your competitor that just came out with "Brand New Yellow Doohickeys!" does?

The problem with Google's ads is that it removes the mystery. If I know how many people saw the ad, and how many people followed through and clicked the link, then I can evaluate how effective my ad campaign is directly. It's like giving the prisoners cell phones so they can text each other… "Hey, they said you confessed…that true?" "Nah man, you?" "Nope!" "Cool…so drinks later?"

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#54

Post by notahacker »

Joeboy wrote: post #49
redorb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if FB started selling products using my name based on me liking producst; I won't be happy. i.e. don't try to sell my mom a playboy cause I 'fan'd' their page.

That's not likely to happen because Playboy's ads will presumably be targeted at (a subset of) men. Anyway, FB doesn't need you to be happy. What are you going to do, move to MySpace?

Stopping using the "like" button so as not to give them usable data would be the first step...

-

Facebook's bigger problem is that their "platform" strategy makes it pretty easy to monitor these metrics and target fans without paying Facebook a penny. Essentially they traded potential revenue streams for ubiquity. Getting a "x and y like this" published in friends of fans' streams is a free action, as is collecting demographic information on the "likers" and sending them all coupons they have to "like" to activate. Established brands can generate better ROI from well-run fan page promotions they don't pay Facebook for than paid display ads with low CTR.

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#55

Post by vaksel »

raganwald wrote: post #36
vaksel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

spoken like someone who is a "social media expert" look this whole Facebook is the future of search is just plain nuts. People want instant results, they don't feel like asking "what colors does the Honda Civic come in?". The answer to that will be "use the search"

spoken like someone who is a "social media expert" What bearing does this have on the factual accuracy of the claims being made?

i don't know if he is one or not, he just sounds like one.

and the relevancy is that social media experts have a vested interest in making people believe that Facebook is not a complete waste of time

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#57

Post by gwern »

Facebook’s 2015 revenues will be >$28 billion —Adam Rifkin, TechCrunch: http://predictionbook.com/predictions/1821

Did Rifkin make any other specific predictions? I thought about including each source of revenue as a prediction but wasn't sure whether those predictions were anywhere near as interesting/important as the overall sum.

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#58

Post by raganwald »

vaksel wrote: post #55
raganwald wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

spoken like someone who is a "social media expert" What bearing does this have on the factual accuracy of the claims being made?

i don't know if he is one or not, he just sounds like one. and the relevancy is that social media experts have a vested interest in making people believe that Facebook is not a complete waste of time

So how does his "vested interest" affect the veracity of his claims?

I have an observation to share with you: If we ignore everyone who has some sort of "vested interest" in a subject, the only people we can consult for advice or suggestions will be people who are completely ignorant of the necessary facts and who have no experience in the subject matter.

Expertise in a subject is gained through working in the field. Working in the field means acquiring some sort of personal interest in the outcome.

I find that bias is useful to consider when given unfounded claims. For example, if someone says "I think Facebook is a complete waste of time," you might ask whether they have a vested interest in making us believe this is the case. However, if someone says, "Before Facebook there was MySpace and ICQ and Compuserve and Orkut and all of these foundered and died, Facebook is just the latest fad, it will die as well," we can analyze the claim directly and ask whether Facebook is a fad and if not, how it differs from the examples cited.

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#59

Post by Aetius »

greenlblue wrote: post #45

When was the last time anyone here used facebook to get something done and I really mean get something done and create something of value? Anyone? As long as facebook caters to teen type activities like gossip and displays of vanity it can not compete with google in any serious way. The best it can do in the long run is become a glorified dating site where your friends recommend and vote on your dates and that is all…

I don't even use gmail to communicate with friends and family anymore. Hell, usually I don't even call them. Facebook is the only way.

Re: How Facebook Can Become Bigger In Five Years Than Google Is Today

#60

Post by [deleted] »

vaksel wrote: post #4

this is the same crap we used to hear about myspace and friendster. Techcrunch needs to lay off the crack...facebook might be a billion dollar company...it might even be a 2 billion dollar company...but there is no way it'd beat Google. They compare it to Google revenues...but Google's ad product is a lot more effective. On Google the user is searching for widget, and Google tells them "hey widgets are 90% off at thi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN