Facebook and Search: A New Google Rival
June 7, 2012
Facebook is making plans to improve its search engine so users can more easily find shared or liked content. The current flawed search system needs a revamp, but a new survey reveals that almost half of respondents disliked the idea of Facebook launching its own search engine.
The article, “A Facebook Search Engine to Rival Google? Users Dislike That Idea,” tells us that even though Facebook could potentially capture 22 percent of the global search market, but the public isn’t exactly receptive at the moment. Forty-eight percent of respondents to the recent survey by Greenlight spoke up and said they would not, or probably would not, be interested in a Facebook search engine.
“Still, Greenlight says if Facebook launches its own search engine, it could potentially grab 22 percent of the global search market share and become the second most used search engine in every major market except for China, Japan, and Russia, where it would rank third.
‘It wouldn’t need to be a spectacular engine either, just well integrated into the Facebook experience and generally competent,’ said Greenlight Chief Operating Officer Andreas Pouros.”
However, Facebook isn’t currently interested in crawling and indexing the entire web. The company just wants content on the site that is shared by users to be more easily accessible. Regardless, Google’s 66.5 percent market share in the U.S. is quite intimidating and possibly the reason behind Facebook’s reluctance to join in the search engine war.
Andrea Hayden, June 7, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Facebook: Fad or Future?
May 28, 2012
It looks like Computerworld is buys into the Facebook-as-a-fad thing with their piece, “U.S. Facebook Users Skeptical of Site’s Privacy, Longevity.” The privacy thing I can see; I approach posting anything on Facebook as if I were shouting in the middle of a crowded square surrounded by cameras. But Facebook on the way out? I don’t think so.
This latest kerfuffle, timed interestingly so close to Facebook’s much-discussed IPO, was spawned by a poll by the Associated Press and CNBC which found half of Americans think the site is a fad, though 43% see it a more of a fixture. My money (metaphorically) is with that 43%. Keep in mind that there’s still a chunk of the American public that isn’t even comfortable with computers yet. I’d bet a number of older folks think Facebook is a passing fancy because, to them, it’s still one of those new-fangled techy thingies that could never last.
Regarding that privacy issue, even dedicated Facebook users seem to realize they should not be shouting out their credit card numbers in that crowded, camera-encircled square. The article tells us:
“According to the survey, which sampled 1,004 U.S. adults earlier this month, three of every five Facebook users say they have little or no faith that the social network will keep their personal information private. Only 13% trust Facebook to protect their information, and only 12% would feel safe making purchases through the site.
“The AP noted that half of those who use the site daily — Facebook’s most loyal users — say they would not feel safe making a purchase on the network.”
No, Facebook is not a haven of confidentiality, but it was never meant to be. Users who understand that do just fine. As for staying power, the company is nothing if not innovative and responsive to change. We shouldn’t be so quick to count it out.
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
What Differentiates Facebook from Google and HP?
May 25, 2012
It would seem to state the obvious to say that Facebook is different from Google and HP. Just how it stands apart could be more interesting, though, particularly from the viewpoint of the social giant’s own fearless leader. ZDNet reports, “Mark Zuckerberg on How Facebook is Different from Google, HP.”
Going public can have a way of changing a company; suddenly, shareholders must be placated, and it can easily become all about short-term profits. Zuckerberg insists, however, that his company will forever be all about “the social mission,” as writer Emil Protalinski put it. Recently, Zuckerberg emphasized this priority in a comparison with two of Facebook’s biggest competitors:
“I think the biggest difference between Facebook and other companies is how focused we are on our mission … Different companies care about different things. There are companies that care about, just really care about having the biggest market cap. Or there are companies that are really into process or the way they do things. Hewlett Packard, right? The thing that you always hear about them is ‘the HP Way.’ … Google, I think, is very tied to their culture — they really love that. For us, it is the mission: building a company that makes the world more open and connected. The articulation of that has, I think, changed over time. But that’s really been, like, the belief the whole time.”
Will investors appreciate the boy genius’ attitude? Some have already expressed disappointment in his wardrobe. Protalinski points out that anyone investing in Facebook is ultimately investing in Zuckerberg and his vision; stockholders would do well to give the man room to keep doing what he does. Comfortably dressed, even.
Cynthia Murrell, May 25, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Wolff Howls, The Facebook Is Failing
May 24, 2012
I read “The Facebook Fallacy.” The point of the write up is that online advertising is doomed. Upbeat. Clever. And it certainly seems to be spot on in the wake of the slow sinking of Facebook shares.
Mr. Wolff asserts:
I don’t know anyone in the ad-Web business who isn’t engaged in a relentless, demoralizing, no-exit operation to realign costs with falling per-user revenues, or who isn’t manically inflating traffic to compensate for ever-lower per-user value.
I quite like the word “humper”. It adds some interesting connotations to the person engaged in selling advertising. What does “humper” call to your mind? Keep your thoughts to yourself; otherwise, an online advertiser may insert an advertisement into your once-private life.
The killer sentence in the write up, in my opinion, was this one:
The growth of its user base and its ever-expanding page views means an almost infinite inventory to sell. But the expanding supply, together with an equivocal demand, means ever-lowering costs. The math is sickeningly inevitable. Absent an earth-shaking idea, Facebook will look forward to slowing or declining growth in a tapped-out market, and ever-falling ad rates, both on the Web and (especially) in mobile. Facebook isn’t Google; it’s Yahoo or AOL.
I put the juicy bit in bold. I enjoyed the poignant reference to the value of a New York Times online subscriber, but let’s think a moment about the reality of Facebook.
First, the social trend does not have much impact on me. But for some, Facebook is a must-have application or service. However, Facebook is oozing forward. The company is likely to undergo changes. My view is that the changes will be slow, so the demise of the Facebook blob will take some time.
Second, the problem online advertising faces is in some ways similar to the problem traditional advertising faces. Audiences phase change without warning. The truisms which allowed my account representative from Ketchum McLeod & Grove don’t work too well in today’s wonky business climate. In the absence of proven methods for making sales, there is a desperation marketing phenomenon which I find interesting. Nothing much works, and I don’t think Facebook will crack the code. However, there are enough PT Barnum opportunities to keep the business afloat for a while.
Third, the present financial climate jeopardizes Facebook and a number of other businesses. I am far more concerned about the social consequences of cutting the financial lifelines to those who depend on government largesse to survive. One can advertise and market like the Dickens. If potential customers don’t buy, there is a larger problem.
I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t care what happens to Facebook or any of the Web outfits. I am reluctant to cry “wolff”.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
Facebook Monetization Speculation
May 24, 2012
“It’s free and always will be.” CNet News’ Chris Matyszczyk speculates that Facebook may have to break its famous vow in “Why Facebook May Soon Cost You Money.” Extrapolating from a New Zealand test run of a program that would boost visibility of your status updates for a fee, Matyszczyk sees more charges in the future for Facebook users. He also suspects this may ultimately (ironically) give users more power. He writes:
“This week’s New Zealand experiment comes from the same helpful impulse that spawned fees for your first checked bag at the airport. “In other words, now that we’ve got you, give us something. Of course, one of the difficulties if Facebook succeeds in charging customers for, say, actually having people seeing their updates, is the possibility that its relationship with its users will change. “Currently, Facebook can switch its privacy rules and drag you along because you are aren’t a paying customer. “But once you are, mightn’t people begin to take on a different attitude? A paying customer might expect a higher level of service, of feedback — and, yes, of privacy.”
That is a good point. Certainly Facebook isn’t eager to hand users any control over the site.
I’m sure they aren’t eager to break their promise to always be free, either. After all, that vow is posted prominently on Facebook’s sign in/sign up page, and has always been integral to the company’s philosophy. On the other hand, charging piecemeal for perks (a.k.a. improvements) won’t technically violate their word, and may just help keep those shareholders happy.
Cynthia Murrell, May 24, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Experian Hitwise Reveals Facebook Search Traffic Statistics
May 23, 2012
There seems be a lot of talk these days pitting Google+ and Facebook against one another. There are a variety of different factors that come into play when comparing the two Internet giants. Search traffic is one of them.
It may be overhyped but based on a new batch of stats just released, Facebook has been getting some traffic that is worth noting. According to a recent CNET News report, “Facebook.com Received 9% of All U.S Internet Visits in April.”
According to the data collected by Experian Hitwise, despite its somewhat controversial business model, Facebook is not hurting for search traffic one bit. In fact, the Internet tycoon received more than 400 million page views this year and 229 visits a day with an average visit time of 20 minutes.
The article states:
“10 states account for 52 percent of visits to Facebook.com — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina based on year-to-date average. The top states where users are more likely to visit Facebook.com versus the online population are: West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Alabama based on year-to-date average.”
It looks like Facebook is going to be around for a while, so settle in and get comfy Google+.
Jasmine Ashton, May 23, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Facebook Explains Data Policies
May 22, 2012
Ah, Facebook and its content treasure trove. The New York Times reports, “Facebook Shares More About How It Uses Your Data.” The social behemoth has added new explanations about its content and privacy policies to the site’s Help tab.
Writer Somini Sengupta infers that the new disclosures may be in response to questions from certain European college students and the Irish Data Protection Office (which regulates Facebook’s European data policies.) Perhaps, but it seems to us that the clamor for transparency from Facebook began long ago. More likely, the timing has something to do with Facebook’s comparatively new Director of Privacy, Erin Egan. Ms. Egan was previously a partner and co-chair of the global privacy and data security division at a respected international law firm based in Washington, DC.
The write up informs us:
“The new explanations, available by clicking on the Help tab on the bottom of the Facebook home page, include one on how cookies work on the site and what information application developers receive when you download an app on the Facebook platform. The explanations also inform users about who can see what kinds of posts on their timelines.”
“‘We also provide more information about how we use data to operate Facebook, to advertise, and to promote safety and security for Facebook users,’ Ms. Egan wrote.”
Could the timing of these explanations, and the creation of the Director of Privacy position itself, have anything to do with Facebook going public? The company must now balance the specter of public scrutiny with its obligation to plump up profits for shareholders. Good luck with that.
Cynthia Murrell, May 22, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Forbes: Google and Facebook Will Be Obsolete in Five Years. Really?
May 14, 2012
When researching the impact of web tycoons like Google and Facebook, every once in a while you come across an article that’s so out of left field that it bears mentioning. Forbes contributor, Eric Jackson’s article “Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years,” is an excellent example of one of these stories.
According to the article, with the rate of technological progression, tech companies that have dominated in the web 1.0 and 2.0 eras have historically been unable to adapt to the changes that come with the new generation of social and mobile technology.
Jackson writes:
“[Facebook and Google] will have all the money in the world to try and adapt to the shift to mobile but history suggests they won’t be able to successfully do it. I often hear Google bulls point to the market share of Android or Eric Schmidt’s hypothesis that Google could one day charge all Android subscribers $10 a month for value-added services as proof of future profits. Yet, where are all the great social success stories by Web 1.0 companies? I imagine we’ll see as many great examples of social companies jumping horses mid-race to become great mobile companies.”
While Jackson brings up some excellent points, he forgets the fact that Google and Facebook have already made the leap from social to mobile and are continuing to adapt.
Jasmine Ashton, May 14, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Facebook in Numbers
May 11, 2012
Not surprisingly, Facebook showed off some big numbers in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The May 3rd, 2012 S-1 filing, detailed in a post titled “Facebook’s Numbers,” contains the basic business and financial information on popular social networking site Facebook.
The author states:
“I like to look at raw numbers every once in a while, without external influence, to recalibrate my ability to judge the magnitude of things. Here are some of the numbers from Facebook’s most recent S-1 filing(published on May 3rd) which I think are important as metrics to compare against when thinking about relative success and opportunity.”
Here are some interesting data included in the write-up:
- 526 M worldwide total daily active users
- 901 M worldwide total monthly active users
- $1,058 M worldwide total revenue last quarter
With numbers like this, no wonder the IPO valued the company around $86 billion. The company plans to sell shares for $28 to $35 each, which will raise roughly $10.6 billion, making it the fifth highest IPO in history. We knew Facebook was big, but now this IPO is just begging us to buy stock.
Andrea Hayden, May 11, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Zuckerberg Grip Should Be Choke Hold
May 8, 2012
In 2012, Facebook seems to be shaping up as the “new” Google. I know that apps for Facebook are not behaving the way some would like. The privacy thing is an issue. Facebook pretty much does what it wants, or, perhaps I should say, “Mr. Zuckerberg does what he wants.”
I spotted an important “real” journalistic position in “Zuckerberg Grip Becomes New Normal in Silicon Valley.” The “old” normal was Google. Hewlett Packard, Oracle, and Yahoo seem oddly out of step in the social analytics, big data, and big upside environment created by Facebook. The concept of the “new normal” is an important one, and I think that other Bloomberg and “real” journalists will hop on the bandwagon and cling until the next big thing rolls along.
Here’s the passage I noted:
Companies that have three or fewer outside board members include Pinterest, an online bulletin board; Dropbox, a provider of Web-based storage; question-and-answer site Quora Inc.; Flipboard Inc., the maker of a magazine-like application for the iPad; and Nest Labs, the creator of a technology-powered thermostat. Zuckerberg adopted a dual-class structure in 2009. He has 10 votes for every other shareholder’s single ballot. Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion in the IPO, the biggest offering on record for an Internet company. The Menlo Park, California-based company would be valued at as much as $96 billion in the deal. “People look at Facebook and see what they have done,” said Stephen Venuto, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in Menlo Park, who helped Facebook set up its initial corporate-governance structure. “It’s become a much more common thing to implement dual-class capital structures in Silicon Valley companies.”
Several observations:
First, Zuckerberg is likely to keep control going forward. As a one-man band, the new normal is more power to the technologist executive. Good for the executive, perhaps no so good for some other constituencies.
Second, the lousy financial climate has shifted the financial firmament. The beneficiaries of the “new normal” may not be financial institutions which, despite protestations to the contrary, prefer to have control. The “new normal” is that power is divided differently.
Third, the implosion of the social media shock wave is likely to take out people, partners, and users. Facebook is a different type of outfit; that is, it is member based and chock full of content with a significant specific gravity. Explode high mass content out of Facebook. Interesting repercussions are likely.
The “new normal” may be fresh and innovative, particularly from a financial vantage point. Stable? I am no so sure.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2012
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
