Introducing Facebook Deals(blog.facebook.com)
blog.facebook.com
Introducing Facebook Deals
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=446183422130
16 comments
Facebook, practically by definition, is for the advertisers. Advertisers pay their salaries, after all, and the users are the product that Facebook is selling them.
Certainly. But you wouldn't know it from the language in the Deals announcement, which uses the word "friend" no fewer than 10 times.
We launched Places to let you share where you are with
your friends and see who's nearby. Now with Deals, you
also can see what offers are nearby and share those deals
with your friends."what is the purpose of Facebook?"
"monetizing relationsips."
"monetizing relationsips."
I hear this very cynical reasoning often but it's simply not true no matter how populist it is. The main difference is that if you're selling a product or a service and people don't want to buy it, you tweak your product until people will like it. Facebook, however, cannot switch its userbase. It can, however, find new advertisers that are a better fit for its users.
It warns you about checking into at private locations. While I agree that they should have the ability to differentiate between public and private places, Facebook does have a pretty big warning about this. If people are checking your house, they are the ones explicitly saying it's a public place.
Facebook is becoming Tecent QQ in US. (If you dont know abt Tecent QQ, please google it). It implements ideas from emerging companies and squeeze them out because they have the most important thing: 500 Million eyeballs.
This seems like a relatively common way most 800lb Gorilla businesses work. Google does the same (Gmail and others).
Facebook is a business which has leverage and they are going to use it. Business is competitive thats the nature of the game. I can't get too pissed at Facebook, because Groupon and Foursquare will do try to squash smaller competitors as well - its the nature of swimming with sharks.
Facebook is a business which has leverage and they are going to use it. Business is competitive thats the nature of the game. I can't get too pissed at Facebook, because Groupon and Foursquare will do try to squash smaller competitors as well - its the nature of swimming with sharks.
You mean Tencent QQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent_QQ
Yah, this is the company I mean. They are huge in China.
Deals shouldn't be the focus of our discussion. Instead, we should be afraid of the fact that facebook can wield the power of the social graph (which it owns) to create extremely valuable wholly owned subsidiaries. Most startups that rely on the network effect could be better implemented by facebook.
Does that make them a monopoly? If so, is it something we should fight? If the idea of a network-effect based startup benefits from a bigger network, we should all want them to own these ideas then, right?
A while ago I wrote a short piece about how location-based services will be 'hackable' for a long time (the specific piece was about gaming Foursquare with nine lines of Perl). Given how easy it is to game any location checkin service, what incentive will advertisers have when their deals are monopolized by a small group of Perl+wget armed, obsessive compulsive script kiddies? I don't know enough about marketing numbers--presuming that vendors give out deals to bring customers back to their store, do they care if the deals are systematically monopolized by freeloaders or bargain hunters?
During the live broadcast, a Facebook employee asked Mark how Facebook planned to handle people from fake check-ins and fake people tags, and his answer was that you have to show the retailer your phone in order to redeem the reward.
He also laughed at the question while answering it. Classy.
He also laughed at the question while answering it. Classy.
This seems like the kind of hubris that will come back to bite him in the ass.
Maybe someone can take a screenshot of their iPhone showing the deal, then send it to their friends.
Maybe someone can take a screenshot of their iPhone showing the deal, then send it to their friends.
In case anyone's looking for a startup idea: a cheap way of validating check-ins seems like a good bet to me.
(See: Shopkick)
(See: Shopkick)
I don't think this is the right direction for Facebook to take. In my opinion, eventually they'll take on 'the America Online of social networks' stigma. This certainly doesn't help. After a certain point I think there will be a real opportunity for a competitor.
An old tweet of mine:
Whenever I see or hear "facebook.com/foo" I think "AOL keyword foo".
http://twitter.com/thwartedefforts/status/15794051975
Whenever I see or hear "facebook.com/foo" I think "AOL keyword foo".
http://twitter.com/thwartedefforts/status/15794051975
The thing about all this check-in deals is that it solves mostly the first problem - customer acquisition. Loyalty deals are great for customer retention, but for that part of the puzzle, I'm wondering why businesses would, and seem to want to, rely on an intermediary to manage the relationships. Allowing Facebook or any other site to be a key part in managing loyalty seems like one step away of losing all customers (or at least the data of them).
Costs and reach. The costs for a single business to implement something like this would be, I imagine, prohibitive. Their is also the issue of reach. Facebook presents a platform that business can build on that people really use. Facebook has users. A lot of users.
To implement the same system for a business, they'd have to deploy their own hardware and software, and then reach out to customers to use their special set up. Sitting on top of Facebook essentially gives them all of this without a problem. Most places can't do what Facebook is providing for them.
So now users have a reason to "Place" themselves at a business, and businesses have a reason to link into the system. A "Place" by a user gives them exposure to the users friends.
Consider also that this isn't the only means a business can use for loyalty. Business still have other means to go for customer retention.
To implement the same system for a business, they'd have to deploy their own hardware and software, and then reach out to customers to use their special set up. Sitting on top of Facebook essentially gives them all of this without a problem. Most places can't do what Facebook is providing for them.
So now users have a reason to "Place" themselves at a business, and businesses have a reason to link into the system. A "Place" by a user gives them exposure to the users friends.
Consider also that this isn't the only means a business can use for loyalty. Business still have other means to go for customer retention.
To be fair, they can get a not insignificant part of the benefit by putting a sign outside the venue saying "checkin on Facebook for X" and asking at the counter.
They can then using that list compiled and stored for them for free by Facebook to generate a free mailing list which they can send free messages to and get free metrics on their success.
Most of the most effective ways of marketing on Facebook are free.
They can then using that list compiled and stored for them for free by Facebook to generate a free mailing list which they can send free messages to and get free metrics on their success.
Most of the most effective ways of marketing on Facebook are free.
This seems like 'Foursquare meets Groupon'. It will be interesting to see who gets assimilated.
Where's the "meets Groupon" part? Look exactly like just Foursquare to me...
Check out Groupon Stores. Groupon just released a self-serve store for deals where you can get customers to follow your business and push out deals to them. They're not exactly the same, but Groupon's new offering is a very different beast than the daily deals it was offering before and much closer to Facebook Deals. Those two combined with the LBS's going to make it very interesting for businesses. Marketing is changing at an increasingly rapid pace and while there are themes, I don't think anyone can guess where it will be in a year or two.
I don't think it's really like groupon. The core of groupon isn't a deal, it's a surge of attention pushed out to a large group of subscribers.
Your point about assimilation deserves some discussion though. I don't think facebook wants to buy any location based companies, it's in a good position now to just be the underlying platform. They don't have a whole lot to gain by buying these companies anymore.
But deals and offers is mostly a sales and support problem, and that's the kind of thing facebook /might/ build through an acquisition.
Your point about assimilation deserves some discussion though. I don't think facebook wants to buy any location based companies, it's in a good position now to just be the underlying platform. They don't have a whole lot to gain by buying these companies anymore.
But deals and offers is mostly a sales and support problem, and that's the kind of thing facebook /might/ build through an acquisition.
Perhaps 'assimilate' is not the right word. What I meant by that is organically steal market share.
Also, while the business model is not anything like groupon's, to the consumer it is similar. Just another way to get a good deal.
Also, while the business model is not anything like groupon's, to the consumer it is similar. Just another way to get a good deal.
Less Groupon, and more Signpost (http://www.signpost.com)
On a related note (full disclosure), I worked with Signpost when they were Postabon, and I got the question "You mean like Groupon?" 100% of the time until I started differentiating the two in my initial explanation.
On a related note (full disclosure), I worked with Signpost when they were Postabon, and I got the question "You mean like Groupon?" 100% of the time until I started differentiating the two in my initial explanation.
similar story here. and i wish they stayed with Postabon. think that name and logo/style had more personality.
The most practical thing I got out of this was that free jeans are coming soon:
"Gap: Giving blue jeans to the first 10,000 customers to claim their deal."
"Gap: Giving blue jeans to the first 10,000 customers to claim their deal."
Step 1. Take all the deals from Facebook deals
Step 2. Build an iPhone app or web page that lets a user pick a location and prints out a deal to look like a Facebook deal
Step 3. Get your user to show the deal to the counter
Step 4. WIN! (or profit..)
Step 2. Build an iPhone app or web page that lets a user pick a location and prints out a deal to look like a Facebook deal
Step 3. Get your user to show the deal to the counter
Step 4. WIN! (or profit..)
Link doesn't seem to work anymore. Does anyone have the skinny on it or the replacement link?
I really don't mind being the "product being sold" on Facebook, but I still resent helping to sell my friends, such as by filling their feed with ads for local businesses so that I can save a few bucks. Personally, I draw the line here.
I think the single-sign-on for other apps on iPhone/Android announcement they also made today was more interesting. Also that Zuck said they don't consider iPad to be "mobile" (so don't expect an iPad app any time soon).
Facebook could potentially be sued by Tippr (so could Groupon).
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/16/tippr-buys-up-collective-buying...
Unless Zuck & Co. ponies up like they did for the Friendster patents.
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/16/tippr-buys-up-collective-buying...
Unless Zuck & Co. ponies up like they did for the Friendster patents.
the old "it's possible to own an idea or pattern in nature" thing. i love that. patents -- oh how I hate thee, let me count the ways.
I didn't see it mentioned in the blog post, but in the press conference Z said they are not monetizing deals yet, and have no short term plans to.
EDIT: I removed a point saying I didn't think these would be more interesting than what Yelp does until they start to monetize. I think that's too strong a statement.
EDIT: I removed a point saying I didn't think these would be more interesting than what Yelp does until they start to monetize. I think that's too strong a statement.
Except that they have such a huge existing userbase compared to Yelp (both in terms of end-users and businesses who are aware of them, and likely use Facebook themselves already).
I bet yelp has more queries per unit of time of people looking for places to go shop/eat/drink.
That's because you open yelp looking for NEW places to check out, fb/4sq is for the places you already are or friends are. People discovery vs venue/place discovery
I feel like this should best be handled by outside apps rather than the FB platform itself.
Edit: Perhaps I should offer the disclaimer that my suite of Facebook tools (fanbldr.com) will eventually include some Places-linked features.
Edit: Perhaps I should offer the disclaimer that my suite of Facebook tools (fanbldr.com) will eventually include some Places-linked features.
My old intern's new startup does this: http://devoteeapp.com/
Well, it was nice knowing ya Groupon.
You can check yourself in anywhere, tag your friends (whether they're there or not), and see where others are checking in. But I want to use Places to meet up with people, to organize events, to see where my friends' favorite places are. It's just not very good for that.
And it still reeks of poor design -- enough people checking in at your house will force it to be a public location, and there is no process to privatize it again.
It just feels scummy, like much of Facebook.