The Case for Facebook(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Case for Facebook
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-case-for-facebook/257767?mrefid=twitter
14 comments
I don't buy the article's claim that Facebook is a "natural monopoly". A natural monopoly would be something like an electric utility, which would be very hard to compete with since you'd have to build out a very expensive alternate network of power lines before you could even start selling.
So let's look at what business Facebook is in and whether they have a monopoly in that market. Facebook is not in the business of running a social network -- most of their revenue comes from selling ads. Their customers are advertisers, not their users. Their competitor is not really the puny Google Plus, it's the mighty Google AdWords. And Google is currently beating them in that market, so no monopoly there.
Number of minutes spent on the site per month is the wrong metric to measure Facebook's success by. What really matters in both Facebook's and Google's business models is ad revenue per dollar spent on operations.
So let's look at what business Facebook is in and whether they have a monopoly in that market. Facebook is not in the business of running a social network -- most of their revenue comes from selling ads. Their customers are advertisers, not their users. Their competitor is not really the puny Google Plus, it's the mighty Google AdWords. And Google is currently beating them in that market, so no monopoly there.
Number of minutes spent on the site per month is the wrong metric to measure Facebook's success by. What really matters in both Facebook's and Google's business models is ad revenue per dollar spent on operations.
(Disclaimer: I first found out about the concept of natural monopoly in this article, so when I say I am not an expert, I mean I have no clue whatsoever.)
Well, a natural monopoly doesn't mean that it is a monopoly, right? Just that it's most efficient as a monopoly. It's not impossible to build out an alternate network of power lines; it's just prohibitively difficult. Maybe it'd be more correct to say that it's Facebook's specific targeting mechanism of ad delivery that it has a monopoly on?
For instance, I imagine a cellular network is a natural monopoly by the exact same reasoning you say that an electric utility is one. Except... neither Verizon nor AT&T nor whatever actually has such thorough market domination: in fact, their competition is partly on the very pervasiveness of that network.
Well, a natural monopoly doesn't mean that it is a monopoly, right? Just that it's most efficient as a monopoly. It's not impossible to build out an alternate network of power lines; it's just prohibitively difficult. Maybe it'd be more correct to say that it's Facebook's specific targeting mechanism of ad delivery that it has a monopoly on?
For instance, I imagine a cellular network is a natural monopoly by the exact same reasoning you say that an electric utility is one. Except... neither Verizon nor AT&T nor whatever actually has such thorough market domination: in fact, their competition is partly on the very pervasiveness of that network.
"One in every five page views on the Internet is a Facebook page. If you think the Internet is valuable, then you implicitly think Facebook is valuable, too."
Holy logical fallacy, Batman.
Holy logical fallacy, Batman.
"If you think the Internet is valuable, then you implicitly think porn is valuable, too".
Porn has to be at least 20% of the Internet, right?
Porn has to be at least 20% of the Internet, right?
I'd go with 18.23%, you're clearly ignoring pages on ferrets.
An oldie-but-goodie:
http://instapaperstories.tumblr.com/post/3069345131/the-geek...
What's actually interesting about Porn on the internet, is the way it has dealt with a) copyright issues and b) free / amateur porn.
In both cases, seeing falling revenue from P2P sites, there's been some amazingly good work on ad revenue, and ironically, a drive towards monopolies of content ~ where the content makers of 'paid' porn are actually supplying the "free" sites with content directly to drive ad revenue. And in many cases [b]own their supposed "adversaries"[/b] who are supplying "free porn".
If you want a short-hand way to think about it: it's the same deal as Pepsi or Coke. Multiple "competing" brands / flavours, all under the same umbrella.
Then again, there's also (can't find the link atm) the remarkable lengths free porn sites harvest fraudulent ad revenue off 'mushrooming' innocent linked sites tied to the page views.
~In this field, I often think that Porn has been more driven / canny about financial revenue than the MSM generators.
(Apologies if this is all known knowns & for the lack of a link there)
An oldie-but-goodie:
http://instapaperstories.tumblr.com/post/3069345131/the-geek...
What's actually interesting about Porn on the internet, is the way it has dealt with a) copyright issues and b) free / amateur porn.
In both cases, seeing falling revenue from P2P sites, there's been some amazingly good work on ad revenue, and ironically, a drive towards monopolies of content ~ where the content makers of 'paid' porn are actually supplying the "free" sites with content directly to drive ad revenue. And in many cases [b]own their supposed "adversaries"[/b] who are supplying "free porn".
If you want a short-hand way to think about it: it's the same deal as Pepsi or Coke. Multiple "competing" brands / flavours, all under the same umbrella.
Then again, there's also (can't find the link atm) the remarkable lengths free porn sites harvest fraudulent ad revenue off 'mushrooming' innocent linked sites tied to the page views.
~In this field, I often think that Porn has been more driven / canny about financial revenue than the MSM generators.
(Apologies if this is all known knowns & for the lack of a link there)
I would just like to thank the OP and the Atlantic for including a tl;dr section, is this becoming standard practice in our 140 character world?
I think we've entered the world of "state your thesis and conclusion in simple words"
If you can't give a good gist about something in less than a paragraph, you don't know what you're talking about.
If you can't give a good gist about something in less than a paragraph, you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem with the Facebook stock, is its valuation in relation to growth prospects / concerns. It's as simple as that.
Facebook maxed out the money they could raise on the IPO, and the price fell afterward accordingly. It's better for the company long term that they did that.
It's a long race they're in.
Facebook maxed out the money they could raise on the IPO, and the price fell afterward accordingly. It's better for the company long term that they did that.
It's a long race they're in.
A hundred billion was way too much. As of right now, though, it's valued at $57.66 billion ($27 per share) and I'm starting to think it may be worth buying while the sentiment on it remains so negative.
Maybe not $27, maybe $25, or $20... there's gotta be some sort of floor on the value though.
Maybe not $27, maybe $25, or $20... there's gotta be some sort of floor on the value though.
Somewhere between $8 and $12 if you're a value investor.
Umm, at 6$ a share I would call it expense at 15P/E, but probably worth it. At 12$ and a 30P/E your expecting 4x+ earnings within 5 years and continuing growth after that or it's not worth it and IMO I just down't see FB getting there.
PS: It takes 32% annual growth for 5 years to be worth 4x in five years. FB is not expecting 32% growth next year and large companies rarely see sustained double digit growth let alone increasing sustained double digit growth. Now you can make the greater fool argument, but that's not value investing and FB has been on the market for a while even if it was not a 'publicly' traded company.
PS: It takes 32% annual growth for 5 years to be worth 4x in five years. FB is not expecting 32% growth next year and large companies rarely see sustained double digit growth let alone increasing sustained double digit growth. Now you can make the greater fool argument, but that's not value investing and FB has been on the market for a while even if it was not a 'publicly' traded company.
[deleted]
This author sounds a little naive re: technology.
Perhaps he should examine some of the Facebook publicly available scans that have been done by "academic researchers", e.g., in South Korea. It is not rocket science to crawl Facebook.
Facebook's data is accessible. As is any website's back-end database. You are kidding yourself if like the author you think you can put something like Facebook on the public internet and have it be "private". If people with the skills -- and there are plenty of them; surprise, they don't all work at Facebbok -- put in the effort they can get the data. All they need is a reason/motivation to do so.
But let's have some more embarassing "tech journalism" (uninformed pontification) from a once respected journal. Put more nails in the coffin of the notion of "professional journalism".
Perhaps he should examine some of the Facebook publicly available scans that have been done by "academic researchers", e.g., in South Korea. It is not rocket science to crawl Facebook.
Facebook's data is accessible. As is any website's back-end database. You are kidding yourself if like the author you think you can put something like Facebook on the public internet and have it be "private". If people with the skills -- and there are plenty of them; surprise, they don't all work at Facebbok -- put in the effort they can get the data. All they need is a reason/motivation to do so.
But let's have some more embarassing "tech journalism" (uninformed pontification) from a once respected journal. Put more nails in the coffin of the notion of "professional journalism".
I agree with the author that Facebook's imposition of a "house style" on user profile pages was a huge advantage of Facebook over MySpace. That spared Facebook from being butt-ugly on most pages, and probably also reduces server load at scale. That Facebook is international is also a strength of Facebook--I have Facebook friends in several other countries, and I interact with them now more than I ever have before since we went off to separate countries. But to this day China is blocking Facebook, and other countries still have the technical means to restrict use of Facebook.
But user count isn't the key issue for a business. Revenue and eventually earnings (profits) are the key issues. All of my interactions on Facebook don't monetize Facebook. Facebook is under governmental supervision both in the United States and in the EU about how it uses user-supplied data to monetize. I read Facebook pages with AdBlock and F. B. Purity installed--I find Facebook disgusting when I view it on other computers. I can't think of any way that Facebook can monetize my share of the load on its servers without turning me off, and many of my friends think the same way. We are happy to free-ride on the gullibility of Facebook's investors (what consumer doesn't like a good deal?) but if Facebook seriously figures out how to monetize its full user base in a way that provides positive return on investment for Facebook's investors, that is likely to be through corporate behavior that turns off Facebook's users and drives them away. It's been done before, and I expect it will happen again.