Social networking: The Emperor has no clothes
I was catching up on outstanding messages in Facebook and LinkedIn yesterday and wondered why I was bothering. Unlike Peter Evans, I don’t like and am not very good at networking. That may also explain why I have no friends and thus tend to ignore Facebook. (I tried Twitter as well but decided that I didn’t need one more intrusion in my life of quiet contemplation.) It got me wondering about how these social networking sites are making any money. I’m sure their user stats contain lots of anti-social types such as me. On the other hand, these sites also contain addicts that use them all the time.
Fortunately, I blundered onto an article in MIT’s Technology Review (July/August 2008) on “The Next Bubble: The Future of Web 2.0.” The article, which deals with social networking as a business, pretty well concludes that social networks don’t have a business future. Much like the vanished portals of yesterday, these shining stars of today are fated to a life of irrelevance as they can’t figure out how to monetize their eyeballs and even those eyeballs will go away when something more cool emerges.
This got me thinking back to the days when Synamics, a company I co-founded was developing voice portals and trying to monetize telephony-based information before the Internet caught on. One thing we learned was that people would pay money for only four things: products, sex, gambling, and entertainment. (I don’t have to get specific here do I?) The phone, the Internet and TV are really pipes that deliver entertainment. Please note that people don’t pay extra for email and it was the very first social networking application to hit the net. Despite many tries, no one has really figured out how to monetize email.
Social networking sites are trying to convince advertisers that highly targeted and contextually specific ads will work but I think they are doomed to failure. People are on these sites to connect and communicate. Can you imagine sitting around in a bar andm when your friend mentions Big Brother 10 in conversation, some random guy from the next table asks you if you want to buy a new TV. Imagine too being on the phone discussing your latest sexual conquest and another guy comes on the line to talk about condoms. It just doesn’t work. Advertising works in Google because when people type “TV” into a search engine there is a remote chance that they may be looking for information on purchasing one.
That pretty well leaves a subscription based revenue model for social networking sites. The opt-in rate will be sub two per cent if my experience in telephony is any indication. Facebook with its $0.15 CPM will soon fade from the picture as its $150 million annual losses can’t be funded without more millions from Microsoft.
Next, I have to figure out “digital media.” If anyone can explain to me what it really is and why people think it’s technology, I’ll try and figure out how it can make money. At least it has in its favor a human predilection to spend money on entertainment.

Charles Plant is developing the Business Mentorship and Entrepreneurship Program, a component in the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Market Readiness Program.
Wow, there are at least two people in Toronto not on Facebook
Posted by: Paul Jara on September 4th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Charles IS on Facebook — he just wonders why. I don’t understand that when I am one of his friends and he can log in to look at my latest cottage pictures. They’re sure to brighten his day
I read the same article in Technology Review (in fact, while on the dock of the aforementioned cottage). Facebook could monetize their marketplace by taking a fee for placement, although one then wonders how that is any better than Craigslist which is free (unless they could manage to get rid of the spam entries).
The article was correct: people will go wherever their friends are. Wherever the “cool place” is, much like the cool bars in university. So they have to concentrate on keeping it cool for the leaders of those bands of friends.
I personally have found it a convenient place to put together all of those disparate useful features otherwise found around the the web (Flickr for photos, YouTube for videos, email, notes/lists, blogging, bookmarking). However, each of the individual tools at Facebook aren’t as good as the others available. So I continue using the others and feeding my data back and forth, which is annoying. Annoy me and I will stop using it. And so on and so on.
As long as they focus on being USEFUL to me, I am a faithful, happy user. Am I willing to pay for my experience? Probably not.
Professionally speaking, however, I might be willing to pay for premium services.
Posted by: Cathy @ MaRS on September 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Interesting and well written. I also have questioned at times the value of Linked-In and Facebook. However, it proves valuable if you have lost contact with a colleague that re-connects through either network. I would suggest that if “Second Life” is any example of a social network…..these types of connectors are here to stay.
Posted by: stephanie de Grandis on September 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm