The Facebook Era is Over
It's more than just the Plexodus
...Here are three predictions:
There’s no Facebook Killer. There will be no single company or app that will take Facebook on and win....
The three most obvious alternatives people are turning to are:
Private Messaging Platforms....
Vertical Social Networks and Subscription Content....
Highly Curated, Professional-Led Podcasts, Email Newsletters, Events, and Membership Communities...With awesome experiences and low switching costs, time spent will fan out among hundreds, if not thousands of different services....
Growth halts on the edges, not the core. Facebook’s prominence is eroding as the sources of creativity and goodwill that gave it magic, substance, and cultural relevance are quietly moving on. The reality is that Facebook stopped giving creators a return on their time a long time ago....
Big brands will be the last to leave....
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-era-over-gina-bianchini
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-era-over-gina-bianchini
It's more than just the Plexodus
...Here are three predictions:
There’s no Facebook Killer. There will be no single company or app that will take Facebook on and win....
The three most obvious alternatives people are turning to are:
Private Messaging Platforms....
Vertical Social Networks and Subscription Content....
Highly Curated, Professional-Led Podcasts, Email Newsletters, Events, and Membership Communities...With awesome experiences and low switching costs, time spent will fan out among hundreds, if not thousands of different services....
Growth halts on the edges, not the core. Facebook’s prominence is eroding as the sources of creativity and goodwill that gave it magic, substance, and cultural relevance are quietly moving on. The reality is that Facebook stopped giving creators a return on their time a long time ago....
Big brands will be the last to leave....
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-era-over-gina-bianchini
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-era-over-gina-bianchini
Und das auf LinkedIn, dem Facebook der Business-Netzwerke ...
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the big brand holdouts choosing Facebook for growth and engagement over direct-to-consumer relationships (read: relationships where you have an email address or cell phone number) are going to be in a very precarious position.
ReplyDeleteWill Coca-Cola ever have my phone number?? A better question might be: Do they already have it? When I went back to Indiana, I was surprised to learn that my 81 year-old father had apps for numerous fast-food restaurants; special deals offered, and he and my mother would alternate between them based on the deal of the day. How he lived that long eating that food is a mystery. Mind you, there was still an independent, mom&pop hole-in-the-wall restaurant they also frequented. No apps for that place.
When I was in Santa Barbara, I accepted email or sms receipts (in lieu of paper) from a number of establishments. And they were smart enough to not bother me with other garbage. Actually, I think it was the cash-register system being used that sent them; not the establishment itself, and many were using the same system. Recently, I gave my phone number to a major retailer in Australia with the understanding a receipt would be SMS'd. Nope. They SMS'd a link to the receipt. I'm not sure why that should irritate me more, when I've already given them my phone number - but that link implied a larger commitment to harassment.
Martin Pluntke doesn't M$ own Linkedin?
ReplyDeleteBill Pusztai Yes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-buys-linkedin-2016-6
businessinsider.com - MICROSOFT BUYS LINKEDIN FOR $26.2 BILLION
Edward Morbius wups I think the auto translate made a mistake. I think Martin meant that LinkedIn "is the FB of business networking", not "facebook's business network". Sorry about the error.
ReplyDeleteBill Pusztai Ah, yes.
ReplyDeleteand nothing of value will be lost.
ReplyDeleteBill Pusztai sorry, didn't realize that this was an english post. Thanks for clarifying it.
ReplyDeleteMartin Pluntke this is just me making a mistake, you're fine :)
ReplyDeleteArticle on Linkedin says Facebook is doomed and the last people there will be businesses. Why am I not surprised?
ReplyDeleteFacebook has an evil side evil. And they have UI quirks which infuriate me. But they do have awesomely, massively, huge numbers of active people, groups, events, chat, posts, comments and all the rest. And conversations do happen there at least as good as here. It's may be evil in parts, but it's also good in parts.
Facebook technical stuff can't do such simple things like proper password salting and safe keeping in their services so, what can anyone expect? Nothing than one fakap after another one. Lol.
ReplyDeleteJust read this..
https://androidcommunity.com/instagram-admits-passwords-of-some-users-exposed-as-plaintext-20181119
José Pedro Paula What do you mean by 24m/post? Source?
ReplyDeleteJosé Pedro Paula Does the percentage decline equate to a numeric decline in reach as well? What's FB's size here?
ReplyDeleteOr is this proportionate to followers?
José Pedro Paula There was a stat that was being mentioned on G+ for a while, something like "SpF" "EpF", or "ApF" (shares/engagement/actions/affinities per follower), which looked at reach as a function of followers.
ReplyDeleteRather unsurprisingly, the higher the follower count, the lower the engagement rate. I found that my engagement on Ello was vastly higher than on G+, despite an apparently lower follower count.
Alex Schleber pointed this out somewhat famously on a post of (I think) Amanda Blain, one of the early high-follower-count Plussers. She got exceptionally potty-mouthed with him (and later me) about that.
The idea that per member depth falls as total members increase is pretty much a given. Attention is time-based, and there's only so much time that can be allocated any particular thing over any period. This means that the numerous followers (who are also almost certainly following numerous others) will only pay so much attention to any one account, and that account simply cannot give more than the most fleeting of acknowledgement to the vast majority of followers.
Or as has been noted by many: "Conversation scales poorly."
It tends to fall apart nearly completely beyond about four members. Because of combinatorial effects.
(I can link both the Blain and combinatorial aspects if requested.)
I've mentioned this before relating to group forming.
ReplyDelete- 5 noisy people provides enough combinations for conspiracies where 4 is not quite enough. There's a big jump between 4 factorial and 5. 4! = 24 5! = 120.
- 90-9-1. 90% lurk, 9% comment, 1% post. Suggests that while a group of 5 will probably keep going, somewhere around 50 people are needed for those 5 to emerge with fairly regular contribution from another 10 and occasional from the rest.
- Dunbar. Somewhere between 100 and 250. Its possible for everyone in the group to recognise everyone else in the group.
Meaning that there's a sweet spot for active groups between 50 and 250 people who are actively engaged. Less than 50 and the groups tend to die out unless they're a talking shop for close friends. Greater than 250 and the noise level gets too high and people stop paying attention. And they no longer recognise the contributors.
Now apply that not just to systems with formal community-group function but to things like circles and followers. Any group-forming network. It's a common pattern among active people to create a carefully curated subset of people they follow closely and to only sip from the firehose occasionally. It's actually very rare for people to have high follow-follower counts and to also meaningfully engage.