The COMRADITY Journal

HOW MANY FACEBOOK ACTIVE USERS ARE THERE?

UPDATED:  Facebook revenues are driven by scale and data mining.  Some say the May 31, 2010 "quitfacebookday" was a bust because Unique Visitor numbers continue to climb.  But there is evidence that the traffic may be inflated by people changing their Facebook status, and/or tools like Facebook Connect and the Like button.  However, the data mining value is protected - even the information of those who have deactivated, deleted accounts, or just removed Facebook content from their pages.

Unique Monthly Visitor numbers are used by Facebook to define "active" users in the press.   The "500 Million and growing" reports we hear so often from Facebook and the press are global numbers:   http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-reaches-500-million-users-2010-5 and http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/facebook-500-million-visitors-comscore/. 

The US numbers are about a fifth,  at just over 100 Million.  Comscore data that says that monthly unique visitors were 111.9 million  Download ComScore 2009 US Digital Year in Review: Page 7 in December 2009.  Corroborating the latter, Nielsen reports 116.3 Million unique visitors in the month of January 2010.  http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/facebook-users-average-7-hrs-a-month-in-january-as-digital-universe-expands/

On May 17th (2 weeks before the May 31st, "QuitFacebookDay"), Fortune questioned the backlash and reported that Facebook added a net gain of 10 million after announcing the controversial privacy changes.  http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/what-backlash-facebook-is-growing-like-mad/

A Comscore chart confirms that US monthly unique visitors increased at a much faster pace after a plateau from December 2009 - March 2010.  The increase coincides with the Facebook policy change to shift of the default "share" from private to public and the launch of the "Like" button in April 2010.  Makes you wonder what the change in momentum means.   

Are these unique visitors "active" or "deactivating"?  According to an ABC News investigation,  Facebook does track deletions and deactivations but does not publically report them.   In the ABC report, search marketing expert Danny Sullivan suggests interest in deleting Facebook accounts was significant since it did impact Google search trends:

To see how recent the Facebook trend was, Sullivan used Google Trends, which shows the popularity of certain searches over certain periods of time.

Although there was not enough search volume for "how do I delete my facebook account," he said he found something interesting when he entered "delete facebook account."

"Yes, there is definitely a rising trend," he wrote. "Over time, more and more searches at Google have involved it, it appears."  Quitting Facebook: What Happens When You Deactivate?

Likewise, according to Joseph Dee, who started the movement,  "quitfacebookday" was a trending topic on Twitter. 

Directionally, polls suggest the Facebook backlash was real:

"60% consider quitting facebook" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100521/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc2184 

"40%+ of Mashable readers say no" http://mashable.com/2010/05/31/quit-facebook-day/

"78% of CBS poll takers say Facebook privacy control changes did not go far enough" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20006164-501465.html

In addition to considering deactivating or deleting accounts, Facebook members also reacted to privacy policy changes by removing content:

"only 2% say they would quit, but 81% say they are using Facebook more carefully" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=64627

The other question raised by the change in Unique Visitor momentum in April 2010 is how Facebook user participation in Facebook "partners" is reflected in the Unique Visitor numbers.     Fortune reports "partners" have grown to 100,000  http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/what-backlash-facebook-is-growing-like-mad. 

One way Facebook has developed partners is Facebook Connect (launched in Spring, 2008) in which Facebook member activity on other sites is dynamically published on their Facebook page, without ever going to www.facebook.com.  Does this count as a Unique Montly Visitor for Facebook?

Another way Facebook has developed "partners" is the Facebook "Like" button.  The launch coincides with the sudden increase in Unique Monthly Visitor momentum in April 2010.  Wonder how Facebook "Like" button use factors into the Unique Visitor numbers, even if you never visit www.facebook.com? 

Another Facebook partner are 3rd part y data miners.  You'd think that removing content, deactivating or deleting your account would devalue Facebook to 3rd parties.  But it appears 3rd parties still have access to information.  According to the ABC investigation (above): 

If a user decides to deactivate an account, the profile information is no longer available on Facebook, but the site still saves all of the information in case the user returns.

"We preserve the account in its entirety. People often deactivate for temporary reasons and expect their content and information to be there for them when they return," a Facebook spokesman said in a statement.

and Facebook is vague about what happens when the account is "deleted" rather than just "deactivated": 

After the 14 days, Facebook said it purges the user's information from the site. The policy says copies of some materials may remain for "technical reasons," but Facebook did not immediately explain this further.

 Those "technical reasons"  include obligations to 3rd parties or partners.   When you deactivate or delete your account they still have access to some materials.    The ABC investigation confirms:

Still, Facebook said third-party applications or sites might be able to hold on to that information "to the extent permitted by our policies."

When good ideas go bad

When “Seamless” becomes surreptitious information gathering and exploitation.

When “Co-creation” becomes a cheaper way to get good ideas, exploiting the creative class.

When “Influencer Marketing becomes "Ambush Marketing".

When “Technology” becomes a reason to say “new, improved” instead of delivering something worth paying more for.

When a “Free” becomes Bait and Switch

When “Community” is all about a lot of “Me’s”

When “Earned Media” is about generating a lot of publicity by screwing one or more people.

Please add more examples in comments.

How ironic is this?

Serendipitously, I read two articles consecutively which tell a very ironic tale about Mr. Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.

The first article, by Nick Carr, focused on this Zuckerberg 2009 quote¹: “You have one identity… The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly… Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity”

The second article, by Nicholas Carlson, focused on this IM² from Zuckerberg's days at Harvard:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails

, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

1. Danah Boyd shared the quote here.  She cites it is from the soon to be released book,  The Facebook Effect  by David Kirkpatrick.

2. SAI sources, according to Nicholas Carlson

is it really so complicated?

Recently I read Piaw Na's blog post, "Compensation is hard, let's go shopping" , which suggests that acquisition rather than organic growth is the corporate choice of because it's just  too complicated for a corporation to operate the way entrepreneurs do. 

But, the biggest, Fortune 50 corporations, did exactly that.   They grew by being an amalgamation of many small business units, each run be a general manager responsible for their own p&l.  Business unit managers acted like entrepreneurs.   They acted with a sense of ownership.  They cared about their customer relationships. They expected to have lifelong careers so they made decisions based on long term results.  They were motivated by pride in their company and the money.  Their sense of ownership for the corporation gave, an otherwise impersonal entity, humanity and gave the brand name substance.

Three changes happened to complicate this inherently virtuous circle and consequently make corporations "less human". 

First, today, corporate earnings aren't simply a reflection of the aggregated business unit managers' income contribution.  Corporate money management can cover for losses and exaggerate gains.

Second, today, corporate investments go beyond new products and improving existing products to investing in technology information systems which give corporate managers the info to manage money before it is made.

Third, the fragmentation of mass media landscape has eroded the efficiencies of corporate led marketing and obvious synergies with business unit marketing. 

In my opinion, we've made it more complicated than it has to be or should be.

When a business unit isn't profitable, there's a fundamental problem corporate management needs to confront  (not manage "around").   When a business unit's contributions are strong, then technology investments should be to help strong performers make more money and weak performers learn from strong.  Likewise, strong business unit managers are so because they care about customer relationships - they should be engaged in figuring out how to take advantage of the fragmented media landscape. 

Corporate management and technology should help business unit managers who make money, make more, and help others do the same.  Then manage the money after it has been made.

Tweet Archives - What_The?

#what_the? RT @metaprinter amish newspaper moving online? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2...

50 cent as mgmt guru via @lucykellaway "drug dealers are the perfect gurus for a recession" http://bit.ly/13RHj8

"Here’s..what banks don’t need..a stake in struggling media cos." RT @todd_harrison http://bit.ly/1ZPKAE

Burglar breaks in, steals stuff, sees computer, checks fb page, forgets to log out, get's caught. http://bit.ly/kFL9k via @jonoringer

#what_the? press doesn't disclose analyst's fin. interest when reporting Yahoo! upgrade drives up stock? e.g., http://bit.ly/3ZIY7u

#what_the? Yahoo! upgraded http://bit.ly/3ZIY7u now "rethinks" paid cont. even tho not making up "lost subs" w/ad $ http://bit.ly/1nPkr

Yep we are in the denial phase of healthcare reform with many enablers RT Wash Post http://bit.ly/XnUF8

RT@rashmi "VCs..(prefer) .. 22 yr old, male Stanford (grads) " http://bit.ly/bpFQ5 ME:who can be led by 25 yr old male VCs.

#twitter #spam @craignewmark Economist misses Twitter and Craigslist impact in this "state of porn ind." article http://bit.ly/U4D4b

#what_the? Fans who paid $xxx for tickets would pay $x to watch game or $xx w/ soc med RT Pd Cont:: NFL policy http://bit.ly/3XIL4W

#what_the? RT @robertniles Line of day: GOP lawmaker "to protect the sanctity of opposite-sex extramarital affairs." http://bit.ly/4901Jm

#what_the? @chr1sa says "great news . . Subscription music comes to the iPhone! http://bit.ly/VhCQv" ME: $15/mth + streaming $

#WHAT_THE is Ariely http://twurl.nl/sf1tsz Predictably Irrational author saying? [me:his conclusions are incomplete:http://twurl.nl/tf6rle]

#WHAT_THE? ADAGE http://twurl.nl/udybj0 Michael Wolff http://twurl.nl/jd4hsx [me:Murdoch Paid Media is game changer http://twurl.nl/225a0g]

@_coolsprings re: your comment on http://twurl.nl/xbxui1 #WHAT_THE of course FREE can be a powerful tool for a nanosecond. . .

comradityZuckerman investing $200 Million in Daily News printing presses http://twurl.nl/3snd7g [me: #WHAT_THE]

"Murdochs corporate suicide" http://twurl.nl/moyjjf [me:#WHAT_THE Bloggers should celebrate Murdoch's shift . . . http://twurl.nl/crtjdu]

RT @chr1sa says "Odd" that VSS considers internet "paid" b/c we pay for ISP! [me:w/ no more over-the-air tv, the only FREE media is radio]

#WHAT_THE does Predictably Irrational author Dan Ariely Say?

Dan Ariely writes about FREE in "The Nuances of the FREE! Experiment" , reflecting on the references to his truffle vs. kisses study in Predictably Irrational in reviews by the NYT and Time Magazine.  Specifically, he says that he concludes FREE is a very powerful tool because when they dropped the price of $.26 truffle and $.01 kiss by a penny the percent choosing one over the other went from 40% each to 90% for the free alternative. 

Here's my comment:

I think your conclusion from the Truffle Hershey Kiss experiment is not complete.

Your study proves several things:

1) Price does not equal Value. Dropping a $.26 price by a penny and a $.01 price by a penny is not the same relative change.

2) There are as many people (40%) who will pay a premium ($.26) for quality as people (40%) who will pay a little ($.01)for lower quality. Since the company who sells the truffles will make a much higher profit than the company who sells the kisses, this is the better choice.

3) Charging a little ($.01) will win fewer (40%) eyeballs than free (90%).

4) Media who offer a premium product online for a premium price will generate as many eyeballs as the micropayment guys and make a whole lot more money. This principal is supported by the fact that HBO has all time high subscribers and profits even during this economic crisis.

#WHAT_THE

Today, I've started a new Twitter thingy - #WHAT_THE

At a Chautauqua lecture yesterday, Frank Pierson (Cool Hand Luke screenplay writer) said he is less concerned about the right wing influencing government censorship than he is about writers' self-censorship.

I couldn't agree more. When writers write screenplays that they think a Studio or network will buy instead of a story they believe in, we end up with the predictable, formulaic stuff that is so common on television and at the movies and in music.

When the professional and amateur writers cover the news to serve a purpose (e.g., ad revenues or attention-getting) other than seeking the truth or honest analysis the audience stops paying.

So I'm going to use the #WHAT_THE tag any time I think someone says something - not because they believe in it - but because they think it will get attention.  

Creative destruction and the financial crisis

The December 2008 McKinsey Quarterly features an interview with Richard Foster, "coauthor of Creative Destruction explains how the business world—and the capitalist system—will change in the aftermath of the financial crisis."

Here's our comment to the editor:

Do you mean to tell me that you expect us to get out of this downturn by creating another unregulated way to gamble on future value? 

There are so many sanguine gems in this discussion, but my favorite is "The balance among creating, trading, and excelling operationally changes over time."  My question is: when does the balance shift to creating future value instead of creating new ways to “bring the future value to the present?”   And what is the definition of “future” when a stock swings on quarterly reports?  Is it possible that the depth of this downturn is about the lack of confidence in creating future value.  And isn't this lack of confidence reasonable?  How long has it been since the creation of “future” value goes beyond operational excellence or creating new ways to capitalize on it? 

I’ve been watching this movie since the early 1990’s.  That’s when I left a large marketing corporation shaking my head.  After helping my Fortune 50 client take a little investment to grow a brand 300% for a 5 times return on investment, I got a “dog look” from my CEO because he didn’t see any value in helping Fortune 50 clients do a lot with a little bit of money.  I’m sure he was much more excited about getting lots of money from venture backed internet start-ups who still believed in the mass marketing model and the first-in myth.  Myth you say?  Ask Yahoo about it?  Google is what 3^rd, 4^th in?  Guess there are some benefits to learning from others’ mistakes.   

© 2008 Katherine Warman Kern

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Creative_destruction_and_the_financial_crisis_An_interview_with_Richard_Foster_2268

No mistake that blunders are still bad

Financial Times commentator Lucy Kellaway writes about the "mistakes-are-good-fad" relative to the financial crisis. 

Our Comment to Lucy Kellaway was to suggest re-incarnate Tom Watson's iconic "THINK" plaquard.  Maybe if it had been printed on the computer model print out that recommended "BUY" we would avoid these unnecessary mistakes. 

She responded by email: "I loved your point about BUY and THINK. Quite right."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/defb54d0-a1de-11dd-a32f-000077b07658.html

© 2008 Katherine Warman Kern