IMHO, this proves (yet again) how difficult it is to monetize social networks and I think it's a commentary on the long-term viability of facebook – if nothing else, as the article mentions briefly, it's a crack in the high-value facade that FB and its early investors have tried so hard to build.
I guess it's an open question as to just how much of the network's would-be value can be wrung out of it by facebook – but doing so is a dangerous game for them. On the one hand, if you exploit your users too much or too invasively, you'll see a huge uproar and pushback. On the other, if you can't produce results for customers (retailers, etc.), then the perceived value of your product goes down significantly.
edit: Ah, yes, the non-communicative downvote. Please, if you disagree with me then by all means, say so. Downvoting does little to build any sort of higher intellectual exchange. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be told why... it might even spur a good conversation.
"On the one hand, if you exploit your users too much or too invasively, you'll see a huge uproar and pushback. On the other, if you can't produce results for customers (retailers, etc.), then the perceived value of your product goes down significantly."
I was thinking about this recently, in the context of Target and its use of statistics to get ads for baby products to people who they calculate are pregnant, and in the more general context of gmail et al. and ads based on email content.
There's probably a Laffer Curve kind of relationship between number of ads served (taxes) and the amount of views/visit/use (work). Serve more ads and your revenue goes up, to a point. Serve to many ads, and your revenue goes down, because people view/use/work less.
Still trying to work out how the Trickle Down theory manifests online.
I guess it's an open question as to just how much of the network's would-be value can be wrung out of it by facebook – but doing so is a dangerous game for them. On the one hand, if you exploit your users too much or too invasively, you'll see a huge uproar and pushback. On the other, if you can't produce results for customers (retailers, etc.), then the perceived value of your product goes down significantly.
edit: Ah, yes, the non-communicative downvote. Please, if you disagree with me then by all means, say so. Downvoting does little to build any sort of higher intellectual exchange. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be told why... it might even spur a good conversation.