Here is the third and final installment of my interview with Paul La Monica, editor at large for CNNMoney.com and author of the brilliant article "Why I Hate Facebook." In this section we get into the nitty gritty of Facebook's ify future. Enjoy!
Me: Someone once said to me that Facebook isn't for anyone born in 1978 or before. Being that I was born that year, I tend to concur. Do you agree that these sites are in some ways generational? And now that more and more parents are joining Facebook, is it just a matter of time before kids find a new trend? Do you foresee any viable alternatives?
PL: To a certain extent, social networking sites are general in the sense that for many younger people, they won't know a word without Facebook, Twitter, etc. However, I don't think the generational gap is that much of a hindrance. My brother was also born in 1978. I'm older than him. So is my wife. And most of my friends that are on Facebook were all born in the late 1960s to early-mid 1970s.
But you raise a great point about parents joining Facebook. I do fear that from a business perspective, the challenge social networking sites will face is staying relevant. I do think that there is a certain degree of fickleness and that there probably is a site right now that's just getting started that will become the hot new site for younger Web users in 2010...which means it will become the media darling of 2011.
Me: Your article mentions Google's monetizing capabilities. Can the same be said of orkut- their venture into the social networking world? In your opinion, has any social network site come close to finding a solution to the monetary issue?
PL: Google has not really made that much money off of orkut. And even YouTube, which you can argue is much about social networking and user-generated content as it is video from "traditional" media companies, is not generating major profits yet for Google. MySpace has been somewhat of a success for News Corp., partly due to the ad agreement it has with Google. But it still seems that social networks are still searching for the way to justify the massive amounts of hype, not to mention venture capital money plowed into them.
Me: Do you think people would ever be willing to pay for a social networking subscription?
PL: It's possible. And it may not have to charge a big fee in order to generate meaningful revenue. The problem though is that if Facebook, for example, started to charge a subscription, you'd immediately have a flood of new companies cropping up offering free services that would try to steal away users.
Just to make my point clear, my reasons for "hating" Facebook, and the reasons I wrote the column, were to simply point out two things. For me personally, I don't want to spend the time updating a social network page...mainly because I don't see a need to share so much information with others. But more importantly, I still don't see how Facebook can get from being a cool, extremely hyped company to one that actually can generate enough revenue and profits to survive for the long-term. I don't have any horror stories about or axes to grind against Facebook or any other social networking sites.
A big shout out to Mr. La Monica for taking the time to speak with me and for sharing his insights with us Social Network Rejects. Thank you!
Posts
Really interesting stuff. The idea of subscription-required social network sites is interesting. In this economy, the great "Paid vs. free" debates have reignited, but now we have all the Web 2.0 tools to consider. Alot of folks might find a SN destination more appealing if there was a financial barrier to it that by default, kept out folks not truly committed to the site.
ReplyDeleteTom