Latest Blogs

from the Emerging Business Team

Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing

The Future Of Social Networking - Consolidation or Mass Customization?

The Future Of Social Networking was the topic of a panel at Microsoft's ReMIX Silicon Valley. Will social networks consolidate into a few big players like Facebook and MySpace, or will it splinter into thousands of special interest social networks? The opinion of the panel and audience was split.

What about the financial success of social networks? FastCompany published a timely article about Ning raising $60M at a $500M valuation. Beebo recently sold to AOL for $850M. Facebook recently raised more money at a $15 Billion valuation. Valuations are one thing...profits are another. Sometimes the correlation between the two requires creative math.

The future of social networks is an interesting, and potentially very lucrative, question to ponder. Will there be a few giant networks or thousands, even millions, of special interest social networks?

It is interesting to note that Facebook started out as just a network for Harvard students and alumni. Mark Zuckerberg quickly discovered that other schools wanted a Facebook too. Schools were added slowly and you had to have an email address with the school domain name in order to join that Facebook network. It was a cozy social network for college students and alums to stay in contact...and express themselves. You know the rest of the story. Facebook allowed a few companies to have social networks, then opened the floodgates and let anybody in.

Ning, and others, believe there will be millions of smaller social networks based on special interests. Ning reportedly has 230,000 social networks on its service. Other social network players include Microsoft Spaces, Beebo, MySpace, iMeem, and even services like Flickr, Seesmic, Twitter, and various blog networks.

Do page views equal profits? It seems clear that both big social networks and small special interest networks will continue to grow. The distinction may be that only the big social networks will gain the "critical mass" and "audience demographics" to be financially successful. Not all page views have the same financial value for advertisers.

A penny for your thoughts? I talked to a Facebook App developer at the ReMix conference. He told me his app is generating 300 million page views per month. Wow! Then I asked what kind of CPM (Cost Per Thousand) ad rates he was getting. He shrugged and said somewhere between $0.02 and $0.05 per thousand. That pencils out to between $6K and $15K of advertising revenue per month for those 300 million page views. Pretty good for a couple of young hacker/coders with very low overhead, but not the kind of business that  commands million/billion dollar valuations.

Other industry insiders at the conference said they see CPM rates of between 10 cents and 50 cents per thousand for social networks, but it can go much higher ($2.00 to $5.00) for highly targeted demographics.

Is Web 2.0 financially viable? A small moderately successful software company can generate $12M in annual revenues by focusing on a narrow niche market. What would it take for an advertising based Web 2.0 company to generate the same revenues? Lets assume a $2.50 CPM rate. To generate $1M in monthly ad revenue you would need 400,000,000 monthly page views.

So, what does the future hold? Social networks are clearly a hot area. We are in the early stages of evolution. Facebook is here to stay, but other approaches and models may emerge and be even more successful. The monetization of social networks is also in the early stages.

What do you think? What are your favorite social networks and Web 2.0 services? Who do you think will be the winners? Leave a comment and join the discussion.

Published Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:41 PM by Don Dodge

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Roger said:

Hi Don,

Great post, much appreciated. I like your take on the need for consolidation in social networking environments. By coincidence, I had been thinking about this and just today posted a brief essay on my blog at TwitterThoughts.

I'd certainly appreciate any thoughts you might have.

Roger Harris

April 21, 2008 2:36 PM
 

Joe Latone said:

Don,

I highly value my social network, the connections and all the data flowing in & out. Rather than just a central site like Facebook/LinkedIn or just open API's like OpenSocial, I'm interested in a client/device distributed -platform- for social networking. I'm thinking something based on Skype, the best STUN platform, plus git, so that I could efficiently, reliably, securely distribute my "home directory," plus etc.

That would change advertising as we know it today for all parties, and open the door to other opportunities for information arbitrage.

Regards,

Joe Latone

latone@gmail.com

April 22, 2008 2:55 PM
 

Getting Started said:

ReMIX08 turned out to be a great conversation two weeks ago at our Silicon Valley campus. Scott Guthrie

April 28, 2008 8:48 PM
 

Christine Perey said:

Hi Don,

I'm an independent analyst and consultant in the domain of mobile social networking and mobile UGC.

I prepared the most comprehensive market research report written to date on the topic of mobile communities. It was published in February 2008 by Informa Telecoms and Media.

Please go to www.informatm.com/msn for more information. The companion volume (a survey of 31 services) is also available. A description can be found here: www.informatm.com/msncompanion

I continue to focus on the mobile social network space and follow over 80 mobile communities closely. I'm also monitoring and working with other types of companies which are in the larger Mobile Social Networking ecosystem.

Critical mass of users is important (and there can be discussion about how many users constitutes critical mass) but your post brings up one of the pressing issues on which everything (the future of social networking) hinges: measurement. I can rant for hours/pages on why there need to be better ways of quantifying communities. An auction site measures deals closed in a period, the average size of transactions; an entertainment service measures the length of time spent, number of logins. It's even more acute on mobile due to the way some communities are implemented, but even for the online communities it's not sufficient or appropriate to use the same metrics for measuring communities as measuring traffic on an information web site (page views per month and CPM).

In the Informa report I dedicated the better part of a chapter to suggestions/recommendations for how to measure the dynamics of communities and members. Some of this was based on how online community managers have begun to study their communities, but with mobile a number of other (mobile-centric) metrics may be relevant.

My second comment on your post is that, in my opinion, large communities (however we measure them) will continue to grow/expand but their existence is unlikely to depress the emergence of new communities or groups within large communities. Mass customization is more what people who join communities are looking for. What we are likely to have are more gateways and interfaces to mitigate the network "silo" effect we currently have (where everyone on one service can communicate but can't see what's going on in another network). Voice is pervasive because there are no silos.  You can call someone on another network without knowing which network they're on. There are plenty of local, regional, national and international networks.

I emphatically recommend that when writing/speaking about communities we make distinctions between trends observed in mobile, converged and web (online) access methods. On/with mobile, the community/service feature sets differ from on-line in many ways. Permit me to point out two very important distinctions which are relevant to the original post.

First, mobile community feature sets need to be more limited narrowly focused (fewer items on a screen/page) at a time than on the web. There may be, in the backend, all the same features as on a converged service with on-line access but less is presented to the user. There's less screen real estate but it's also because the usage paradigms are more numerous. Online communities, people are sitting, usually at home. They bounce around among many topics and people. When I'm checking my community from my handset I can be anywhere I have data service access. I'm likely to get interrupted, to be moving and to need other services (perhaps a call will come in, or I need navigation) in parallel. This has a direct impact on monetization (one of your questions, how many page views to profitability).

Second, the mobile community features will be richer in context. The elements the user sees and interacts with are more likely to be split between the "local" (nearby, physical proximity) features and the "non-local" (could be defined in a number of different ways).

These are just a few of the reasons that mobile-only and converged community experiences will continue to differ and evolve.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have opportunities to assist mobile community services or others in the ecosystem who wish to enable mobile communities with new features/services.

Regards,

Christine Perey

cperey@perey.com

www.perey.com

May 15, 2008 6:47 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

About Don Dodge

I have been in the software business for more than 20 years. I started my software career with Digital Equipment Corp, aka DEC, in the database group. I worked with 5 software start-ups over the next 12 years. Forte Software was the first multiplatform object oriented development environment. AltaVista was the first search engine on the web. Napster was the first P2P file sharing network. Bowstreet was the first web services development environment. Groove Networks was the first secure P2P collaboration platform. Now I am at Microsoft...the biggest start-up in the world... working with VC's and start-ups in the greater Boston area. The goal is to help VC's and start-ups be successful with Microsoft, and together, provide great products for our customers.
Don Dodge
Information Worker Productivity
I have been in the software business for more than 20 years. I started my software career with Digital Equipment Corp, aka DEC, in the database group. I worked with 5 software start-ups over the next 12 years. Forte Software was the first multiplatform object oriented development environment. AltaVista was the first sear...

Recent Posts

Syndication

  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Add to Technorati Favorites

Content Part

There is no text for this content part in the database.