I'm sure those of you who are returning from my blog last Tuesday will notice a certain emphasis I've placed on social media as of late (for those of you who are not loyal subscribers my previous non-spotlight blog was a light look at the phenomenon known as Twitter). Today I need to shift that focus to a bigger name and predecessor in Social Media: Facebook.
Facebook is reporting over 236 million unique visitors worldwide this year, up 41% from last year, but that doesn't necessarily mean continual success for the social media giant. Now, with enhanced behavioral targeting (BT) methods taking shape, Facebook is looking to assert itself as a major money making enterprise. They want to realize some of the potential profitability so many analysts have seen in the highly trafficked site for years.
Just ask Microsoft, who spent $240 million in late 2007 for a small portion (just over one and a half percent) of the private company's stock. At the time, Facebook was valued at $15 billion (although this valuation takes place from estimated values of the private stock), and has since dropped to less than one fifth of that value. Amazing as that may seem, numerous explanations have been offered as to why such a sharp decline took effect in such a small amount of time. These range from difficulties in targeting promotional ads to design and placement of ads.
No matter the actual cause, Facebook has undergone some serious cosmetic changes in its bid to boom (financially). Starting last year, the company announced a new design that set off controversy among the community's members. Several groups opposing the redesign appeared (many groups claimed that if a certain number of members joined then CEO Mark Zuckerberg would "bring back the old facebook"). The redesign stayed despite community complaints, and the storm eventually died down.
Last Wednesday (actually Thursday) marked another such "redesign." This time, the site has modeled its "feed" in a way similar (very similar... actually pretty much the same) to competitor Twitter. Members will now view a live feed that updates in real time. Ostensibly, the goal is to further involve members in the service, allowing them more control over which friends they receive updates from and placing them in a more favorable arena to converse with friends as events unfold. But I see it differently.
I question Facebook's continual efforts to redesign their site. Whereas I understand they have continued to grow at an exponential rate in this last year, I also understand their overall value is down. And what a 41% growth indicates to me, are new users who are not necessarily brand loyal yet. At what point do the changes negatively affect the company? How long does it take to alienate new users? It's almost as if Facebook is saying "Here you are, this is the site, please use it often and learn our features." Then without batting an eye, they whimsically change those features to try to salvage a decent profit.
Granted, the site has offered previews to its user base to solicit suggestions and finally ensure a peaceable transfer, but the changes themselves have come too fast and too often. By the time the navigation becomes natural and internalized, it seems to shift so that features are reorganized in a counter-intuitive format.
In times when people are searching for stability amidst major corporate meltdowns (like GM or AIG), the last image you want to associate with a company is instability. President Obama claims 2009 is the year for change, so maybe Facebook should leave some of that change to him.