Digital Media

If only Facebook created their own Microsoft Exchange

How great would that be? For those of you that are not familiar with Microsoft Exchange, the idea is this: Being able to sync your phone with Facebook. Everyone in your Facebook social graph becomes a contact in your phone.

Some things you could do with such a solution:

  • Anytime your friend buys a new phone or changes their number, they simply make the edits themselves in their Facebook account, and the number becomes available in your phone.
  • If you add a new friend on Facebook, you can choose to include them in your “Mobile Sync” setting allowing you to choose, whether or not you’d like this new “Facebook Friend” as a contact in your phone.
  • Text messages becomes Facebook messages.
  • Your Facebook newsfeed becomes a newsfeed on your phone.

I’m probably going to buy the new iPhone when it comes out. In the past, I’ve stuck with Windows Mobile devices because it allowed me to sync my contacts, email, calender, and tasks with my Microsoft Exchange Server (I run MS SBS out of my house). But instead of updating all of my contact information time and again in outlook, I’d prefer a system that utilizes self published user information; aka: Facebook.

As Apple and Google have been addressing the mobile market in new and innovative ways with the iPhone and Android, it seems to me that Facebook is in the best position to capitalize off of the “network” business.

ON A SIDE NOTE: I’ve also been looking for a tool that seemlessly syncs outlook Contacts and calender with my Facebook account, but I haven’t found one yet. This would be ideal.

I hope Facebook comes out with either of these solutions.

Online Monetization: Beyond Advertising and into Microstransactions

Let me start by saying this: I firmly believe online advertising is and will continue to play an essential role in the economic ecosystem of the internet (so much so, that I am working at Lotame). With that said, is online advertising the only answer?

Arguably No.

Microtransactions: According to learnthat.com

Microtransactions Definition

Microtransactions are small transactions, perhaps of the order of a cent. They are being considered for digital content on the web (a magazine selling an article (unbundled) rather than an entire issue (bundled with additional information that may not be of interest to the consumer). This may then open up additional revenue streams for the content providers.

As new web services, application, or any website for that matter becomes available, the priority typically lies with the user base and generating lots of eyeballs. Once that user base has reached significant mass, the service can leverage the base and monetize.

So if a company like twitter were to offer subscription based premium services, they could, in theory, generate revenue from their loyal users. But what happens if they applied a micro transaction type revenue model? What if they generate revenues based on individual actions (using a feature of the service), or premium actions (using a premium feature of the service), and charge users a fraction of a penny for the action. Granted there would have to be a standardized pay-pal like model behind this type of system, but the amount of volume or interactions that exist online, could yield significant revenue. Make sense?

There are definitley issues surrounding this idea (haven’t though them all through), but the premise is there.

Today’s Music Label

If Sony BMG, Universal Music, Def Jam, Motown, Warner Brothers, or any of the big music labels were to create their business model today, what would it look like? First, a quick glance at their methodology:

The old model was simple:

  1. Provide the artist with resources to create an album (Studio, equipment, personnel)
  2. Manufacture the Album (CDs)
  3. Distribute the Album (Stores)

Clearly this model has failed while trying to apply it to todays marketplace. Here is why:

  1. Provide the artist with resources to create an album (Studio, equipment, personnel). Artists can download superior programs and can obtain quality hardware.
  2. Manufacture the Album (CDs) Everything is digital. No need for tangible items.
  3. Distribute the Album (Stores) Distribute the Song/Album (iTunes, MySpace, YouTube, etc).

Because these music labels have not completely adapted or changed with the times, they have been resorting to legal action. (Larry Lessig goes into great detail about the issues involving innovation, technology, and law…his blog is definitely worth reading)

If the music labels reinvented themselves or started from scratch, what would their business model look like? I’d first argue that the first three points need to happen. Resources to create the music, making music, distributing the music. With the advent of cheaper hardware, P2P file sharing, and social media, these points can be easily attained.

But where do you go from there?

Social Media Music Label – An organization that can most efficiently and effectively market and distribute songs. An organization that can generate a brand that encompasses a group of artists, while sharing revenue to some capacity. An organization that leverages the brand to obtain revenues outside of direct music sales. A brand that engages the listeners/users on every level from audio, video, blogging and networking.

I don’t know exactly what that model looks like, but we can just take a look a Chamillionaire‘s success and realize the rules have changed. (Below is Pete Cashmore’s interview with Chamillionaire)

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4798499561605779000]

Web mail and web identity

A few months ago I had a very interesting conversation with one of my friends, who was at the time, working for CBS. He told me that media companies are simply missing the mark when it comes to new media.

Since that time, a lot has change and it is clear that the major media outlets are starting to finally get it. More recently, I had the privilege of meeting an extremely accomplished new/media/political veteran, Greta Van Susteren, and she put forth a great topic of debate.

Facebook vs. Blogs & Email.

I have been on Facebook for the past year, and lately, I’ve found myself only using it for the status feature, birthday notifications, and news feeds. It keeps me indirectly connected to my friends. It is my stock ticker of my social life. My social graph.

And while I have this social graph, an easy way to connect to my friends, I still find myself writing on this blog and using traditional email. Why? Sure I also use Facebook messages, but why not email? How do I choose? What are the benefits?

With Facebook, Google, and MySpace, all beginning new initiatives to be social across the web, a lot of interesting things should arise relating to this idea of web identity. A type of web address and web driver’s license that will aggregate my web presence into one location, one application, or one resource.

I look forward to see who will drive this innovation. In the meantime, we can continue this discussion via Facebook, email, comments below, LinkedIn, twitter, MySpace, Meebo, AIM….and so on….

Fred Wilson has some thoughts on this idea as well…he articulates them better than I do…

Facebook Connect

Facebook is opening up the walled garden and sharing…or are they?

Their new announcement:

“Today we are announcing Facebook Connect. Facebook Connect is the next iteration of Facebook Platform that allows users to “connect” their Facebook identity, friends and privacy to any site. This will now enable third party websites to implement and offer even more features of Facebook Platform off of Facebook – similar to features available to third party applications today on Facebook.”

At a first glance, it might seem as if this is a great move for Facebook and its users. But is it really?

Some initial thoughts.

In an attempt to be the social network across the internet:

  • Users can have one web identity (see sxip) which will eliminate the need for the thousands of logins we have.
  • Facebook will become even more centralized and necessary for warehousing user information. (Federal Reserve : Money :: Facebook : User Data)
  • Third party developers can build much more powerful applications without the restraints of the Facebook platform. No canvas page.
  • What was first an attempt to build a platform or centralized location, has now become an open initiative, encouraging users to engage third party websites ultimately leaving them with less advertising inventory.
  • User data might now become available for third party ad targeting outside of Facebook.com
  • Disrupting their own Facebook App ecosystem
  • New revenue model? Their current one isn’t really working.
  • They are becoming more open
  • They are becoming more closed

 

In the end, I think the real question is whether or not Facebook actually intends on adhering to these fundamentally “open” policies they are trying to replicate from the likes of MySpace, Twitter, Yahoo, and eBay

 

Ryan Waggoner states it best here:

“As Kaliya stated, I’m afraid that this is just another strategy for Facebook to “lock-in” their users and attempt to become the central repository of everyone’s social graph. If that’s the case, this is not data portability as I still don’t have full control over my data.

Hopefully, they’re going to be fully supporting open standards, but I doubt it. Facebook strikes me as a company that pretends to be open, but is only open one-way or to the extent that they can control.

Facebook is Microsoft 2.0”

Looks like we will have to wait and see, but something tells me Ryan and Kaliya will be right.

The International Game

Who is winning? And at what sports?

I’m not speaking in literal terms, but a recent post by Andrew Weissman really forces us to look at the future of business. Business creation, sustainability, and innovation.

Six sigma worked pretty well for GE. Google’s 70/20/10 rule seems likes its doing just fine. What new business strategies will emerge….and where?

On the Microsoft/Yahoo merger…

“No one wants it (the Microsoft-Yahoo merger) to happen. The only reason it’s being considered is that the management of Windows Live has been so ineffective that they can’t ship anything worth using. They are consistently behind what consumers want, and unlike the old Microsoft, they are so poorly managed that they can’t even copy everyone else. “

Anonymous source to Mary Jo Foley of ZDnet

So adding more layers of complexity to an already dwindling organization is going to help? Microsoft is better off staying focused on XBOX and bridging the gap between media and the living room.

Where did their core competencies go?

Scroll to Top