As bizarre as this sounds, one of the most valuable
innovations in technology over the last several decades is Facebook's
"Like" button. That's what has propelled the company to a galaxy-orbit
valuation for its forthcoming initial public offering, filed Wednesday.
This is not only because the word "like" is, like, the identifying
word of an entire generation. It's because computing has evolved beyond
just taking directions from humans—and instead is cozying up to us and
sniffing out our emotions and intent.
Advertisers are drooling. Procter & Gamble CEO Robert McDonald,
while announcing a layoff of 1,600 people, said this week that the
company is trimming its $10 billion annual ad budget as well because, he
told analysts, "things like Facebook and Google" can be "much more
efficient."
Computing's business model has evolved from selling hardware and
software to enticing millions of users to one spot and then selling them
something else. The industry has moved from the cool business of
directly selling innovation to the age-old media model of selling ads—a
$500 billion business.
And behind all the glitz, that's what Facebook is. Its tons of cheap
servers sitting in dark rooms store our thoughts, photos and videos, to
be delivered and shared to a select group of friends, our social
network.
Advertisers rightly took note of the potential. But running ads next
to pictures of your buddy Johnny funneling beers at a lacrosse game is
not exactly what they had in mind. Then, in mid-2010, Facebook rolled
out its Like button, which transformed the company from a somewhat
interesting social network into a major media player. The power of Like
as an emotional sensor is what's driving Facebook's exorbitant
valuation.
Note that no one dominates this next wave of computing—not yet
anyway. Instead, lots of companies own a piece of the market, and all
are trying to eat the others' lunch.
Getty Images
Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif.
Apple, worth $425 billion with $125
billion in annual sales, is a huge consumer platform. It keeps hardware
and software tightly coupled, selling more than 100 million phones or
tablets yearly. This lets it sell other stuff, like apps, and content
like music and videos—and some ads. With the ability to track our clicks
and location, it knows what all of us are doing minute by minute, sort
of—but so far it leverages that by selling ever-better devices which we
constantly upgrade.
Apple has already tried and failed to take on Facebook with a
homegrown social network, Ping. But Apple is a threat to Facebook in
many ways, especially since more than half of Facebook users, I'd guess,
access the site via mobile phones.
Amazon, worth $80 billion with $48 billion in annual sales, sells us
stuff directly. These sales are relatively low-margin, compared to
software anyway. But Amazon leverages its infrastructure and 150 million
users by selling excess capacity and Web services to smaller players,
by selling ads, and to kick-start its own Kindle, which is now a lot
more than an e-book reader. The Kindle Fire, with six million sold in
the last three months, is a full-fledged shopping platform.
Google, worth $190 billion with $38 billion in annual sales, is the
closest real competitor to Facebook. Google lures you to its site via
its search engine and sells ads against results, paid per click. Yes,
yes, Google has lots of other services, like email and maps, but
basically it runs an ad platform. It's a great business with operating
profits of 35%, similar to Facebook's.
Google+ is the next-largest social network to Facebook, and Google is
scrambling to integrate your friends' opinions into search results.
Google's Android phones are another gateway that Facebook and its users
must traverse.
There are lots of other potential competitors trying to leverage our
emotions. Twitter with its 140-character messaging. Netflix with
streaming video. OpenTable with restaurant reservations. Microsoft with
Skype video conferencing and Xbox videogames. Groupon and LivingSocial
with social coupons. LinkedIn with business resumes and job search. Each
provides some piece of productivity that users or businesses or
advertisers will pay for. Each company that fails to dominate will end
up being acquired or subsumed by the eventual winners.
Which brings us back to Facebook, which listed 2011 earnings of $3.71
billion in its IPO filing and is believed to have a potential worth of
$75 billion to $100 billion—though I hear that some shares traded
privately before the filing at an assumed valuation of $150 billion.
Facebook doesn't sell phones or tablets, or ship physical products or
even do searches. Instead, it has a vibrant, pulsating community of 845
million people willing to share their personal lives with others.
Facebook is a giant emotional locker.
That's where the Like button comes in. The adage about advertising is
that only half of ads are effective, but no one knows which half. So
companies will drop $3.5 million to NBC for a 30-second Super Bowl ad.
Or run Keystone Light ads on Comedy Central. They may work, but
advertising—ask P&G—is an industry ripe for productive innovation.
With the Like button, Facebook is like Bob Eubanks on "The Newlywed
Game," who promised contestants "a prize chosen especially for you."
Advertising's nirvana is an ad chosen especially for you. Of all the
players, Facebook is the closest to delivering.
Others will catch up. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg would do well to
take the billions raised from the IPO and go on the offensive.
Already—via a new subscribe feature with which you can "follow"
someone—it is trying to neutralize Twitter. A Facebook phone? I doubt
it, but lucrative deals with other hardware players are almost a must.
My best advice to Facebook is to keep playing poker and betting big
while Apple, Amazon and Google move around their chess pieces playing
defense. With a potential enterprise value at 25 times sales, a lot of
things have to go right for Facebook over the next five years.
Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the
author most recently of "Eat People: And Other Unapologetic Rules for
Game-Changing Entrepreneurs" (Portfolio, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment