Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘FaceBook’

Article from PandoDaily.

China Internet giant Tencent has just released version 4.0 of Weixin, a social instant messaging app for mobile that now counts 100 million users. In true China cut-and-paste fashion, the new release combines elements of Instagram, Path, Google+, GroupMe, Bump, HeyTell, and Facebook in one powerful offering that the blog TechRice suggests could one day overtake Sina Weibo, the Twitter-like microblogging platform that claims 300 million users. It also offers an English-language version called WeChat.

Weixin, which is essentially the mobile version of the massively popular QQ instant messenger, presents a fascinating study in China’s Internet economics. For a start, it was built by Tencent, much like Q Pai, the Instagram-like photo app we mentioned the other day. The in-house approach accords with Tencent’s general strategy to build its own products and leverage its 700 million-strong QQ user-base. Alongside Weixin, Instagram’s 40 million user count seems trivial.

Weixin also offers a prime example of how Chinese Internet companies are not only willing to “borrow” ideas from their American counterparts, but also tweak them to provide a better (or, at the very least, different) consumer experience. For many Chinese users, though, there is no question: This thing is big.

Among the new features that some think will make 2012 the Year of Weixin are Instagram-like photo-editing effects (why not?), Path-style photo albums that auto-upload to user timelines, and controlled social sharing features that closely resemble Google+ Circles. Tencent has also opened up the Weixin API to allow third parties to feed their content into the platform. One of the coolest uses of this comes from the integration of QQ Music, which lets users stream songs from within their timelines. Why doesn’t this feature exist in US-made social mobile apps? (Okay, maybe Facebook has that for Spotify, but I haven’t seen it on my mobile app.)

There are a bunch of other intriguing Weixin features. One of them is the ability to shake your phone to find new friends. You’ll then be automatically connected with people within a 1km radius (that’s .062 mile), who happen to be shaking their phones at the same time. The chances of a serendipitous connection are not as slight as you might think: The service records 100 million shakes a day.

There’s also a cute “message in a bottle” game, in which users can “throw” a message out to sea in the hope that some random stranger will pick it up and reply. I gave this a whirl and had an interesting conversation with a 22-year-old finance graduate student at Nanjing University. During the course of the chat, I discovered that I could exchange voice messages with this person – just like HeyTell, but with a ChatRoulette twist. Our conversation went like this (edited for sense and brevity):

Original message from Chinese stranger: Nothing to say

Me: Agreed. Where are you?

Chinese stranger: China. And u?

Me: USA. Do you like this app?

CS: Just so so. But it’s popular among young people.

Me: How old are you?

CS: I’m 22.

Me: Ok cool. Do you think it will be bigger than Sina Weibo one day?

CS: … they are different.

Me: I’m a reporter and I’m writing about this app. That’s why I’m asking all these questions.

CS: 😦 Commercial spy

Weixin doesn’t offer quite the slickly designed experience that Path or Instagram does so well, but US-based startups could learn something from Tencent’s multilateral thinking here. While there is value in the likes of Path, Instagram, and Pair in focusing tightly on niches, Weixin also demonstrates that a catch-all, centralized experience also has its appeal. And the app, by the way, is totally cross-platform, available on Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, and Symbian handsets.

Industry watchers say that China lags behind the US in mobile development by one to two years. That might be true for now, but as smartphone market growth accelerates in China and savvy players like Tencent make aggressive moves in mobile, that gap will inevitably close. Apps like Weixin represent the beginning of that process.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

Microsoft announced Monday that the company has officially acquired social software startup Yammer for $1.2 billion in cash. The purchase was widely reported more than a week ago, but Microsoft confirmed the deal Monday in a press release.

As we noted earlier this month, the purchase could give Microsoft a social dimension to its popular corporate software products. Yammer creates a Facebook-like experience for business clients.

Yammer will join the Microsoft Office division after the acquisition, but CEO David Sacks will continue to lead the group, Microsoft said in the release. Kurt DelBene, president of the Microsoft Office group, offered some thoughts on how Yammer might fit into the Microsoft world in a blog post that accompanied the formal press release:

The combination of Yammer, SharePoint and Office 365 will provide the most comprehensive and flexible solutions for enterprise social networking. Over time, I see opportunity for exciting new scenarios by adding Yammer’s stand-alone service alongside and integrated into our collaboration offerings with SharePoint, Office 365, Dynamics and Skype. I picture people being able to use Yammer to manage and expand their professional relationships, share and collaborate on Office documents, stay informed about content updates, and to seamlessly move from status updates and feeds into voice and video conversations.

Yammer most recently raised $85 million in a February funding round, which brought it to $142 million in total funding. The company currently has more than 5 million corporate users, including customers at 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies, Microsoft and Yammer announced along with the acquisition today.

“We think that Microsoft is a great partner for us,” Sacks said in a conference call Monday with DelBene and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. “I think it’s really the best possible partner in terms of its reach and resources, and its ability to help us scale.”

Ballmer said Yammer’s emphasis on cloud computing fits perfectly with Microsoft’s expansion into that area, and Yammer’s popularity with corporate clients makes it a natural partner:

“What we love about Yammer is that it was built on the notion that things can grow virally,” Ballmer said.

They noted that Yammer will remain in the San Francisco area even after the acquisition with Microsoft, which is headquartered near Seattle.

“When most people thought social networking was for kids, we had a vision for how it could change the way we work,” Sacks wrote in a blog post Monday. “Four years ago, we started paddling out to catch the wave that we’re riding today.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article by Om Malik @ GigaOm.

This is going to be a busy weekend for me. While the weather in San Francisco threatens to be “summer-like,” I am going to be sitting at home and preparing for our Structure 2012 conference. Nevertheless here are seven stories that might be worth reading this weekend.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“If there’s one question on which much of Facebook’s $60-billion market valuation hangs, it is whether the kind of “social advertising” the giant network offers to brands actually works or not — in other words, whether having fans and social discussion around a product translates into actual measurable sales. Facebook has now released some actual data from comScore that it says proves the value of building up a fan base on its platform, since doing so appears to increase the likelihood that a user will buy something later. But will the research convince advertisers to devote more time and money to Facebook’s social campaigns? And if so, how much of that will benefit Facebook directly?

The comScore study, which is called “The Power of Like 2: How Social Marketing Works,” (PDF download available here) is the second in a series the web-analytics firm has done with Facebook. The first report came out last July, and argued that brands using the social network need to do more than simply build up a large fan base — they need to use a combination of paid and “earned” media (that is, content that is shared voluntarily by users) to promote whatever marketing message they are focusing on. The latest report is an extension of that case, with some statistical database on what Starbucks and Target have seen from their Facebook campaigns.

Fans of a brand buy more, and so do their friends

According to comScore, Starbucks saw a “statistically significant” improvement in purchasing behavior in its stores in the weeks following exposure to promotional content on Facebook. Perhaps most important of all, the analytics firm said this behavior was seen not just among those who were already fans of the brand on the social network, but also among friends of those fans — evidence of what comScore called a “latent branding impact.” The same kind of impact was seen in a study of buying behavior at Target stores, comScore said.

In a nutshell, the report says that by the fourth week following the exposure of fans and friends of fans to certain advertising content — whether in a “sponsored story” or some other social ad format — the test group’s purchasing rate of 2.12 percent was a little over half a percentage point higher than the control groups’ rate. According to comScore, that means the social advertising on Facebook drove an increase in actual sales of almost 40 percent.

As Peter Kafka of All Things Digital notes, the comScore research is a bit of a double-edged sword for Facebook, since it shows that “earned media” — that is, the kind of social sharing that in many cases brands don’t even have to pay for — can generate a substantial bump in sales all by itself, without the need for traditional display ads. Theoretically, that’s the kind of ammunition brands like General Motors could use to justify dropping their ad spending on Facebook and relying on social sharing of their marketing content instead.

Facebook display ads work too, says comScore

One of the comScore study’s conclusions seems to be aimed directly at this idea — and also at critics who question whether Facebook’s paid ads are effective when the click-through rates on them are so low (even lower than the rates on generic web advertising). The report notes that an analysis of the data showed “statistically significant” increases in both online and in-store purchasing for a major retailer after exposure to display ads, despite the lack of clicks, and that this “highlights the importance of using view-through display ad effectiveness in a medium where click-through rates are known to be lower than average.”

Facebook’s Brad Smallwood, head of measurement and insight for the social network, was more blunt in a comment to the Wall Street Journal about the results of the comScore research, saying it proved that “It’s a myth that Facebook advertising doesn’t work.” The Journal also noted that the quiet period following its initial stock offering has ended, so Facebook is now able to respond to some of the criticisms that arose during the IPO roadshow, and the comScore study is clearly part of that effort.

One thing the study also reinforces is just how much advertisers are betting on Facebook: according to comScore’s analysis, more than 15 percent of all U.S. online display ads were “socially enabled,” meaning they contained a message asking viewers to “like” or follow the brand or the campaign on Facebook. That’s almost double the number of ads that contained those kinds of messages in November of last year, the report said. That kind of bet is what drove Salesforce to spend close to a billion dollars to buy Buddy Media, which specializes in managing Facebook pages and social campaigns.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

Facebook shares will be tempting to buy when they start trading on Friday. The company has hefty profit margins, a household name and a shot at becoming the primary gateway to the Internet for much of the planet.

But if history offers any lesson, average investors face steep odds if they hope to make big money in a much-hyped stock like Facebook.

Sure, Facebook could be the next Google, whose shares now trade at more than six times their offering price. But it could also suffer the fate of Zynga, Groupon, Pandora and a host of other start-ups that came out of the gate strong, then quickly fell back.

Even after Facebook supersized its offering with plans to dole out more shares to the public, most retail investors will have a hard time getting shares in the social networking company at a reasonable price in its first days of trading.

Facebook’s I.P.O. values the company at more than $104 billion. And the mania surrounding the offering means Facebook shares will almost certainly rise on the first day of trading on Friday, the so-called one-day pop that is common for Internet offerings. At either level, Facebook’s price is likely to assume a growth rate that few companies have managed to sustain.

New investors, in part, are buying their shares from current owners who are taking some of their money off the table, a sign that the easy profits may have been made. Goldman Sachs, the PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and the venture capital firms DST Global and Accel Partners are all selling shares in the offering.

“It is a popular company, but it is still a highly speculative stock,” said Paul Brigandi, a senior vice president with the fund manager Direxion. “Outside investors should be cautious. It doesn’t fit into everyone’s risk profile.”

For the farsighted and deep-pocketed investors who got in early, Facebook is turning out to be a blockbuster. But by the time the first shares are publicly traded, new investors will be starting at a significant disadvantage.

Following the traditional Wall Street model, Facebook shares were parceled out to a select group of investors at an offering run by the company’s bankers on Thursday evening, priced at $38 a share. But public trading will begin with an auction on the Nasdaq exchange on Friday morning that is likely to push the stock far above beyond the initial offering price.

That is what happened to Groupon last fall. Shares of the daily deals site started trading at $28, above its offering price of $20. It eventually closed the day at $26.11.

The one-day pop is common phenomenon. Over the last year, newly public technology stocks, on average, have jumped 26 percent in their first day of trading, according to data collected by Jay R. Ritter, a professor of finance and an I.P.O. expert at the University of Florida.

In many of the hottest technology stocks, the rise has been more dramatic. LinkedIn, another social networking site, surged 109 percent on its first day in May 2011, and analysts say it is not hard to imagine a similar outcome with Facebook, given the enormous interest.

Unfortunately for investors, the first-day frenzy is not often sustained. In the technology bubble of the late 1990s, dozens of companies, Pets.com and Webvan among them, soared before crashing down.

At the height of the bubble in 2000, the average technology stock rose 87 percent on its first day. Three years later, those stocks were down 59 percent from their first-day closing prices and 38 percent from their offering prices, according to Professor Ritter’s data.

The more recent crop of technology start-ups has not been much more successful in maintaining the early excitement. A Morningstar analysis of the seven most prominent technology I.P.O.’s of the last year showed that after their stock prices jumped an average of 47 percent on the first day of trading, they were down 11 percent from their offering prices a month later. Groupon is now down about 40 percent from its I.P.O. price.

“It’s usually best to wait a few weeks to let the excitement wear off,” said James Krapfel, an I.P.O. analyst at Morningstar who conducted the analysis. “Buying in the first day is not generally a good strategy for making money.”

There are, of course, a number of major exceptions to this larger trend that would seem to provide hope for Facebook. Google, for instance, started rising on its first day and almost never looked back.

Even among the success stories, though, investors often have had to go through roller coaster rides on their way up. Amazon, for instance, surged when it went public in 1997 at $18 a share. But the stock soon sputtered, and it did not reach its early highs again until over a decade later. The shares now trade near $225.

More recently, LinkedIn has been trading about 140 percent above its offering price of $45, enough to provide positive returns even for investors who bought in the initial euphoria. But those investors had to sweat out months when LinkedIn stock was significantly down.

Apple is perhaps the clearest example of the patience that can be required to cash in on technology stocks. Nearly two decades after its I.P.O. in 1980, it was still occasionally trading below its first-day closing price, and it was only in the middle of the last decade — when the company began revolutionizing the music business — that it began its swift climb toward $600.

Facebook’s prospects will ultimately depend on the company’s ability to fulfill its early promise. It has a leg up on the start-ups of the late 1990s, which had no profits and dubious business models. Last year, in the seventh year since its founding, Facebook posted $3.7 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profit.

But investors buying the stock even at the offering price are assuming enormous future growth. While stock investors are generally willing to pay about $14 for every dollar of profit from the average company in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, people buying Facebook at the estimate I.P.O. price are paying about $100 for each dollar of profit it made in the past year.

When Google went public in 2004, investors paid a bigger premium, about $120 for each dollar of earnings. But the search company at the time was growing both its sales and profits at a faster pace than Facebook is currently.

Facebook may be able to justify those valuations if it can keep expanding its profit at the pace it did last year, a feat some analysts have said is possible. But especially after the company recently revealed that its growth rate had slowed significantly in the first quarter, the number of doubters is growing.

“Facebook, by just about any measure, is a great company,” Professor Ritter said. “That doesn’t mean that Facebook will be a great investment.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »