I'll say it again... Facebook is a Communications Platform

Alley Insider is still focused on Facebook selling marketing data which I think will scare away users:

"Here's what Facebook should do instead. First, extend Facebook Connect to online retail stores. Second, analyze users' spending behavior and activity on Facebook, make that data anonymous and sell it to marketers. Third, turn on personal ads and charge more than the New York Times does -- about $48/week."

The personals idea could generate cash for them, but it still is putting a barrier between people connecting (ie. you have to pay in order to see someone's profile). I just do not think it is in the spirit of the service. People are allowed to ask anyone to connect and People are allowed to accept any connection. At what point does Facebook want to get in the way of that process?

Uninterrupted, private, spam-free communications... that is the value Facebook offers. They provide free, light-weight web communications and should expand into further, premium communications - Video Calls, VoIP and Mobile.

Facebook.... business model revisited

Two recent posts at the Alley Insider about facebook have piqued my interest. The first was about Facebook running out of money because its advertising revenues are not tracking to expectations. The second suggests a business model of packaging up the user data and selling it to marketers.

I wrote a comment on the first saying:

"Fundamentally, Facebook is about communication, not commerce. They should position themselves as the future of all personal communications - web sharing, email, IM, VOIP, video VOIP, etc. and relentlessly pursue communications excellence and market dominance."

My post was panned by other commentators, but I still firmly believe that the fundamental function and benefit of Facebook is that it is a better mousetrap for communications. The resulting implication is that advertising or data research revenue models, will hurt their business in the long run because they are not customer centric solutions. The first will cause pesky interruptions and distractions to communications and the second, will breed intense distrust in the user base about the privacy of their communications.

So what should Facebook do? They should offer two services. The free service is the service as it exists today - chat, email, feeds. The paid service should be a complete VoIP telecommunications service supporting voice, video and file sharing for consumers in the home and on mobile. The biggest benefit of using Facebook's communication platform is that only trusted people can reach you. Not everyone you know is on Facebook yet, but a sufficient amount of scale has been reached now so that most of Facebook's users have 30% of their general network and 60% of their primary network connected already.

Let's run the numbers:
Assume 10% of Facebook's 55MM users upgrade to the paid service. If that paid service is offered at $10/month (and replaces your home line and potentially mobile), the resulting yield would be 5.5MM users paying $120/year for a complete communications solution that has no telemarketers. 5.5MM x $120/year = $660M revenue. Not a $15B business yet but on its way.

Would you pay $10/month to Facebook if it would replace your mobile and home line? I would. Especially because no telemarketers could reach me.

Proposition 8: A loss for everyone

Fundamentally, a constitution has two core purposes: 1. To establish the rules for how the government works, and 2. To establish the undeniable rights of the citizens.

Proposition 8 neither establishes rules for how government works and it certainly does not establish undeniable rights. Worse yet, the constitution is now a document that explicitly takes away rights. That is so, so disappointing.

I am not sure if the Supreme Court can rule a State Constitution unconstitutional, but I imagine (and hope) that is where this is headed.

12/19/08 UPDATE: Jerry Brown, the CA state AG, just filed a suit challenging the vote. On the one hand, his argument is right. On the other hand, should a democratic vote be overturned by the courts? Yet another reason why the California initiative process is so screwy.