Experian Hitwise Reveals Facebook Search Traffic Statistics
May 23, 2012
There seems be a lot of talk these days pitting Google+ and Facebook against one another. There are a variety of different factors that come into play when comparing the two Internet giants. Search traffic is one of them.
It may be overhyped but based on a new batch of stats just released, Facebook has been getting some traffic that is worth noting. According to a recent CNET News report, “Facebook.com Received 9% of All U.S Internet Visits in April.”
According to the data collected by Experian Hitwise, despite its somewhat controversial business model, Facebook is not hurting for search traffic one bit. In fact, the Internet tycoon received more than 400 million page views this year and 229 visits a day with an average visit time of 20 minutes.
The article states:
“10 states account for 52 percent of visits to Facebook.com — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina based on year-to-date average. The top states where users are more likely to visit Facebook.com versus the online population are: West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Alabama based on year-to-date average.”
It looks like Facebook is going to be around for a while, so settle in and get comfy Google+.
Jasmine Ashton, May 23, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Facebook Explains Data Policies
May 22, 2012
Ah, Facebook and its content treasure trove. The New York Times reports, “Facebook Shares More About How It Uses Your Data.” The social behemoth has added new explanations about its content and privacy policies to the site’s Help tab.
Writer Somini Sengupta infers that the new disclosures may be in response to questions from certain European college students and the Irish Data Protection Office (which regulates Facebook’s European data policies.) Perhaps, but it seems to us that the clamor for transparency from Facebook began long ago. More likely, the timing has something to do with Facebook’s comparatively new Director of Privacy, Erin Egan. Ms. Egan was previously a partner and co-chair of the global privacy and data security division at a respected international law firm based in Washington, DC.
The write up informs us:
“The new explanations, available by clicking on the Help tab on the bottom of the Facebook home page, include one on how cookies work on the site and what information application developers receive when you download an app on the Facebook platform. The explanations also inform users about who can see what kinds of posts on their timelines.”
“‘We also provide more information about how we use data to operate Facebook, to advertise, and to promote safety and security for Facebook users,’ Ms. Egan wrote.”
Could the timing of these explanations, and the creation of the Director of Privacy position itself, have anything to do with Facebook going public? The company must now balance the specter of public scrutiny with its obligation to plump up profits for shareholders. Good luck with that.
Cynthia Murrell, May 22, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Forbes: Google and Facebook Will Be Obsolete in Five Years. Really?
May 14, 2012
When researching the impact of web tycoons like Google and Facebook, every once in a while you come across an article that’s so out of left field that it bears mentioning. Forbes contributor, Eric Jackson’s article “Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years,” is an excellent example of one of these stories.
According to the article, with the rate of technological progression, tech companies that have dominated in the web 1.0 and 2.0 eras have historically been unable to adapt to the changes that come with the new generation of social and mobile technology.
Jackson writes:
“[Facebook and Google] will have all the money in the world to try and adapt to the shift to mobile but history suggests they won’t be able to successfully do it. I often hear Google bulls point to the market share of Android or Eric Schmidt’s hypothesis that Google could one day charge all Android subscribers $10 a month for value-added services as proof of future profits. Yet, where are all the great social success stories by Web 1.0 companies? I imagine we’ll see as many great examples of social companies jumping horses mid-race to become great mobile companies.”
While Jackson brings up some excellent points, he forgets the fact that Google and Facebook have already made the leap from social to mobile and are continuing to adapt.
Jasmine Ashton, May 14, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Facebook in Numbers
May 11, 2012
Not surprisingly, Facebook showed off some big numbers in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The May 3rd, 2012 S-1 filing, detailed in a post titled “Facebook’s Numbers,” contains the basic business and financial information on popular social networking site Facebook.
The author states:
“I like to look at raw numbers every once in a while, without external influence, to recalibrate my ability to judge the magnitude of things. Here are some of the numbers from Facebook’s most recent S-1 filing(published on May 3rd) which I think are important as metrics to compare against when thinking about relative success and opportunity.”
Here are some interesting data included in the write-up:
- 526 M worldwide total daily active users
- 901 M worldwide total monthly active users
- $1,058 M worldwide total revenue last quarter
With numbers like this, no wonder the IPO valued the company around $86 billion. The company plans to sell shares for $28 to $35 each, which will raise roughly $10.6 billion, making it the fifth highest IPO in history. We knew Facebook was big, but now this IPO is just begging us to buy stock.
Andrea Hayden, May 11, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Zuckerberg Grip Should Be Choke Hold
May 8, 2012
In 2012, Facebook seems to be shaping up as the “new” Google. I know that apps for Facebook are not behaving the way some would like. The privacy thing is an issue. Facebook pretty much does what it wants, or, perhaps I should say, “Mr. Zuckerberg does what he wants.”
I spotted an important “real” journalistic position in “Zuckerberg Grip Becomes New Normal in Silicon Valley.” The “old” normal was Google. Hewlett Packard, Oracle, and Yahoo seem oddly out of step in the social analytics, big data, and big upside environment created by Facebook. The concept of the “new normal” is an important one, and I think that other Bloomberg and “real” journalists will hop on the bandwagon and cling until the next big thing rolls along.
Here’s the passage I noted:
Companies that have three or fewer outside board members include Pinterest, an online bulletin board; Dropbox, a provider of Web-based storage; question-and-answer site Quora Inc.; Flipboard Inc., the maker of a magazine-like application for the iPad; and Nest Labs, the creator of a technology-powered thermostat. Zuckerberg adopted a dual-class structure in 2009. He has 10 votes for every other shareholder’s single ballot. Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion in the IPO, the biggest offering on record for an Internet company. The Menlo Park, California-based company would be valued at as much as $96 billion in the deal. “People look at Facebook and see what they have done,” said Stephen Venuto, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in Menlo Park, who helped Facebook set up its initial corporate-governance structure. “It’s become a much more common thing to implement dual-class capital structures in Silicon Valley companies.”
Several observations:
First, Zuckerberg is likely to keep control going forward. As a one-man band, the new normal is more power to the technologist executive. Good for the executive, perhaps no so good for some other constituencies.
Second, the lousy financial climate has shifted the financial firmament. The beneficiaries of the “new normal” may not be financial institutions which, despite protestations to the contrary, prefer to have control. The “new normal” is that power is divided differently.
Third, the implosion of the social media shock wave is likely to take out people, partners, and users. Facebook is a different type of outfit; that is, it is member based and chock full of content with a significant specific gravity. Explode high mass content out of Facebook. Interesting repercussions are likely.
The “new normal” may be fresh and innovative, particularly from a financial vantage point. Stable? I am no so sure.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2012
Facebook and Its Hall of the Slain
May 7, 2012
I am no psychologist. I am not a brilliant MBA. I am not much more than an addled goose in Harrod’s Creek. However, I do know that when I read the New York Magazine’s article about Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook had arrived. (To read the story, I had to endure a number of annoying pop ups. You may be spared these intrusions, but “real” journalistic endeavors have to do their annoying thing.)
“The Maturation of the Billionaire Boy-Man.” Zowie. I can anticipate the joy among the Facebook faithful. I can only imagine how the story will be greeted among the Googlers. Here’s the first paragraph:
If all goes as planned, Facebook will finally pull the trigger later this month on its long-salivated-over IPO. The deal could value the company in the neighborhood of $100 billion, making founder and CEO Mark Elliot Zuckerberg’s own unusually large stake worth $25 billion. It is a huge sum, even in context. Zuckerberg’s impending fortune is more money than Wal-Mart’s 10,000-plus stores made last year. It’s more than Wall Street paid in bonuses to New Yorkers last year. And it has been amassed in only eight years by a 27-year-old who not long ago passed out business cards reading “I’m CEO, bitch.”
I urge you to read the full article. It is important for three reasons:
- From my point of view, Facebook is the new focal point of what one can do with technical skill, a good idea, and lots of money.
- Facebook is a business school case study of “managing better”—certainly better than most of the Silicon Valley start ups outfits. The praise for Shryl Sandberg’s contributions is put in terms of increasing revenue from $150 million to $4 billion. One cannot forget the “our dream is to save lives” notion.
- Google is history in the eyes of some. The difference is the impossible dream of “all the world’s information” to the “social mission.” Both are grandiose, but the Facebook angle is backed up with 900 million “members”, not users.
So what hurts more? Google is in pain. Facebook is feeling good. Pivot point in the mythology of running an Internet company? You bet. Will it last? Nah, but for now, the Googlers have to cope with Zuckerberg as the company that marginalized Google as the management and technical Valhalla. Is there a Hall of the Slain in Mountain View for victims of public relations?
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
OptimalKeyword and the Science of Keyword Optimization on Facebook
March 1, 2012
Keyword fanatics take heed: optimalKeyword has the tools you need to maximize results from Facebook’s advertising system (registration required.) The ad management platform promises to maximize your audience with “rich reach and gender estimates”; teach you which keywords to avoid in order to bypass certain groups; profile your competition; and even design the perfect ad to attract your desired customers.
The site’s FAQ page explains:
“optimalKeyword is an audience expansion and research tool powered by SocialPredict. SocialPredict is optim.al‘s proprietary machine learning interest/affinity matching engine that is built on an edge graph of over 2.4 billion modeled connections between various interests. optimalKeyword.com helps you build better keyword targets based on Facebook social media data, and tells you more about the brands, interests and passions that connect us.”
You can perform searches with potential keyword combos for free all day long, but to see more than three out of 100 results, you’ll have to pay.
The platform was created by XA.net, which creates this and other robust data analysis for marketers from their San Francisco offices.
Cynthia Murrell, March 1, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Facebook in Brazil
February 4, 2012
It is no secret that Facebook is the world’s leading social networking site. But it is not every day that you see it leave competitors in the dust. Read Write Web recently reported on the social networking giant in the article “It Only took One Year for Facebook to Beat Orkut in Brazil.”
According to the article, after being launched in 2004, Orkut quickly became the top social networking site in Brazil and it remained dominant until a few months ago. However, a recent ComScore report showed Facebook steadily increase and eventually beat out Orkut with 36.1 million visitors in December 2011.
Alex Banks, ComScore’s managing director in Brazil said:
Brazil has always been a particularly social market and currently owns the fifth largest social networking population in the world. But despite the cultural affinity for social media, Facebook adoption had traditionally lagged in the market.
What changed? maybe globalization has proven to be stronger than Brazilian nationalism?
Jasmine Ashton, February 4, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Facebook, Google, and Evil: Standard Operating Procedure?
January 23, 2012
One of the most over-used and little-understood words attached to online is “evil.” Long before Google, I was in a meeting at which ABI/INFORM announced per online type pricing. I think the person who described the decision to charge $0.25 per online type for Format 5 on Dialog was Martha Williams, one of the stalwarts of the online industry and a respected figure at the University of Illinois science and engineering libraries.
A tip of the trident to http://reinventingtheeventhorizon.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/midnight-in-the-garden-of-good-and-evil%E2%80%94mafia-style/
Evil, according to Dictionary.com–which is tough to use because of the ads for Zoho, InetSoft, and RingCentral–iterates through 10 definitions:
- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
- harmful; injurious: evil laws.
- characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering;unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
- due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
- marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
- that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
- the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
- the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
- harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
- anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
Like many words in every day use, evil can denote or connote different shades of meaning.
I thought about these 10 definitions after I read “Facebook to Google: Don’t Be Evil, Focus on the User.” The write up presents a respected real journalist’s report about information exchanged in a meeting. The main point of the write up describes a way to make Google work the way it did before the social bonus program kicked in and the Google Plus avalanche rumbled down the roof of the Googleplex.
Google Plus Desperation Marketing
January 12, 2012
The reaction to Google Plus makes clear the lack of understanding that exists about pervasive online products and services. I am cranking away on my Enterprise Technology Management column, a for fee task, but I had to take a moment to offer some observations on the hurricane of hoo-hah which is raging.
Navigate to “Google Likely to Face FTC Complaint over ‘Search Plus Your World‘”. The story does a good job of explaining the new servicer in a way that appears to make sense to a person who uses online but does not understand its imperatives; to wit:
Google calls the new feature rolling out to users of its English-language search engine “Search Plus Your World.” It blends information such as photos, comments and news posted on its Google+ social network into users’ search results. It mostly affects the one in four people who log into Google or Google+ while searching the Web. Those users will have the option of seeing search results that are customized to their interests and connections, say, a photo of the family dog or a friend’s recommendation for a restaurant. Google has been working for years to create a personal search engine that knows its users so well it delivers results tailored to them. It’s also trying to catch up to social networking giant Facebook, which, with more than 800 million users, knows its users far better than Google does. But critics contend Google, a laggard in social networking, is using its dominance in Internet search to favor its own products and take on its chief competitor.
Like many of the other posts from “experts” and pundits, a number of assumptions operate to characterize Google’s actions are controversial, limiting, or designed to have quite specific consequences for users, competitors, and stakeholders.
My view is based on the research I conducted from 2001 to 2008, the period in which the bulk of my Google work took place. If you are curious about my monographs, there are descriptions of these publications at this Infonortics’ link for the Google Trilogy.
First, once a company captures a “place” in online, the successful service acts like a magnet. An unsuccessful service in the same space pulls marginal users at first and then “pumps” those users into the primary place. Google was an early entrant in social with Orkut. For reasons which I am not at liberty to discuss, that service did not capture a “place”. MySpace did but failed to respond to the Facebook approach. As users flowed to Facebook, the Orkut, MySpace, and other social services began to amplify the Facebook service. The result was the steady expansion of the service despite its flaws. As those who have watched a service benefit from the competitors’ amplification of the dominant service, there is little which can be done to halt the growth. Facebook, like Yahoo in directory services and Google in traditional Web search demonstrated, the new service surges and then has its own life cycle. Not even shooting oneself in the foot or regulation can stop the expanding service from becoming a monopoly. Facebook has achieved that position and it will eventually decline. For now, Facebook, like it or not, is the social focal point. Google has limited choices. One of its options is the walled garden and taking tactical actions that will get Google back into a growth position in the disputed “space.”
Second, when a competitor tries to capture the number one position in a new space, the work we have done over the last 30 years suggests:
- The maximum market share which the tactical actions can yield will be about 60 percent of the leader’s market share. Usually, the share is much less. Facebook, therefore, is not likely to be significantly affected in the short and mid term by Google’s or any other competitors’ action. Facebook is at greater risk of making errors in judgment related to management, money, and technology than what Google or any other competitor does. So Google is under pressure and Facebook is cruising.
- The dominant service benefits from the added visibility to high profile tactical moves create. It would not surprise me if Facebook benefits from Google’s actions related to expanding its walled garden, getting into he said, she said arguments with services like Twitter, and its senior management making statements which throw dry logs on a raging digital marketing fire. In short, Google is helping out Facebook if our research is on the money.
Imagine how difficult it must be for Google to be largely excluded from social services. Now consider that the focus of Google is upon capturing a space which may be unobtainable. Do you expect Google’s thinkers to find a checkmate type of solution from the company’s recent tactical actions? I don’t. I think Google is trying to find a solution, not implementing a solution.
Finally, Google is now in a precarious positions. As I write this, the search services from Yandex.ru and Yandex.com are often more relevant than those delivered by Google’s service. The Yandex technology like Baidu’s and Jike’s shares some characteristics with Google’s. The shift in precision and recall at Google is a direct result of manual and automatic adjustments to the advertising imperative that keeps Google in revenue growth mode. Services which focus on precision and recall deliver results which our research indicates are more relevant when measured by traditional information retrieval yardsticks. Google, therefore, is now at increased risk of a thrust at its core business by capable, technically adept competitors. Little wonder why some have reported that Google is sending mixed signals or that Google’s management is engaged in healthy discussion about what to do a situation which simply did not exist when Google grew due to the inattention of its competitors in 1998 to 2004 and in 2006 to 2007 when there was zero significant awareness of the “legacy” of the Google method. Now the “legacy” is part of Facebook’s and other competitors’ equipment for living. Google is in an unfamiliar position. As I have learned in my own online work, the unfamiliar translates to an increased likelihood for acting with a certain blindness. One can get hit by a very loud, very large, and very slow moving bus when one is blind.
Net net: Google is at a turning point. The evidence is the discussion about Google Plus and its walled garden approach, the spectrum of commentary about what is a quite predictable, if ill considered innovation from Google, and from the comments made by Google’s competitors.
Because online services, if they grow to more than 65 percent of a particular market, naturally become monopolies. Management will take credit for this success, but it is often inevitable, not the result of a brilliant executive decision. Online monopolies chug along and then—boom—arrive and get noticed. A recent example is the Apple iTunes, iPhone, iPad situation.
I want to see how the power flows from centroid to centroid in dataspace. The physics of information permit behaviors which are difficult to predict and have unforeseen consequences. One consequence: desperation marketing. She has swept in with Google Plus I submit.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
