Why Facebook wants you to have more friends

We tend to think of Facebook as an 800 lb. gorilla, lumbering toward an IPO and world dominance in social networking. The user growth (350M+) has indeed been impressive, but the question I have is about user engagement. Is it as strong as before? Is Facebook experiencing problems with retention?

The question seems pertinent because Facebook very recently made a big push for users to find more of their friends on Facebook through use of their friend finder tool. This has gotten a lot of attention. Andrew Chen tweeted: “wow, huge “find friends” ad at the top of Facebook today. Wonder if they are trying to juice their growth?”

I think the answer is that the user growth is just fine… it’s engagement and retention where Facebook is trying to move the bar.

Anecdotally, I’ve noticed quite less usage from a many friends who used to be very active on Facebook. Based on my friend’s list I would say that the regular users from a year ago are a lot less active on Facebook now. Additionally, the most active users in my friendfeed are not even hopping on Facebook to update their status, but rather are doing so via Twitter.

So I’m betting that Facebook has a problem with user engagement. Revenue does not come from adding new users, but retaining engaged users. The more engaged users are, the more time the spend on the site and the more pages they see. The more pages they see, the greater the number of ads that Facebook serves. This certainly is not rocket science.

So Facebook tries to solve the problem of decreasing engagement and retention.

But how?

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone asked the data warehouse to analyze the user activity and find out more about the most active users and how they differ from less active users. And I’m sure they were told something like this.

  • Active users average 37 more friends than inactive users
  • Active users are 5 times more likely to receive an e-mail than inactive users.

Hence the push of the friend finder tool and  hence the messages you get on the sidebar to send someone an e-mail. Take a look at who they want you to send a message to. It’s invariably someone who is not very active on Facebook.

So these are the tools that Facebook is using to boost engagement and aid retention, but do they work? Hard to say, but it’s important to remember that correlation is not causation. Trying to artificially create user behaviors without understanding the motivations behind them seems superficial and short-sighted. Engagement and retention come from understanding the the customer and the why. Facebook seems to be focused on the how.


Lean startup viability: how to know when to quit

This post was prompted in part by a discussion a few weeks back by former Joost COO Hedrik Werdelin’s post, “Twitter used to be a crappy idea”,  about Twitter and their viability as a startup based on user metrics. While I think the article was more linkbait than reasoned analysis, it did raise an interesting question. How do you determine the viability of a lean startup? Or more importantly, how do you know when to quit?

In a VC or even angel-backed startup your viability, assuming you are not profitable, is generally based on one thing…. The ability to raise additional funding. When the money runs out either you raise more funds or you go home.

In a lean startup however, there is no such Darwinian fate. By the very nature of a lean startup and its iterative customer development process, a lean startup can live virtually forever and perhaps never find success. Therefore it falls to the entrepreneur to decide when to cut bait.

In this post I have applied the customer ecosystem model below (also see examples for Zynga and Twitter) as a means of determining lean startup viability.

Wederlin’s point was that Twitter had poor user acquisition growth and user numbers in the early years of the business.

Now, I think this point is debatable, but let’s assume for a moment that this is the case for StartupX.  StartupX launches and sees low to moderate user adoption. Despite this, there is no reason to necessarily throw in the towel. However (contrary to Wederlin’s assertions), mere faith in the technology or the team is not enough. You need to have strength in one of the following customer ecosystem areas: conversion, upsell, or retention.


Almost more important than user acquisition is converting those new users once they arrive at the site. Obviously each type of web startup has has its own metrics, but  if conversion and usage is high it can more than make up for poor acquisition results. Consider the case of Twitter. Sure it’s user base may have been growing slowly, but is that how they were measuring success? More than likely they were looking at other metrics as being important:

  • % of unique visitors who register
  • % of users who send a tweet
  • % of users who follow someone
  • % of users who have followers
  • % of users who tweet 5 times a day
  • % of users who have more than 100 followers

Merely looking at the number of new registrants is a poor way of measuring success, but also growth. Internally, even though acquisition growth may have not been growing as they had hoped, my hunch is that metrics like those above were growing strongly, indicating that they were on the right path. They weren’t just flying blind.

Now let’s look at imaginary StartupX:

After a brief write-up in a techblog, StartupX gains 15,000 new users. Six months later they are adding only 500 new users a month and the active userbase is steady. Time to cut the cord? Not necessarily.


  • 65 percent of unique site visitors register and create a profile (up from 33% just two months ago)
  • 35 percent of users post content on StartupX (up from 25% three months ago)

Metrics like these are good and would indicate that (contrary to the acquisition numbers) that StartupX is still viable. There obviously are acquisition issues (wrong target market, poor virality, etc.), but when one aspect of the customer ecosystem is executing well, it means that with a sufficient pivot, the startup is viable.


Are people paying money for your product? Usually this excludes about 90% of web startups, but cash money can be an amazing salve for a startup which is not experiencing substantial new user growth. If you are able to get users to pay either a one-time fee or a subscription then you have something to build upon.

Let’s look at the StartupX upsell scenario.

StartupX has a premium service for active users which includes and enhanced profile and unlimited uploads. Despite the fact that user growth is slow, more than 5% of active users pay for the premium service. Not only that, only 1% of users paid for a premium membership 4 months ago. Growth in premium subscriptions is a much more valuable metric than total user growth. Some users are more equal than others.

The trick here is that if you are getting people to pay for your product, you need to work to identify how large the realistic addressable market is and determine strategies to get traction in this market. If you’re bootstrapping, it does you no good to be exaggerating your addressable market (as opposed to when you’re trying to raise VC). However it behooves you to look far wand wide and identify other groups that may pay for your product. The key here is to continue growth in this revenue stream.


Retention is the kissing cousin of conversion in the customer ecosystem model. For conversion, is the content/experience compelling enough to for you to register or participate? For retention, is the content/experience compelling enough to keep you coming back.

If, for example, 80% of registered users are coming back on a weekly/monthly basis, there’s a lot of potential in what you are doing. Even low to moderate user growth with high retention levels can be a success.

Overcoming Acquisition Issues

In order to be successful, every startup will eventually need to figure out the acquisition puzzle. Sometimes there are businesses where the acquisition costs are just too high for a viable business. The point however of this blog post is that startups need not initially live and die by acquisition numbers. Other components of the customer ecosystem model are equally important components to figure out and basing viability on initial acquisition efforts is foolhardy.

Knowing When To Quit

If your acquisition efforts are failing, there need to be signs from other places in the model (conversion, upsell, retention) that the business is on the right path. If you’ve been at it for a long time and acquisition is poor and everything else is muddling along, then it’s time to quit. However, if you have found that you can either convert, upsell or retain customers well, then keep plugging away.  The feedback from users is that your startup is on the right path…. now it’s time for incremental improvements in the other areas of the model to allow the business to reach the next level.

Why Twitter shouldn’t pursue an advertising business model

First, a confession. I made the decision recently that when I start an internet company it will not be dependent on advertising for revenue. As an aficionado of the lean startup model and customer development process, I believe it imperative to have paying customers from the get-go. When I developed the Customer Ecosystem model, I explicitly included a revenue component that was independent of advertising. The simple fact being that as VC funding becomes more tight and companies need to show their worth more quickly, advertising as a revenue model is going to become a relic… a bubble throwback that we will all talk about, but probably not think about employing.

Recently, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and COO Dick Cost0lo have  made comments about the first substantial real revenue stream that we’re going to see from the über-hyped microblog company. And if you chose chose advertising (really cool, non-traditional advertising) in the pool…. prepare to collect your winnings.

Even though Twitter has millions of users and can probably become profitable rather quickly, I think it is a mistake for Twitter to pursue an advertising model.

Who has succeeded, and I mean “knocked it out of the park” succeeded in using an advertising model? Google…and that’s about it.

The internet is strewn with the living dead of companies that have tried to become internet kingmakers and failed using an advertising revenue model: AOL, Yahoo, MySpace, MSN Digg, and countless others.

And then let’s look at the key players in the market who generate their revenues from ads, the up-and-comers like Glam Media. Well, they recently took Series E (!) funding.

Many of the businesses that are reliant upon advertising are getting CRUSHED. Look at the the New York Times, NBC Universal, Clear Channel etc… the simple fact of the matter is that it’s becoming very hard to be a business that matters with advertising as a revenue model.

Sure, Facebook may be able to pull it off, but like Google they are also turning the advertising world on it’s head and there’s still no promises of success. Consider:

Google: Changed the advertising world on its head by making ads relevant, practical and contextual. And of course, they executing the living bejeezus out of their  biz model. Anyone with any doubt about about their ability to execute should try to advertise on MSN or whatever the hell they call it now.

Facebook: In the process of changing the advertising world through massive amount of demographic/psychographic data that allows for targeting via affinity. We still don’t know if they will be able to pull it off. Smartly though, Facebook is hedging its bets and looking seriously at other business models.

Twitter: Trying to re-do advertising model. The problem is that they just don’t have the numbers compared to Facebook and their growth is slowing.

I’m not saying that Twitter is in trouble, far from it. I’m just saying that an advertising model, no matter how innovative, will have a hard time succeeding.

So let’s look at what Twitter does have:

  1. Loyal, active (not to mention affluent) users
  2. The attention of the corporate world
  3. A core technology that would be difficult  for competitor to supplant/replace

If this doesn’t spell subscription model, I don’t know what does.

I was excited last week to read that Twitter was considering a subscription model in Japan, only to have them put the kibosh on those plans the next day.

It’s too bad. Because Twitter could have a very strong customer ecosystem:

Acquisition: (Good) Despite somewhat stagnating growth compared to Facebook, and an unremarkable viral coefficient in the truest internet business sense, Twitter spends virtually nothing on acquisition, gets tons of free press and is promoted actively by many corporations and individuals.

Conversion: (Fair) More than half of twitter registrants never follow anyone, tweet or get followed. This is not so bad considering their acquisition numbers, but it speaks to and underlying weakness in conversion to a mass market.

Upsell: (Good) Obviously, we’re in pure speculation territory here, but I see huge potential in multiple subscription levels on both an individual and corporate basis. I can imagine a $5.99 a month subscription for individuals who for the following features:

  • Ability to send direct message
  • Ability to send more than 25@ replies per month
  • Backup/storage/offline accessibility to tweets
  • Support for more than 500 followers

Obviously the corporate subscription would have some similar features, but would focus on marketing/support and would have robust analytic tools.

Retention: (Good) If there was a ever a trapped customer it would be the Twitter customer. Sine Google killed Jaiku (and I’ll never understand that one) there has only been one microblogging platform. Additionally Twitter users love the service and promote it heavily. Eventually, a new technology may come and replace Twitter, but not in the near future.

Twitter is a great company with a world-changing product… let’s just hope that their revenue model (when it eventually comes) won’t consign them to the garbage heap.

UPDATE: Twitter testing enterprise tools. Looks like a good first step.

Actually, the internet is becoming more open

The web as we know it is in danger! Members of the internet punditcacy, Tim O’Reilly and Chris Messina, sound the alarms! Anil Dash pipes in on an ongoing discussion about the ever-changing internet and technologies arguing that we can have an open web, but we’re going to have to fight for it.

Similarly, Doc Searls says the problem with social media is that it’s not under personal control:

Today in the digital world we still have very few personal tools that work only for us, are under personal control, are NEA, and are not provided as a grace of some company or other. (If you can only get it from somebody site, it ain’t personal.) That’s why I bring up email, blogging, podcasting and instant messaging. Yes, there are plenty of impersonal services involved in all of them, but those services don’t own the category. We can swap them out. They are, as the economists say, substitutable.

All this sturm und drang is a bit much. That’s why you won’t find most people complaining.

The death of open platforms, the obsolescence of the URL, the lack of personal control don’t matter one iota to most people today, because the internet is becoming more open for them.

When the web first came into popularity the killer app was AOL, which provided you with a personalized view of the world. We all had information. We could chat with our friends in distant lands. We had naughty pictures on demand. It was waaay better than sliced bread and it was a closed, proprietary system which eventually became obsolete.

Now the killer app is Twitter, which allows you to provide the world with a personalized view of you. Likewise, it’s a proprietary system which will eventually go the way the of the Dodo. But for right now, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are giving the power back to the people. Finally, we have a vox populi. Who gives a shit if it’s more closed than it should be… there are many platforms to choose from and the numbers are growing.

Of course, things could be more open than they are, but we have Brizzly, Tweetie and Seesmic. We have iPhone apps sharing to Facebook. Don’t like Posterous? Use Tumblr. Interoperability comes with time but let’s not worry too much about the internet, it’s finally in the hands of everyone, not just the self-appointed internet guardians. And I’m guessing that’s where some of the angst comes from. Google page rank and RSS feeds and blog aggregators are becoming less important. Readers of this blog are much more likely to find it via Twitter or Facebook than via a google search.

So where do these new technologies leave us?

In addition to taking over the conversation, we are also poised to take over marketing.

Not just individuals, but small business and other agile businesses are able to use these tools, no more need for the splash pages and expensive media campaigns. Less need for internet gurus and conferences. Everyone can become a guru and everyone can host (and attend) a conference. These new technologies are bringing us virality  x1000. This is the internet becoming more open. Dependence on a well-traveled URL or an O’Reilly web 2.0 conference is diminishing and this is a good thing.

Sure, it’s a little messy now, but let’s embrace these changes for what they have brought to people, not quibble about transient platforms which have brought about


Why Zynga couldn’t go public soon enough – Customer Ecosystem Weakness

Zynga logoIt’s becoming increasingly evident why Zynga wants to go public as soon as humanly possible. Farmville is hot, Cafe World is getting there. The revenue is just rolling in and everything is great. But it’s not going to last, and I think they know that.

Looking at Zynga’s customer ecosystem it’s clear that their current efforts have probably reached their apogee without making significant changes to their ecosystem.  Their scorched earth business model will not provide sustainable growth to support a decent IPO.

Here’s why:

Acquisition: Dependence on Facebook

Go check out Farmville.com. Nothing really there is there? They drive you back to Facebook to play the game. All well and good except that despite as much money they pour into Facebook they don’t own the platform. Additionally, their viral efforts are subject to Facebook’s whims. Having an acquisition model dependent on partners and platforms is one thing. Having an acquisition model dependent on one partner is entirely another.

Now don’t get me wrong, they have some leverage with Facebook…. heck, it’s been reported that they’re on pace to spend $50M annually on Facebook ads. However, as Facebook matures they are going to start getting revenues in other places, like e-commerce. For now, as both of these companies slog toward and IPO they need each other, but Facebook is already beginning to clean up their act. Zynga is going to need to identify new acquisition models when the hammer falls.

Conversion: Smooth sailing, I think

For the uninitiated, let me say that the barriers to entry on a Zynga social game are very low. I can’t imagine they have any trouble getting people to play games. And people love the games, and get addicted, which brings us to the upsell.

Upsell: Scammy incentivization finally getting notice

Lost of people play social games, but few are willing to pay for them. That’s where offers come in. The firestorm that Michael Arrington created at the Virtual Goods Conference has moved one step closer to its denouement today with a post from Zynga CEO Mark Pincus. Not really walking back from using the incentivization model,  Pincus claims that they’re vigilantly cleaning up the scams and that most are good companies. However, with Zynga admitting that these partners make up at least 1/3 of their revenues (and I’d bet they’re higher) don’t expect to many changes. In fact, a quick glance of the offer page (below) shows 12 pages worth of offers.

Zynga offers

Even worse for Zynga is that they can have this revenue stream cut off from them. I remember similar programs back in 2002 when I was working for Classmates.com. In fact, one Classmates exec told the PM in charge of the program, “I don’t know how you sleep at night.” Since nothing has changed in 7 years, nothing will ever change, right? Actually no, it’s very possible that a more activist FTC under Obama could come into this industry and clean house. The necessity of such an action can be debated, but one thing is sure, the laissez-faire regulatory approach of the Bush administration provided these businesses with a great deal of leeway.

Retention: Lack of brand loyalty, innovation and the transience of social games

How many people playing Mob Wars, Farmville, or Cafe World know they are playing a Zynga game? How many care? Many Zynga games are essentially rip-offs of other games from Playdom or other companies. Nothing is innovative or unique about their games. Zynga’s on a streak, they execute well, but that’s about it. No one is going to be playing Farmville three months from now, so Zynga will need to continue to hit home run after home run and that’s not going to be easy.

So, let’s go to the tale of the tape…

To illustrate the problems that Zynga discussed above, I plugged Zynga into a customer ecosystem model I like to use. If a company is strong, it will have three of four squares rated green. Anytime a company has a red square it essentially means that their customer ecosystem is unhealthy.

In this case, it’s my opinion that Zynga (as it currently stands) is in a bad position… and probably knows it. Hence the desire to push out an IPO very soon. Good luck with that.

UPDATE: Historical footage of Mark Pincus discussing Zynga’s initial growth strategy. Many strong companies (like MySpace) have a questionable past. But this does nothing to help Zynga’s IPO hopes.

UPDATE II: Senate committee investigates the offer business, including my alma mater, Classmates.com.

UPDATE III: Maybe someone at Zynga is reading this site. Zynga to enable Farmville play on Farmville.com.  a good first step and removing the constraints of the Facebook platform.

Bookmark and Share