The Social Media Monopoly

Interesting article on Wired today - 5 Thinks That Could Topple Facebook's Empire. It's fun and easy to create this lists - 5 things that..., 10 things that... - but thought-provoking nonetheless.

Terms on a patent are 20 years, but businesses of the Facebook sort are difficult to make patentable, let alone enforce any legal restrictions on design or usability. (Ask Apple how that went with Microsoft a few years back.)

This effect shrinks the window of opportunity for a company like Facebook to capitalize on their monopoly and create an infallible social network medium. But, infallibility is more of a quixotic notion that one borne in reality. Technology companies with enormous market and mind share are constantly getting nipped in the heels by direct competitors or emerging niche players in the very same industries that the Facebook-like companies helped to create - Skype with other VoIP providers or eBay with UBid, ePier, atOncer... Heck, even Facebook took over the social media space created by previous players like MySpace (remember them?).

Facebook has been around a while and still emits a feeling that it's still in start-up stage. Monopoly power is a good thing - that's what drives entrepreneurs to create new products and services because of the clear profit motive. Would be a shame if they missed their profit opportunity but waiting too long to capitalize.

Acquisition Price - FriendFeed/Facebook

I wish I was always this good... I guessed somewhere around $50 mln in an earlier post today about Facebook's acquisition of FriendFeed.

Turns out I was pretty close according to this post in the WSJOnline late today.

So it didn't take linear algebra to make the guess, but what the heck...

Friendfeed, Facebook (& Google?)

Just saw that Facebook is acquiring FriendFeed. Found this interesting since the Google tree is expanding. Paul Buchheit is one of FriendFeed's founders and the brains behind Gmail. After watching him speak on a panel last Spring, I wrote about Google, employee retention, and entrepreneurship.

FriendFeed is a small shop with only 12 employees according the TechCrunch article. Reminds me a bit on how Yahoo! intergrates new applications through acquisition instead of through internal innovation. Will be interesting to see the financial disclosure on the deal (if ever). Friendfeed was initially funded with $5 million by Benchmark Capital and its own founders.

Some questions pop to mind:

With the "normal" successful exit for VCs at 10x or more, did they get $50 mln for the deal? If so, did Facebook overpay as Yahoo! has been doing? Wonder if they saw an opening to exit for a few bucks less citing lower chances for long-term success and took it to focus on the next venture?

And speaking of Yahoo! and innovation, Steve Rubel has an interesting thought - make FriendFeed the new "Facebook Labs." Why not? Seems the right people are in the place...

Facebook Terms of Service

Logged into my Facebook account this morning to see:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

The changes from earlier this month had users worried that Facebook would use their information after canceling an account with them.

I give them credit - they do listen to their users. Though, it would seem that they should try to listen to users before implementing policies like this so they don't appear to be backtracking all the time.

Are Twitterers worth more than Googlers?

Following up with an additional thought on the Twitter/Facebook saga... In yesterday's article, I approached Twitter's valuation from a "per twitterer" basis - arriving at an estimated value of $45 per twitterer based on Facebook's $500 million which is really worth $150 million using the "Henry Blodget Facebook valuation discount factor."

To put the $45 per user valuation in some perspective, Google's market cap is about $90 billion based on today's opening share price. Public estimates out there show that there are approximately 1.4 billion people in the world on the Internet. Let's discount that to 1.0 billion just in case that includes people that can access once a week or month, or people that can access email and aren't able to regularly use search. At about 70% market share in the search business, that comes to abut 700 million people.

$90,000,000,000 / 700,000,000 = $128 per Googler

If one assume that Facebook's $500 million offer was indeed a legitimate $500 million and not an $500 million in inflated currency, the price per twitterer that Facebook is $150 per user, which would mean that Facebook is valuing Twitter's users more than the market values Google's users. Twitter doesn't have a revenue model. I think Google does...

(Interesting side note - the first search result for the term - "how many people use google everyday" - is a forum post on answers.yahoo.com from May 31, 2006. Still some room for improvement and not surprising that problems like this crop up from time to time...)

"No Thanks!" in 140 Characters or less

Maybe the message was something like:

Twitter: @Facebook "No can do. Thx 4 the offer."

It's common knowledge now that Twitter declined Facebook's "$500 million" offer. Running some numbers yields some interesting results on the offer and valuations of both companies. (We'll come back to the quotes around the $500 million shortly...)

Back in April, Michael Arrington wrote that Twitter was worth between $60-$150 million just before it closed it’s $15 million venture round at the end of May.

TwitDir shows that there are “3,328,420 twitterers we know!” as of the time of this article. Using the $500 million offered by Facebook for Twitter and some simple math, this would equate to a valuation of approximately $150 per twitterer. Not sure if I’m buying that (pun intended….).

Henry Blodget did some interesting analysis on the real value of the Facebook offer, since the $500 million is “overvalued Facebook stock” based on the $15 billion valuation. There are lots of ways to slice and dice Facebook's valuation (including my own perspective based on the "Facebook Multiplier"). Blodget estimates that Facebook’s correct valuation is closer to $5 billion, thus decreasing the real value of Facebook’s offer down to $150 million, or $45 per twitterer.

At $45 per twitterer, which is probably a more realistic number to use, two questions:

1. How would Facebook earn back the $45 per twitterer in future value terms?
2. What does Twitter have planned that makes them think they can do better than $150 million.

Just my opinion, but:

1. I'd guess that Facebook isn't quite sure what it'd do - sort of feels like Yahoo! in a way. Good on eyeballs and users, not so good with the whole revenue thing.
2. Twitter isn't so sure either, but knows that there's a better deal out there than $500 million in monopoly money. Just because they turned down this deal doesn't mean they turn down the same amount or less from another enterprise.

The Facebook Multiplier: Economic vs. Market Valuation

I get the social part of it. I just found a friend of mine from high school, spent 10 minutes with my wife perusing pictures to put on my profile, and even reviewed 20 results for “Sambucci” including two in London, one in Glasgow, and one in Ecuador. I don’t get the 100x revenues to determine its $15 billion valuation.

Facebook’s foray into tracking member purchases went awry. Advertising dollars reach their ceiling quickly unless you’re Google.

The Facebook marketplace is less than overwhelming. There are 2598 items for sale in Silicon Valley, CA at the time of this posting. When I click “For Sale", the first page results include a 5"x5" cheese cake for $50, Oracle SQL/DBA Training for $360, and a 2007 Hybrid Ford Escape 4WD for $26,000.

Huh?

A marketplace is a place of aggregation where economic activity transpires. On the Internet, eBay is the typical example - an established marketplace with buyers and sellers. Defining the market more loosely, the same occurs when someone uses Google or another search engine to find a product that they eventually purchase. Members join Facebook for social networking, not to directly engage in economic activity.

With no indications that Facebook’s revenues are rising exponentially, it’s likely that direct revenues Facebook will generate for itself will remain relatively low compared to the true online marketplaces like eBay (~ $7 bln in 2007) and Google (~$15+ bln in 2007).

If this is indeed true, they why use Facebook’s revenues as the metric for valuing the company (currently at 100x revenues according to Microsoft’s recent investment)? Maybe there’s a more accurate way…

Let’s assume that because I’m a Facebook member, I meet up with a long lost high school friend in New York City and have dinner. It’s fair to assume that this happens frequently with many Facebook members – connecting with friends either directly or in part because of Facebook – which results in economic activity of some sort taking place (a $100 dinner in this case).

By taking this approach, we can then begin to connect a certain amount of economic activity attributable to Facebook. Some members are “power” users and others are more cursory like me. But overall, there is likely some average amount of economic activity per member that can be measured. Economists use “mulipliers” to calculate these “down line effects” of some event or activity. (In fact, the consumption multiplier is the rationale for the recent tax cuts approved by Congress and President Bush.)

If we can quantify these economic activities per Facebook member, then why not use a “Facebook Multiplier” to determine the firm’s value? This multiplier is not related to the revenues of Facebook. Instead, the newly-created revenues of other market participants as a result of Facebook existing become the determining factor to establish Facebook’s economic value to the market. Using the multiplier establishes a true intrinsic value for the firm, not an arbitrary market value as was done with Microsoft’s investment in Facebook.

This proposed multiplier may indeed show that Facebook’s firm value is indeed 100x revenues, but not because we use Facebook’s revenues as a basis for arriving at the valuation. Instead, Facebook is valued based on its contribution of total economic activity. This multiplier can be justified going forward because of the lock-in effect of Facebook, and possibly the growth of the multiplier as Facebook members utilize Facebook more frequently.

This creates a clear divide between Facebook’s economic value (its contribution to the economy as a whole) and its shareholder value (market value). To the displeasure to future Facebook shareholders, the multiplier approach values Facebook on the total revenues that it creates in the general economic, not revenues that it collects as a participant in the market.

The result? Facebook’s economic value is different than its market value. In fact, its economic value is greater than its market value. We assume that shareholders value a firm based on future earnings due to them as a part owner of the company. Shareholders that purchase shares of Facebook based on the market valuation of $15 billion established by Microsoft will be sorely disappointed if the firm’s personal revenue growth of Facebook remains at its current level.

In the end, I’m not contesting that Facebook is worth $15 billion. It could be even more than that. I just disagree that Facebook’s market value is $15 billion. The firm may hold an economic value of $15 billion with the resulting multiplier effect, with the market value falling far short of this number.

(Also consider that perhaps Microsoft established a $15 billion market valuation for Facebook to artificially inflate the market price to other would-be suitors…)

Caveat emptor.