So, Bear Stearns, the investment banking and hedge goliath who can’t seem to get sub-prime mortgages right – whose two hedge funds declared bankruptcy in the midst of some of the steepest drops in the stock market memory — is now declaring itself a guru in social marketing. To be fair, Bear Stearns is a large entity, with competing interests and different individuals, but the comparison was too delicious to avoid.
Nevertheless, as Mike Arrington reports and Bear Stearns hath declared: “Yahoo Must Get Its Social Networking Shit Together.”
What follows is an argument that Yahoo should “get into” the social networking scene by buying Facebook, which follows with some interesting math valuing Facebook at around 5-6 billion sollars.
Now, the glib response (and being no stranger to glib responses, I will give one … now) would be that Yahoo already has Flickr, MyBlogLog, Yahoo 360, Del.icio.us, and 32 other social networking, or socially-related networking technologies (well, perhaps less than 32). They should just get their shit together and knit what they already have into a social networking strategy. Even better: Just remake Yahoo into one giant social networking site.
The problem is — and what makes this a glib response — that it doesn’t recognize a couple things.
First of all, at a place like Yahoo there is probably an enormous amount of corporate inertia to do risky things. Taking what seems like disparate entities with their own departments, and getting them to “come together” under a single umbrella would probably take more guts than any one person — such as their CEO, Jerry Yang, has. Yes, I’m sorry to flog the “Jerry Yang is teh suck” message, but I still can’t believe any one is excited about a vision that is predicated on such vagaries as “speed, clarity and discipline“. That’s like saying my vision is predicated upon being “awesome”, or being “excellent”. But I digress.
Getting Yahoo to actually create a coherent social networking strategy is needed, sure. But actually getting it done is an entirely different matter.
Secondly, it doesn’t recognize a fundamental difference between people who use Facebook and people who use Yahoo — and I’m not talking about demographics (necessarily). Rather, people who use Facebook *know* about social networking, or are curious enough about it to want to know about it. Facebook *IS* a social networking site, and to remind ourselves of one thing — social networking is more than just “members”, which Yahoo already has a lot of already. Social networking is members having a sense of ownership of their identity on a particular service, as well as actively reading, commenting on, updating, and above all interacting with other members.
The folks who use Yahoo right now are from a greater and more diverse cross section of web users, some of whom don’t necessarily “get” social networking, particularly as I have described it above, and others who don’t even want that from Yahoo. I’m talking about people who are using it exclusively for things like news, email, or even classifieds.
Even if you retool everything so that it becomes like Facebook, the problem is that you would need to make it more than okay and acceptable to the Yahoo faithful (if such a word could be applied to them). They would need to embrace it and *love* it, and to affect that kind change in attitude quickly is more than difficult. Its impossible.
So, let’s get back to the Bear Stearns remark, because it actually may have some merit when taken from a user-point of view. Yes, there is money in the Facebook brand and all its tools. But by purchasing Facebook “in toto”, it would also be purchasing its 30 million plus users, who could be cross-pollinated amongst its other social networking properties. By buying Facebook’s users, not only would it give Yahoo instant credibility, it would also be buying *users* would are used to and amenable to, social networking activities. It would make it *easier* for them to implement an integrated social networking strategy because they would have bought an install base upon which to base it on, and build upon.
Now, the fact that it hasn’t *yet* done so, even after purchases of entities like Geocities (way, way, way back, pre bubble 1.0) all the way up to MyBlogLog makes me less inclined that its able to an integrated anything. Which leads me back to my original position.
Should Yahoo buy Facebook? I think it would be a great fit for Yahoo — and it would be even greater yet, if it had the will to do something with it and its other social media properties, and create something out of Yahoo! that is greater than any of its socially-related parts. In an age where Google seems to be spreading its tentacles farther, wider, and deeper (and more offline) than ever before, Yahoo! needs to live up to its online legacy so that it represents something more than a mishmash of seemingly unrelated web (never mind “social”) properies.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Agreed. I have noticed that MyBlogLog shows up on some parts of Yahoo! Finance - in that you get the strip with avatars of the recent visitors. But in true yahoo fashion it’s inconsistent and I can’t specifically find a page with this behavior…
August 4th, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Permalink
[...] Read the rest here: Should Yahoo Buy Facebook? The Non-Glib Answer. [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
Webomatica — have they even done that? Wow, I’m impressed. (And that’s only half-sarcastic).
August 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
[...] [and what will *THAT* do to its valuation?] [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Permalink
Not sure I totally agree with the hypothesis because:
(i) I suspect lots of people on Yahoo are also on F/B (and on MySpace etc etc) - not a different demographic, just F/B is is the most fashionable thing now.
(ii) At $5bn, you have to look at the price of acquisition vs what something like Yahoo, with all its assets and users, could do internally. For $3bn you could probably build an amazing service with $2bn and give $100 to 20 million customers to kick start it ;)
Agree with your internal inertia note though…”peanut butter” is the usual barrier to doing this sort of rework.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
Alan — give $100 to 20 million users … what? Have you been hanging around Jason Calacanis or something? :)
No, seriously … I agree that there’s an argument to be made that you could do a lot with that cash. The question is “could you create something equally as good — or better than Facebook”, with “good” and “better” having meaning in terms of actual usage, but more importantly perception, buzz, and real growth?
I don’t know. Seeing as how much peanut butter they *do* have, I wonder if its better they just buy something already-made. ;)
August 4th, 2007 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
perhaps great advice… for a year ago. no way Yahoo can pull off a deal to buy Facebook now, not even close. in fact, it would be surprising if even MSFT or GOOG could make that deal happen for less than $10B.
these days, Yahoo needs to be considering whether it could pull of a deal to buy SixApart or Bebo, maybe Hi5, and hope that it could do so for under $1B. given the market conditions, i’m not sure any of them will sell for much less.
- dave mcclure
August 4th, 2007 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
Why is there an assumption that stitching together all properties which have a ’social’ component is a useful business goal? How does that help a display ads business?
Also, to address one of the subsequent comments ,I don’t think the ‘peanut butter’ manifesto was about pouring money into questionable goals but instead focusing on consolidation of overlapped functionality. I don’t think any company would be envious of finding a way to integrate 100’s of properties (do people really want MyBlogLog avatars on every page they visit?).
Google you will notice also has a long way to go in terms of a consistent integration between all their properties. Like Yahoo they focus on integrating properties that make sense.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
Dave stole my thunder and has said it best… nothing more to say after that comment!
August 4th, 2007 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
Dave,
Well, I’m not sure how much Yahoo! has in its treasury, but they have a market cap of around $30B right now. Granted, a lot of it does have to do with the final price, and the issue of whether Facebook could be sold at any price at this time.
Cheers
t @ dji
August 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
Wioota,
The presumption (maybe its only my assumption) is that by creating a frankenstein of social media properties, it will recreate a similar phenomenon seen on more popular social networking sites. Namely a higher amount of time spent on the parent URL, a higher average number of pages seen, and therefore, a higher volume of ad units sold. That’s besides all of the other ‘revolutionary’ ways that advertising could be sold — such as paid placement for prominent groups, fancy integrative sponsorships and so on.
Oh, that and “buzz” to pump up the CPA.
Presuming also that we are using pageviews as a metric. Which many places aren’t, I know. But perhaps time on site, then.
cheers,
t @ dji
August 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
[...] Deep Jive Interests » Should Yahoo Buy Facebook? The Non-Glib Answer. (tags: 2blog analysis business facebook networking social yahoo socialmedia media) [...]
August 7th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Great post, i suppose it would be great for Yahoo. But IMHO it would be impossible, it’s just too late. This should have been done by Yahoo one year ago.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
[...] Deep Jive Interests » Should Yahoo Buy Facebook? The Non-Glib Answer. - [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
[...] Should Yahoo Buy Facebook? The Non-Glib Answer. By Tony Hung Now, the glib response (and being no stranger to glib responses, I will give one … now) would be that Yahoo already has Flickr, MyBlogLog, Yahoo 360, Del.icio.us, and 32 other social networking, or socially-related networking … Deep Jive Interests - http://www.deepjiveinterests.com Listen to this podcast Print This Post [...]