The New Facebook Redesign: The Beginning of The End?

16 Sep 2008 - 1:43pm
5 years ago
129 replies
3936 reads
Sharon Greenfield5
2008

What say you, people of IXDA?

What say you of the new Facebook design?

What of the usability of this new look? What of the spacing? Is it
efficient? Are the tabs necessary? Or did you like to, with just one
look, understand a person's personal and professional life completely?

More importantly, with the myriad of complaints of said new design,
will this bring the downfall of Facebook here in the US? Into the
halls of history along with Tribe, Friendster, Orkut?

Comments

20 Sep 2008 - 10:57pm
Damon Dimmick
2008

That's very interesting. You are right, it may be cultura. I have never
used my Myspace account, not really anyway. I resisted the myspace surge
and was always interested in orkut / friendster until I found facebook,
so perhaps there's a relative difference.

Interesting point, Jarod.
>> I would therefore argue that calling something "obsolete" because other
>> choices are available isn't sufficient. I mean, the skateboard is
>> another choice for getting around a city, but does that make car's
>> obsolete? For true obsolescence to occur, there must be a better way to
>> accomplish the goal that the newly-obsolete technology addresses, and
>> this better way must make the original choice more costly (in a games
>> theory sense of utility) than the new technology in so far as satisfying
>> that user goal.
>>
>
> Agree fully.
>

21 Sep 2008 - 11:09am
Dave Malouf
2005

sounds more like personal choice. Facebook has huge collections of
people from many different countries/continents and perspectives. But
like like some people won't ever own a TV, maybe some people don't
resonate with Facebook. By no means do I see this as obsolete.

First of all, if you aren't on Facebook where do you go? Yes, there
is MySpace, right? But that is just Facebook with a different brand
(or visa versa), but the very concepts of Facebook and MySpace are
really the same which is social networking around social, family and
professional. Unlike LinkedIn which is purely for professional social
networking from the ground up.

But if I wasn't on Facebook, I can't just GO to Google. Google
doesn't have a social network. Orkut is not a social network as
there is no deep linking, statusing, etc. within it. Its just a
collection of boards and the only social aspect of it is that you had
to be invited into it. Like thats hard!

So no one has still convinced me that FB is obsolete. It might be one
day, just like its predecessors (Prodigy > CompuServ > AOL) are today,
but I don't see it obsolete NOW, nor do I see any big competition
looming. I do not see Facebook as Alta Vista, but rather I see
Facebook as Google and maybe there is a Cuil out there or a
Vivivisimo (search competitors of Google) . FB still has tremendous
critical mass. BTW, Google:Facebook what Yahoo:MySpace (if we were to
continue this metaphor and people were wondering where Yahoo fit into
all this).

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

21 Sep 2008 - 1:38pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, David Malouf wrote:

> So no one has still convinced me that FB is obsolete.

I don't think Facebook is obsolete. (I don't even know what obsolete
means in this context. Is eBay obsolete? Amazon?)

I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
model. And this is a huge problem.

Sure, it gets a ton of traffic (http://tinyurl.com/3nqov6) and has
high average stays (http://tinyurl.com/3nqov6). But few of those 41m
people a month actually produce any revenue for the site.

Until the site has a mechanism to pay for the servers, the rent, and
the almost 1000 employees, I really don't think they have long term
prospects. Eventually, the investors will want the 10x returns on
their investments. Where is that money coming from?

This is where it becomes relevant to IxD, in my mind. Every time
Facebook has tried to change the design to open a space for revenue
generating functionality, the users have borked. The users have made
it clear they don't want ads in their feeds. They don't want Facebook
using them as a sales reference ("Your buddy, Jared, just bought shoes
at Amazon -- you should too!"). They want to stay connected, but not
pay for that privilege.

(Twitter, btw, has the same issue.)

So, I don't think they are obsolete. But I don't think they'll make it
beyond the next 10 years. Which makes them a passing fad, in my opinion.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks

21 Sep 2008 - 2:53pm
Damon Dimmick
2008

>
> This is where it becomes relevant to IxD, in my mind. Every time
> Facebook has tried to change the design to open a space for revenue
> generating functionality, the users have borked. The users have made
> it clear they don't want ads in their feeds. They don't want Facebook
> using them as a sales reference ("Your buddy, Jared, just bought shoes
> at Amazon -- you should too!"). They want to stay connected, but not
> pay for that privilege.
Jared brings up the everpresent, and hugely important question.

How -does- one monetize this kind of service? It seems that more and
more "web 2.0 (cringe)" companies are following the
get-users-first-then-monetize model, but with no apparent idea of how to
actually jump from A to B (underwear gnomes, anyone?) without alienating
users.

Is there enough advertising revenue out there to pay for our favorite
web apps? Is advertising revenue even a feasible solution for some of
these apps?

This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
tried a pay-subscription based solution (which didn't work) and ended up
shifting its model.

And here's the other frustrating question: Why -shouldn't- users be ok
with advertising? Yeah, it is annoying. I hate it too, but for a free
service, I mean... someone has to pay the bills.

Is this all a market maturity issue? Are monetize-later ventures
acclimating users to the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for
services (via advertising or cash) and hence hurting their own chances
of jumping to a profitable model later?

I think this issue is going to keep coming up, but the chickens will
come home to roost, and probably sooner rather than later considering
the economic climate. Someone is going to say "where's the money" loudly
enough, and then there's going to be some change. I'm vaguely worried
about the Dutch Tulip market scenario, although of course, that metaphor
is tortured, unapt, and possibly not fit for this scenario. But in
general, we have a questions of how much users are willing to pay (in
money, attention, and time) for services that are currently presented as
free.

It is indeed an IxD issue.... how to capture eyes without annoying eyes.

I boggle at it.

-Damon

21 Sep 2008 - 3:20pm
jet
2008

Damon Dimmick wrote:

> This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
> don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
> tried a pay-subscription based solution (which didn't work) and ended up
> shifting its model.

Salon still has paid memberships, you get to read the site sans ads.

I'm not sure I'd pay for FB, tho.

--
jet / KG6ZVQ
http://www.flatline.net
pgp: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

21 Sep 2008 - 3:27pm
Damon Dimmick
2008

Would you be willing to watch similar ads at log-in time? Just curious.

-Damon

j. eric townsend wrote:
> Damon Dimmick wrote:
>
>> This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
>> don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
>> tried a pay-subscription based solution (which didn't work) and ended up
>> shifting its model.
>
> Salon still has paid memberships, you get to read the site sans ads.
>
> I'm not sure I'd pay for FB, tho.
>

21 Sep 2008 - 4:03pm
jet
2008

For Facebook or Salon? I (willingly) pay for Salon as part of a
package deal, in part so I don't have to wade through ads.

For FB? I dunno. They can't even implement a model that keeps me
logged in correctly, I'm not sure I'd tolerate ads on top of that.

However, I get little value out of FB, especially when compared to the
value I get out of Salon's news/entertainment articles.

Damon Dimmick wrote:
> Would you be willing to watch similar ads at log-in time? Just curious.
>
> -Damon
>
> j. eric townsend wrote:
>> Damon Dimmick wrote:
>>
>>> This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
>>> don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
>>> tried a pay-subscription based solution (which didn't work) and ended up
>>> shifting its model.
>> Salon still has paid memberships, you get to read the site sans ads.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd pay for FB, tho.
>>
>
>

--
jet / KG6ZVQ
http://www.flatline.net
pgp: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

21 Sep 2008 - 7:35pm
Jarod Tang
2007

> This is where it becomes relevant to IxD, in my mind. Every time Facebook
> has tried to change the design to open a space for revenue generating
> functionality, the users have borked. The users have made it clear they
> don't want ads in their feeds. They don't want Facebook using them as a
> sales reference ("Your buddy, Jared, just bought shoes at Amazon -- you
> should too!"). They want to stay connected, but not pay for that privilege.
>
> (Twitter, btw, has the same issue.)
>
> So, I don't think they are obsolete. But I don't think they'll make it
> beyond the next 10 years. Which makes them a passing fad, in my opinion.
>
> Jared

This is a interesting observation, a bit similar with previous
discussion on Death of Pandora, but frankly speaking, i would like to
pay pandora's service cause it really make my music life better. For
Facebook, as you said, the user will be bothered, if Facebook get use
of your personal relationship, which means
1. yes, it's useful
2. but, don't bother me by get use of my private infomation

A more interesting model maybe, use the relationship as a foundation
of some service, instead of make money directly on it, like, interests
group (music experience sharing, other stuffs, ...), and it's more
solid to build some bussiness on, by which the recommend mechanism is
critical.

Cheers,
-- Jarod

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

21 Sep 2008 - 10:16pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 21, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:

> A more interesting model maybe, use the relationship as a foundation
> of some service, instead of make money directly on it, like, interests
> group (music experience sharing, other stuffs, ...), and it's more
> solid to build some bussiness on, by which the recommend mechanism is
> critical.

yes, well, easier said than done. Monetizing that to meet their
$15,000,000,000 valuation (or whatever the investors think they are
worth today) will be really quite tricky.

Jared

21 Sep 2008 - 10:44pm
Jarod Tang
2007

>> A more interesting model maybe, use the relationship as a foundation
>> of some service, instead of make money directly on it, like, interests
>> group (music experience sharing, other stuffs, ...), and it's more
>> solid to build some bussiness on, by which the recommend mechanism is
>> critical.
>
> yes, well, easier said than done. Monetizing that to meet their
> $15,000,000,000 valuation (or whatever the investors think they are worth
> today) will be really quite tricky.

Yes, first interaction design is always for/from strategy/business
model, and it's hard to decide or change. Barriers more comes from
inside instead of outside, especially for interaction design(But for
FB issues, it's more like a strategy problem instead of a common-sense
interaction design issue.).

Cheers,
-- Jarod

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

21 Sep 2008 - 5:48pm
Kontra
2007

> I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
> And this is a huge problem.

Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

20 Sep 2008 - 11:56pm
Sharon Greenfield5
2008

Interesting point:
Well done research on social networks and their worldwide uses.
http://royal.pingdom.com/?p=336

Inspired by the original, if a little flawed, mapping from Valleywag.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/238513/The-World-Map-of-Social-Networks

On Sep 20, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Damon Dimmick wrote:

> That's very interesting. You are right, it may be cultura. I have
> never
> used my Myspace account, not really anyway. I resisted the myspace
> surge
> and was always interested in orkut / friendster until I found
> facebook,
> so perhaps there's a relative difference.
>
> Interesting point, Jarod.
>>> I would therefore argue that calling something "obsolete" because
>>> other
>>> choices are available isn't sufficient. I mean, the skateboard is
>>> another choice for getting around a city, but does that make car's
>>> obsolete? For true obsolescence to occur, there must be a better
>>> way to
>>> accomplish the goal that the newly-obsolete technology addresses,
>>> and
>>> this better way must make the original choice more costly (in a
>>> games
>>> theory sense of utility) than the new technology in so far as
>>> satisfying
>>> that user goal.
>>>
>>
>> Agree fully.
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

21 Sep 2008 - 2:12am
Krystal Higgins
2008

I would love to see the comparison study of the design reviews of
people who only saw FB after the new design implementation vs. those
who migrated from the older version. Folks earlier in the thread
might have it right, change is what makes everyone else more negative
toward the new design. Getting obsolete or not, Facebook is adding
new users constantly, and for many this will be the only design that
they'll know.

Alternatively, some of those migrating won't care. Many folks with
a large online presence might not see this an overhaul. Maybe they
have come to expect (crave?) these smaller change/relearn patterns.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

21 Sep 2008 - 3:23pm
Krystal Higgins
2008

Jarod, thanks for making the point about a sustainable business model.
And also for the stats on user traffic.

I'd love to see the study of how people react to the design in
regards to existing users migrating from the old version vs. the
users who have just recently signed up after the new design
implementation. Also, would be interesting to see how many went
through the extra step(s) to use the "old facebook" application
(before it stopped working) vs. just relearning the new interface.

Out of curiosity, what's the best revenue-producing social
networking site model (MySpace) so far? Is it even
possible--expected?--for these guys to sustain themselves for long
periods of time? Or do users, especially in younger groups, prefer
the idea of a nomadic life of moving from new site to new site from
year-to-year?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 6:48am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 21, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Kontra wrote:

>> I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
>> model.
>> And this is a huge problem.
>
>
> Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
> Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?

Yah. Skype's worked out real good for eBay. And MySpace was a great
investment for Newscorp. The writeoffs they've taken were all in the
plan, right?

I don't think MS put $124 million into 12% of Facebook so that they'd
make it back on a Google acquisition.

At least YouTube has advertising opportunities (albeit low) for
Google. What's Facebook got?

How does Facebook deliver a return to their investors? Or do investors
no longer care about getting their money back?

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 6:48am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 21, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Krystal R.Higgins wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what's the best revenue-producing social
> networking site model (MySpace) so far?

eBay and Amazon.

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 7:32am
Steve Baty
2009

I was quite happily ignoring this thread until I hit this:

"> I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
> And this is a huge problem.

Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?"

I can't but think that being bought out by someone else is not a business
model. Not having a revenue model for your business *is* a problem because
it indicates a lack of thinking about the future relevance of your business,
and it's a failure to secure the future of that business. Sooner or later
that's going to bite you in the ass.

Regards
Steve

2008/9/22 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>

> > I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
> > And this is a huge problem.
>
>
> Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
> Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com

Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

22 Sep 2008 - 7:34am
Dave Malouf
2005

But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
(especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
commerce business.

Social Networks like FB and Twitter need something different.
1) add services that take advantage of the SN ala LinkedIn (BTW, that
might be the real answer to the question of a monetized social
network, no?) that people are willing or needing to take advantage
of.

2) Make the service part of a greater service offering where the
clout of the SN that you've already built bring in people to another
service that can thrive off of a social network model.

3) This will only work for Twitter, but make the service a
cost-center that leads to other revenue streams. (ala add in
"openID" for a cost, or become a social network consultancy, or
turn your service into OSS and consult on private installations for
the enterprise or Gov't.

But to be honest, as an end user, if FB can last 10 years w/o a
viable business model. I could care less. In 10 years something else
will get my attention and so long as I can keep using FB the way I
have for free, it serves my needs quite well. But I live in the US
and we love just thinking about "now" and "me" until it is too
late. ;-)

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 7:39am
Santiago Bustelo
2010

Sidenote: If you visit facebook.com with JavaScript disabled, you get
an inspiring blank screen. The source is just two script tags.

--

Santiago Bustelo
Buenos Aires, Argentina

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 7:50am
Jarod Tang
2007

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:34 PM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
> (especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
> commerce business.

"Adding value" maybe the proper description on social networking; or
thinking from different direction, people always gather because of
some reason ( like ixda formed around interaction designers)
1. the share the similiar interests
2. the share the similar experience

The business model should be better based on the shared stuff, instead
of on the networking itself, because the the shared stuff more close
to user's motivation for better design.

Cheers,
-- Jarod

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

22 Sep 2008 - 8:09am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:34 AM, David Malouf wrote:

> But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
> (especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
> commerce business.

I don't know what "added" means. eBay, from day 1, had their community
and reputation management system. Amazon, from day 1, had their
reviews and ratings. Both of these are core social networking
features, albeit different than the Can-I-Facebook-You? pickup-line
approach.

So, your complaint about my bringing up eBay and Amazon is that they
started with a viable business model instead of praying one appears to
them in a burning bush before the investor money runs out? I guess I'm
just lacking the faith that FB's mgmt has.

> But to be honest, as an end user, if FB can last 10 years w/o a
> viable business model. I could care less. In 10 years something else
> will get my attention and so long as I can keep using FB the way I
> have for free, it serves my needs quite well.

So, is that it? FB is just a decade-long experiment to disprove the
Dunbar number theory? Once it's outlived its usefulness, we just let
it plummet back into the atmosphere and burn?

I wonder if anyone has let the investors in on the nature of this
experiment.

:)

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 10:15am
Dave Malouf
2005

I think we are defining social networks different. Not everything that is
social is a social network, IMHO.
I don't see really any networking going on in Amazon, or in no way that is
really connected. I don't create friends, I can't even say I want to buy
everything this review buys. I can't make that reviewer a favorite or
anything like that. Sure PEOPLE are engaged, but the network is not, IMHO.

I don't use eBay enough to really know what is going on there, but it does
seem again, that it is social, but not networked, IMHO.

As for the "experiment" I was wondering, what features are valuable to the
END USER, not the business. Often there can be a conflict between the 2.
Adding monetization could be detrimental to the end-user experience, but
then again, w/o it the service won't live long, now will it. But just as
people pretty easily have moved from one IM client to another, and from AOL
to MySpace to Facebook and so on and so forth, the end user is a lot more
flexible than the business.

Your focus on the business is GREAT and as designers interested in
"stakeholder centered design" it has to be considered.

-- dave

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:34 AM, David Malouf wrote:
>
> But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
>> (especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
>> commerce business.
>>
>
> I don't know what "added" means. eBay, from day 1, had their community and
> reputation management system. Amazon, from day 1, had their reviews and
> ratings. Both of these are core social networking features, albeit different
> than the Can-I-Facebook-You? pickup-line approach.
>
> So, your complaint about my bringing up eBay and Amazon is that they
> started with a viable business model instead of praying one appears to them
> in a burning bush before the investor money runs out? I guess I'm just
> lacking the faith that FB's mgmt has.
>
> But to be honest, as an end user, if FB can last 10 years w/o a
>> viable business model. I could care less. In 10 years something else
>> will get my attention and so long as I can keep using FB the way I
>> have for free, it serves my needs quite well.
>>
>
> So, is that it? FB is just a decade-long experiment to disprove the Dunbar
> number theory? Once it's outlived its usefulness, we just let it plummet
> back into the atmosphere and burn?
>
> I wonder if anyone has let the investors in on the nature of this
> experiment.
>
> :)
>
> Jared
>
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

22 Sep 2008 - 10:16am
Charusmitha Ram
2008

>"So an address book?"

Facebook might have done this redesign as a means to scale its capabilities
and support future social computing trends. I think this paradigm shift of
contacts being the launch pad for viewing content is important and will be a
natural progression into mobile social computing. I read this trend about
"Intelligent contact lists being the future centres of the user interface" ,
which is an interesting concept. ( www.pmn.co.uk/mex/agenda08.shtml#7 )

Facebook is turning into a Plaxo-like app, perhaps an address book/ contact
list on steroids and this is going to be a trend seen more often as the next
generation and newer trends in messaging architecture unfolds.

Smitha Ram
Senior Interaction Designer
Thomson Reuters | www.thomsonreuters.com
----------------------------------------------------------

22 Sep 2008 - 10:52am
SemanticWill
2007

There is a difference between sites that are Social Media Sites, and those
that are Social Networking sites, although some do both. To the degree that
a site encourages basic user generated content, but little else (ratings,
comments, discussions, blog posts, images, video) as opposed to a Social
Networking (connecting, friending, messaging) -- Some sites do some mix of
networking and user generated content - some more than others - some blogs
are really neither. If you can't comment on a post, rate a post, etc - than
although it is user generated content - it's not social, for instance Seth
Godin's personal blog is neither networking nor media because their are no
mechanisms for connection of communication.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:

> I think we are defining social networks different. Not everything that is
> social is a social network, IMHO.
> I don't see really any networking going on in Amazon, or in no way that is
> really connected. I don't create friends, I can't even say I want to buy
> everything this review buys. I can't make that reviewer a favorite or
> anything like that. Sure PEOPLE are engaged, but the network is not, IMHO.
>
> I don't use eBay enough to really know what is going on there, but it does
> seem again, that it is social, but not networked, IMHO.
>
> As for the "experiment" I was wondering, what features are valuable to the
> END USER, not the business. Often there can be a conflict between the 2.
> Adding monetization could be detrimental to the end-user experience, but
> then again, w/o it the service won't live long, now will it. But just as
> people pretty easily have moved from one IM client to another, and from AOL
> to MySpace to Facebook and so on and so forth, the end user is a lot more
> flexible than the business.
>
> Your focus on the business is GREAT and as designers interested in
> "stakeholder centered design" it has to be considered.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:34 AM, David Malouf wrote:
> >
> > But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
> >> (especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
> >> commerce business.
> >>
> >
> > I don't know what "added" means. eBay, from day 1, had their community
> and
> > reputation management system. Amazon, from day 1, had their reviews and
> > ratings. Both of these are core social networking features, albeit
> different
> > than the Can-I-Facebook-You? pickup-line approach.
> >
> > So, your complaint about my bringing up eBay and Amazon is that they
> > started with a viable business model instead of praying one appears to
> them
> > in a burning bush before the investor money runs out? I guess I'm just
> > lacking the faith that FB's mgmt has.
> >
> > But to be honest, as an end user, if FB can last 10 years w/o a
> >> viable business model. I could care less. In 10 years something else
> >> will get my attention and so long as I can keep using FB the way I
> >> have for free, it serves my needs quite well.
> >>
> >
> > So, is that it? FB is just a decade-long experiment to disprove the
> Dunbar
> > number theory? Once it's outlived its usefulness, we just let it plummet
> > back into the atmosphere and burn?
> >
> > I wonder if anyone has let the investors in on the nature of this
> > experiment.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Jared
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.128 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4
twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22 Sep 2008 - 11:04am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Will Evans wrote:

> There is a difference between sites that are Social Media Sites, and
> those that are Social Networking sites, although some do both. To
> the degree that a site encourages basic user generated content, but
> little else (ratings, comments, discussions, blog posts, images,
> video) as opposed to a Social Networking (connecting, friending,
> messaging) -- Some sites do some mix of networking and user
> generated content - some more than others - some blogs are really
> neither. If you can't comment on a post, rate a post, etc - than
> although it is user generated content - it's not social, for
> instance Seth Godin's personal blog is neither networking nor media
> because their are no mechanisms for connection of communication.

Blah.

Now we're killing kittens. (As in "Every time you define a web 2.0
concept, God kills a kitten. Please! Remember the kittens!")

So, Netflix lets you review and rate movies. So it's a social media
site? And it let's you friend people (or connect to existing friends)
and message them with specific recommendations. Does that make it a
Social Networking site?

BTW, Amazon lets you do the same things. As does eBay. And
BankofAmerica.com has some of these features. What *isn't* a social
media or social networking site?

(See if you can answer that without killing any more kittens. :) )

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 11:44am
Christine Boese
2006

What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question? Coming in
from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue model of the
Boston Commons? The town square?"

The implication is that if something does not have a revenue model, it
cannot exist and does not deserve to exist. By this argument, poetry does
not exist. Commons do not exist.

The odd question here is not WHY users dislike ads, with the presumption
that they HAVE to be enculturated to somehow "like" ads. I dislike cold
showers, and all the persuasion in the world will not make me like cold
showers. Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps what we are witnessing is
something like truth breaking through the dominant (and perhaps oppressive)
media programming of an audience, to stand up and say, "No, no matter how
much melamine you put in my processed box dinner, I do not like it Sam I
am!"

For some reason, I don't feel the need to ask the question of why users
dislike ads, any more than I need to ask why I dislike cold showers or
processed box dinners. What I have to ask is why people seem to presume that
with enough applied persuasion, I can be made to LIKE those things, and that
I ought to be made to do so, as some kind of a moral imperative, to be able
to sustain somebody else's idea of a business model, when, last time I
checked, Town Commons, electronic commons, have sustained themselves just
fine any time people feel the need to get together, and share ideas, and
talk.

The odd thing to me here is that the presumption, the baseline, appears to
be "How dare they feel the need to get together and share ideas and talk
without listening to us tell them to buy things. The nerve of some people!"

Any other view of what people do when they gather together is framed as
beyond the pale, outside societal norms. To that I say, "Says who?" No
business model? What will those people DO when they come together? Just sit
around and be wankers and not buy anything?!

I just can't imagine what they might do, especially since it might come out
of their own heads, instead of being predefined by US.

Hmph.

Chris

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Steve Baty <stevebaty at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was quite happily ignoring this thread until I hit this:
>
> "> I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
> > And this is a huge problem.
>
>
> Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
> Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?"
>
> I can't but think that being bought out by someone else is not a business
> model. Not having a revenue model for your business *is* a problem because
> it indicates a lack of thinking about the future relevance of your
> business,
> and it's a failure to secure the future of that business. Sooner or later
> that's going to bite you in the ass.
>
> Regards
> Steve
>
>
>
> 2008/9/22 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>
>
> > > I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
> model.
> > > And this is a huge problem.
> >
> >
> > Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
> > Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
> >
> > --
> > Kontra
> > http://counternotions.com
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------
> Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
> Principal Consultant
> Meld Consulting
> M: +61 417 061 292
> E: stevebaty at meld.com.au
>
> UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com
>
> Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
> Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
> Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
> Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

22 Sep 2008 - 12:03pm
Dave Malouf
2005

I can live w/ that distinction. :)

Again, I want to highlight that LinkedIn might very well be a good example
depending on your point of view of a Social Networking site with a business
model worthy of a valuation.

-- dave

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>wrote:

> There is a difference between sites that are Social Media Sites, and those
> that are Social Networking sites, although some do both. To the degree that
> a site encourages basic user generated content, but little else (ratings,
> comments, discussions, blog posts, images, video) as opposed to a Social
> Networking (connecting, friending, messaging) -- Some sites do some mix of
> networking and user generated content - some more than others - some blogs
> are really neither. If you can't comment on a post, rate a post, etc - than
> although it is user generated content - it's not social, for instance Seth
> Godin's personal blog is neither networking nor media because their are no
> mechanisms for connection of communication.
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we are defining social networks different. Not everything that is
>> social is a social network, IMHO.
>> I don't see really any networking going on in Amazon, or in no way that is
>> really connected. I don't create friends, I can't even say I want to buy
>> everything this review buys. I can't make that reviewer a favorite or
>> anything like that. Sure PEOPLE are engaged, but the network is not, IMHO.
>>
>> I don't use eBay enough to really know what is going on there, but it does
>> seem again, that it is social, but not networked, IMHO.
>>
>> As for the "experiment" I was wondering, what features are valuable to the
>> END USER, not the business. Often there can be a conflict between the 2.
>> Adding monetization could be detrimental to the end-user experience, but
>> then again, w/o it the service won't live long, now will it. But just as
>> people pretty easily have moved from one IM client to another, and from
>> AOL
>> to MySpace to Facebook and so on and so forth, the end user is a lot more
>> flexible than the business.
>>
>> Your focus on the business is GREAT and as designers interested in
>> "stakeholder centered design" it has to be considered.
>>
>> -- dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:34 AM, David Malouf wrote:
>> >
>> > But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
>> >> (especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
>> >> commerce business.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't know what "added" means. eBay, from day 1, had their community
>> and
>> > reputation management system. Amazon, from day 1, had their reviews and
>> > ratings. Both of these are core social networking features, albeit
>> different
>> > than the Can-I-Facebook-You? pickup-line approach.
>> >
>> > So, your complaint about my bringing up eBay and Amazon is that they
>> > started with a viable business model instead of praying one appears to
>> them
>> > in a burning bush before the investor money runs out? I guess I'm just
>> > lacking the faith that FB's mgmt has.
>> >
>> > But to be honest, as an end user, if FB can last 10 years w/o a
>> >> viable business model. I could care less. In 10 years something else
>> >> will get my attention and so long as I can keep using FB the way I
>> >> have for free, it serves my needs quite well.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So, is that it? FB is just a decade-long experiment to disprove the
>> Dunbar
>> > number theory? Once it's outlived its usefulness, we just let it plummet
>> > back into the atmosphere and burn?
>> >
>> > I wonder if anyone has let the investors in on the nature of this
>> > experiment.
>> >
>> > :)
>> >
>> > Jared
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Malouf
>> http://synapticburn.com/
>> http://ixda.org/
>> http://motorola.com/
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel: +1.617.281.128 | will at semanticfoundry.com
> aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4
> twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

22 Sep 2008 - 12:21pm
Mark Schraad
2006

At some level, do you not make an assessment of value and the
expenditure of resources? In some cases the return may not be direct
revenue, but in good will, economic stimuli or just because it is the
right thing to do, but there is usually some measure for the effort
and expense.

But in the case of a 'for profit' company, fiscal responsibility and
the care taking of shareholder investment would seem to drive some
notion of a plan.

To that end, a site might be deemed successful at somethings it does,
but certainly not at 'being a business' until it is profitable. Lot's
of folks invested in Facebook. Facebook took their money with a
promise of return. To Jared's point... that return does not appear
likely or even a remote possibility. Facebook might have been
successful at many things, but it is not a successful business.
Unless, of course, you consider obtaining financing an end game (and
some, no doubt, do).

Mark

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese
<christine.boese at gmail.com> wrote:
> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question? Coming in
> from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue model of the
> Boston Commons? The town square?"
>
> The implication is that if something does not have a revenue model, it
> cannot exist and does not deserve to exist. By this argument, poetry does
> not exist. Commons do not exist.
>
> The odd question here is not WHY users dislike ads, with the presumption
> that they HAVE to be enculturated to somehow "like" ads. I dislike cold
> showers, and all the persuasion in the world will not make me like cold
> showers. Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps what we are witnessing is
> something like truth breaking through the dominant (and perhaps oppressive)
> media programming of an audience, to stand up and say, "No, no matter how
> much melamine you put in my processed box dinner, I do not like it Sam I
> am!"
>
> For some reason, I don't feel the need to ask the question of why users
> dislike ads, any more than I need to ask why I dislike cold showers or
> processed box dinners. What I have to ask is why people seem to presume that
> with enough applied persuasion, I can be made to LIKE those things, and that
> I ought to be made to do so, as some kind of a moral imperative, to be able
> to sustain somebody else's idea of a business model, when, last time I
> checked, Town Commons, electronic commons, have sustained themselves just
> fine any time people feel the need to get together, and share ideas, and
> talk.
>
> The odd thing to me here is that the presumption, the baseline, appears to
> be "How dare they feel the need to get together and share ideas and talk
> without listening to us tell them to buy things. The nerve of some people!"
>
> Any other view of what people do when they gather together is framed as
> beyond the pale, outside societal norms. To that I say, "Says who?" No
> business model? What will those people DO when they come together? Just sit
> around and be wankers and not buy anything?!
>
> I just can't imagine what they might do, especially since it might come out
> of their own heads, instead of being predefined by US.
>
> Hmph.
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Steve Baty <stevebaty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was quite happily ignoring this thread until I hit this:
>>
>> "> I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
>> > And this is a huge problem.
>>
>>
>> Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
>> Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?"
>>
>> I can't but think that being bought out by someone else is not a business
>> model. Not having a revenue model for your business *is* a problem because
>> it indicates a lack of thinking about the future relevance of your
>> business,
>> and it's a failure to secure the future of that business. Sooner or later
>> that's going to bite you in the ass.
>>
>> Regards
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/9/22 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>
>>
>> > > I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
>> model.
>> > > And this is a huge problem.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
>> > Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kontra
>> > http://counternotions.com
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
>> Principal Consultant
>> Meld Consulting
>> M: +61 417 061 292
>> E: stevebaty at meld.com.au
>>
>> UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com
>>
>> Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
>> Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
>> Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
>> Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

22 Sep 2008 - 12:24pm
bminihan
2007

I'm not sure if it helps or hinders your point, but playing the
devil's advocate: both Boston Commons and the town square have a
revenue model. They both require revenue to sustain themselves (keep
the grounds clean, sponsor and host events, etc), and typically
collect that revenue not from ads, but through local or state taxes.

I'd assume the folks responsible for managing those public spaces
are pretty keenly aware of their value, and what's required to keep
them from being turned into parking lots.

Perhaps there should be room for "public spaces for the greater
good" on the Internet, which rise above the need for ad-based or
other revenue. Until that's available, though, the
revenue-potential of a site goes directly to the heart of its value,
today. If a company can't find a way to stay in business, without
any other external support (charity, donations), why should any but
the most innovative folks invest the time to build a community there,
when the site could disappear in six months?

- Bryan

Christine said:
What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question?
Coming in from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the
revenue model of the Boston Commons? The town square?"
[snip]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 12:53pm
Lucy Buykx
2007

Christine Boese : I haven't got the foggiest what a 'discourse space' might be but if you are talking about public spaces like parks and gardens then you will find these are funded from public taxes, locally or from central government. So the people who use them are already paying for them albeit indirectly.

Perhaps the US government could be leaned upon to fund Facebook ?

22 Sep 2008 - 12:35pm
Dave Malouf
2005

[Death Kitten 2000: How many points are those damn kitties worth?]

I think it is a continuum and focus question. I have NEVER used any
of the networking features of Amazon or Netflix. The site's value
has very little to do with those features. For people who dig them
great! Makes a lot of sense.

Now I do know people who go to Facebook to play Risk and Scrabble and
little else so you could say that FB is just like Amazon and Netflix,
but really that would be killing kittens at an extreme.

I would say that the core use of one is different than the core use
of the other. I'm never going to go to Amazon for the purpose of
Ambient Intimacy either as a contributor or consumer, so calling it a
social networking site to me feel disingenuous and is really like
Palin saying she didn't REALLY support the bridge to nowhere. THAT
is killing WAY too many kittens.

I think you know there is a difference between FB and Amazon when it
comes to its focus on the social and more specifically the social
network itself.

Now Chris, I think unfortunately all forms of public space have costs
attached to them. Some come from the public sphere through taxes and
policy-decisions that allow their support, others through tax
abatement like the creation of corporate public spaces among the
skyscrapers in Manhattan and the funding (self-imposed taxes) of BIDs
all over the city. They are envalued as someone already pointed out.

Now the question is, can we create virtual spaces equivalent to these
public works (corp or public sponsored) and if so what are the
mechanisms for doing so? Is this akin to a corporation supporting an
OSS project?

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 12:37pm
Christine Boese
2006

Yes, thanks Bryan, that actually supports my point, and I was thinking along
those lines too. Often, keepers of online social spaces presume that because
there are costs for hosting, supporting, upgrading these spaces, they MUST
be revenue-focused, as if revenue is the deeper goal, underlying all social
associations.

But public spaces, discourse spaces, commons, all incur costs, if nothing
else, for bathroom cleaning, litter, etc. AND they can also offer support
for revenue-producing activities (kiosks for fliers, street musicians with
their little cans for money, concerts, speakers, etc.). Revenue is not
necessarily excluded from the commons, but is not allowed to intrude upon
the "commons" part of it.

An odd example of what happened to town/city social spaces (and is in many
places currently being un-done, as it was terrible) was the "mall-fication"
(malification? lol) of the marketplace, removing it from the commons and
placing it in a suburban private, enclosed space, highly controlled, with
security guards, accessable only by transport, etc. This was a massive
encroachment on the idea of a Commons, with little counter movement on
behalf of publics, to advocate for the preservation of these kinds of
spaces, rather than the rampant privatization (and class-divisions,
political and civic speech exclusions) of mall spaces.

Some of the effects of those exclusions led to a good deal of the migration
online, to online commons, as the public, civic, and political needs sought
a new outlet. But we must not presume that the hosts of the new online
spaces have civic and political needs in mind, and have to guard such needs
as strongly in these spaces as we have to work to reclaim the Commons in the
face to face world as well, as an open, democratized space for all, and not
privatized, class-segregated, censored spaces.

Chris

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Bryan Minihan <bjminihan at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure if it helps or hinders your point, but playing the
> devil's advocate: both Boston Commons and the town square have a
> revenue model. They both require revenue to sustain themselves (keep
> the grounds clean, sponsor and host events, etc), and typically
> collect that revenue not from ads, but through local or state taxes.
>
> I'd assume the folks responsible for managing those public spaces
> are pretty keenly aware of their value, and what's required to keep
> them from being turned into parking lots.
>
> Perhaps there should be room for "public spaces for the greater
> good" on the Internet, which rise above the need for ad-based or
> other revenue. Until that's available, though, the
> revenue-potential of a site goes directly to the heart of its value,
> today. If a company can't find a way to stay in business, without
> any other external support (charity, donations), why should any but
> the most innovative folks invest the time to build a community there,
> when the site could disappear in six months?
>
> - Bryan
>
> Christine said:
> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question?
> Coming in from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the
> revenue model of the Boston Commons? The town square?"
> [snip]
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

22 Sep 2008 - 12:43pm
Jeff Howard
2004

Hi Chris,

I don't think that ads are necessarily the answer, and focusing on
ads to the exclusion of other revenue models is a bit of a strawman.
What I think others are suggesting is that users shouldn't expect to
receive value for free.

I dislike cold showers as much as the next person. And it should come
as no surprise that I also dislike paying utility bills. Why should I
be expected to pay my utility bill simply because I dislike taking
cold showers? I don't care how much it costs the utility company to
get me my hot water, all I'm interested in is taking a relaxing
shower.

The argument isn't that we should persuade people to enjoy cold
showers. And the argument isn't that we should persuade people to
enjoy paying utility bills. The argument is that we should persuade
people to accept some form of utility bill as a legitimate exchange
for the value of a hot shower.

In this little allegory, the utility bill doesn't necessarily need
to be an ad. It could be some other mechanism that provides the
requisite exchange in value.

// jeff

Chris wrote:
> The odd question here is not WHY users dislike ads,
> with the presumption that they HAVE to be enculturated
> to somehow "like" ads. I dislike cold showers, and
> all the persuasion in the world will not make me like
> cold showers. Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps
> what we are witnessing is something like truth breaking
> through the dominant (and perhaps oppressive) media
> programming of an audience, to stand up and say, "No,
> no matter how much melamine you put in my processed
> box dinner, I do not like it Sam I am!"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 1:18pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:

> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question?
> Coming in
> from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue
> model of the
> Boston Commons? The town square?"

I see.

So the $496,000,000 that has been poured into Facebook by Microsoft,
Li Ka-shing, and the other venture capitalists should be thought of as
a public-service project?

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 1:58pm
Dave Malouf
2005

I thought Christine was speaking generically at this point. The
conversation has gone a little academic, right?

So looking specifically at FB, I do have to agree with Jared that at
this point in history (no revisionism allowed) it would seem that FB
has a heck of a big turn to make to make it all come together.

Now, going back to the original point of the thread.
I STILL prefer the new design to the old. ;-)

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019

22 Sep 2008 - 2:01pm
Christine Boese
2006

Oh, I suppose, at least as much of a public service project as anyone who
gives vast sums to political candidates or college sports teams, and by law
can expect nothing in return, but in reality, they reap political favors,
ambassadorships, or primo parking spaces on game day and first dibs on the
pricey skyboxes. <G>

I mean, technically, venture capital is "venture"-- the VC venture out to
support a project that they think will pay off in some sort of benefit for
them, but the benefit is hardly a sure thing. The people who court VC may
make them specific promises about what they may deliver, but "audiences of
millions who WILL buy product X" are so much vaporware. VC means you take a
risk, and may not see a return.

But what might a VC get by supporting a platform rapidly becoming a new
Commons? Do they say, "OK, I get my stock, make it pay off", and that's it?
Or is there a larger, indirect benefit to a VC making an investment in a
platform, in that, if the platform itself takes off and reaches exponential
adoption levels (becomes the cool place to hang out), the pie of business
opportunities grows larger, and new side platforms spring up, etc. blah blah
blah?

Sometimes, I presume, VC make investments in infrastructure because it
behooves VC to make more money off an improved infrastructure. Hence, you do
have companies sponsoring highway cleanup (more people shop in cleaner
towns), sponsoring stadiums and arenas, slapping their names on all sorts of
public works, far beyond the equivalent of a plaque on a park bench. Why did
the former CEO of Home Depot build that massive Aquarium in Atlanta again?
Was it just for the gate receipts, or was it to invest in Atlanta, to help
to make the city itself, and its downtown "Commons" (Centennial Park, across
the street) more of a "destination"?

It's what I could never figure out, 10 years ago, when visiting India (it
may be different there now). I never saw a place that so vastly
under-invested (and by extension, under-profited) in its own infrastructure.

Chris

ps I should look up the cost of the Georgia Aquarium, perhaps, to see if it
compares to the $496M pumped into Facebook...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/georgia-aquarium.htm

$290M to build, not sure on maintenance... cost of big fishies, all that.

"So how did they do it? How did they build habitats for all those animals,
and where did they get all the fish? What does it take to keep the water
clean and the animals fed and healthy? And how did the aquarium -- a
nonprofit organization -- afford all that?

In this article, you'll learn the answers to these and other questions.
You'll also learn about the aquatic animals that are the aquarium's star
attractions."

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
>
> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question? Coming
>> in
>> from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue model of
>> the
>> Boston Commons? The town square?"
>>
>
> I see.
>
> So the $496,000,000 that has been poured into Facebook by Microsoft, Li
> Ka-shing, and the other venture capitalists should be thought of as a
> public-service project?
>
> Jared
>
>

22 Sep 2008 - 12:48pm
Kontra
2007

> Yah. Skype's worked out real good for eBay. And MySpace was a great
> investment for Newscorp. The writeoffs they've taken were all in the plan,
> right?
>

You're confused.

Skype shareholders didn't care about eBay, neither did MySpace shareholders
about News Corp. That's not their job. Both got handsomely paid.

Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis first got $2.6 billlion from eBay and then
also got a $1.5 billion earn-out. You think they are unhappy that eBay got
not much out of it? Complain to Meg Whitman. Skype did what it had to...very
profitably.

You think Zuckerberg & Co is going to care about what would happen to
Microsoft if/when it acquires FaceBook? They care about (and that's what
their focus ought to be) their own payoff.

I bet the shareholders of your company (with our without a profitable
business model) wouldn't mind seeing a $4 billion payoff day. It's the
American way.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

22 Sep 2008 - 3:05pm
Fredrik Matheson
2005

I'm a little curious about the revenue issue here.

Let's assume that Facebook really does have 80 million users plus millions
visitors without accounts. (http://is.gd/2Y6d)

These people spend lots of time creating a map of their social network,
taking tests wherein they describe their preferences, interests, etc.
Additionally they share information with each other about what they're
doing, what they're interested in and what they dis/like.

Now, lets's assume that this takes place on a massive scale and wager that
there are one hundred million conversations taking place on Facebook every
day. I'll bet you can cull some valuable data from this massive chatter box.
Instead of waiting for the next Gallup poll or Synovate Monitor, you could
have access to a large, live data stream of preferences, opinions and
behaviors.

According to its business plan, Google aims to create value "By organizing
the worldʼs information and making it accessible and useful". Several pages
later, they explain more truthfully that they do it "By providing
advertisers with the opportunity to deliver measurable, cost-effective
online advertising that is relevant to the information displayed on any
given page".

In my view, Facebook is an elegant ruse. On the surface, it's a "social
utility that connects you with the people around you". Further down, it is
more likely a machine that motivates regular people to connect, converse and
share, and finds a way to extract valuable data from the millions of ongoing
conversations.

- Fredrik

22 Sep 2008 - 5:50pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 22, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Fredrik Matheson wrote:

> In my view, Facebook is an elegant ruse. On the surface, it's a
> "social
> utility that connects you with the people around you". Further down,
> it is
> more likely a machine that motivates regular people to connect,
> converse and
> share, and finds a way to extract valuable data from the millions of
> ongoing
> conversations.

Hee. Who woulda thought all those super pokes and vampire bites would
be worth millions some day?

Jared

22 Sep 2008 - 5:59pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Jared Spool wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
>
>> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question?
>> Coming in
>> from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue
>> model of the
>> Boston Commons? The town square?"
>
> I see.
>
> So the $496,000,000 that has been poured into Facebook by Microsoft,
> Li Ka-shing, and the other venture capitalists should be thought of
> as a public-service project?

Someone is going to have to do it.. Might as well be Facebook since
they could probably withstand the backlash.

That is... charge $9.99 a month to have an active account. A free
account would still exist but gets severely limited.

Seriously... that was the model that worked for America Online. Just
charge a service fee for ... service! Not sure why that's such a bad
thing.

Most of the folks in the internet space are going to have to realize
that if they want to make money, they'll probably to actually charge
their customers at some point. Advertising will only get all of us so
far, and will probably only work for a few select companies. Charging
money isn't actually a bad thing. In fact, it can be argued it's the
responsible thing to do. And further, it can also be argued that if
everyone stopped making everything "free" we could all move back into
building real businesses with real sustainable revenue models instead
of everyone rolling the dice and hoping to get bought.

In fact, I'm willing to lay good money that if Google announced they
would be charging $49 a year for access to their "cloud apps" like
Docs and GMail, they'd only lose at most 33% of their current customer
base, and probably a lot less. I mean... seriously... $49 a year is
still massively cheaper than paying $200+ for Office. And I'd also be
willing to bet Google can keep the advertisements in their cloud apps
while doing so.

This broaches a larger discussion, but it's long been a problem that
people will pay for hardware with services -- like say your cell phone
and SMS data plan or such -- but somehow think software should always
be free.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

22 Sep 2008 - 6:33pm
Steve Baty
2009

The comment (re: "revenue models") was made in the context of whether or not
Facebook - and Youtube, MySpace etc - provide value as businesses and
whether or not they're sustainable. I guess one could argue that endlessly
attracting and spending venture capital is one form of business model, but
IMHO a business needs a business model or else it remains forever at the
mercy of those investors.

A business model consists of several things, one of which is all your
expenses; another is your source of funding. Clearly the businesses in
question have got a handle on the 'spending money' part of the equation. The
question is whether or not they have - or will ever have - a revenue model
to balance that out.

Coming back to Christine's question regarding public grounds, facilities and
infrastructure: the public supports those things through their taxes, and
they absolutely evaluate whether or not those services are provided value
commensurate with that investment. The newspapers are filled with stories
debating the relative merits of one public infrastructure project versus
more spending on services? "Why is the Mayor spending more money upgrading
Boston Commons when our schools are falling down?!" etc etc.

I'm happy for the founders of these various companies that someone came
along and paid them large sums of money. That's an indication of potential;
it's not a free-pass on the fundamentals of business.

Steve

2008/9/23 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

>
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
>
> What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question? Coming
>> in
>> from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the revenue model of
>> the
>> Boston Commons? The town square?"
>>
>
> I see.
>
> So the $496,000,000 that has been poured into Facebook by Microsoft, Li
> Ka-shing, and the other venture capitalists should be thought of as a
> public-service project?
>
> Jared
>
>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com

Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

22 Sep 2008 - 2:28pm
Kontra
2007

> at this point in history (no revisionism allowed) it would seem that FB
> has a heck of a big turn to make to make it all come together.
>

FB has great network effects, low cost of production and sales, dominance in
its sector and excellent growth rate. FB has raised $300 so far and is
slated to earn $300 million in revenue this year. FB has over 130 million
unique visitors.

FB got a nominal valuation of $15 billion on Microsoft investment of $246
million. FB is said to have a $3.75 billion valuation according to its own
internal calculations.

(For comparison, Bebo, with 40 million users, sold to AOL for $850 million @
$21.25/user. MySpace, with 21 million users at the time, went to News Corp @
$27.62/user. Skype to eBay for $4.1 billion @ $52/user.)

In just a few short years, FB has achieved all this apparently without
killing animals. This is supposed to be failure? I gotta get me some of that
fad to make my life to come together like that.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

22 Sep 2008 - 7:27pm
Steve Baty
2009

Kontra,

That (Facebook's internal) valuation indicates a rate of approximately
$29/user, with revenue *projections* of $2.30/user this year. Is FB revenue
neutral yet? Does that $300m cover its costs of production, operation, and
marketing? How long until the investments to-date - $496m according to
Jared's earlier comment - are recouped? Is the company even cashflow
positive? Is revenue growth matching the growth in users? How about the cost
base?

If the investment dollars were shut off today, how long would the company
last?

What you've seen to-date is conditional success - those are good numbers;
but they still have a ways to go until the fundamentals are in place. And
the question remains: by the time the fundamentals are in place, will anyone
care?

Regards
Steve

2008/9/23 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>

> > at this point in history (no revisionism allowed) it would seem that FB
> > has a heck of a big turn to make to make it all come together.
> >
>
> FB has great network effects, low cost of production and sales, dominance
> in
> its sector and excellent growth rate. FB has raised $300 so far and is
> slated to earn $300 million in revenue this year. FB has over 130 million
> unique visitors.
>
> FB got a nominal valuation of $15 billion on Microsoft investment of $246
> million. FB is said to have a $3.75 billion valuation according to its own
> internal calculations.
>
> (For comparison, Bebo, with 40 million users, sold to AOL for $850 million
> @
> $21.25/user. MySpace, with 21 million users at the time, went to News Corp
> @
> $27.62/user. Skype to eBay for $4.1 billion @ $52/user.)
>
> In just a few short years, FB has achieved all this apparently without
> killing animals. This is supposed to be failure? I gotta get me some of
> that
> fad to make my life to come together like that.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com

Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

22 Sep 2008 - 8:54pm
Kontra
2007

> What you've seen to-date is conditional success
>

All FB needs is a SINGLE acquirer to purchase them. Just a single metric:
one company to buy FB. Just like Skype with eBay, MySpace with News Corp,
Bebo with AOL, etc.

When Google bought YouTube it certainly wasn't profitable in any way and it
had a huge copyright cloud over its head. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen had a
$1.65 billion payday. YouTube STILL isn't profitable and is being sued for
$1 billion.

You think either Google or the YouTube folks are complaining? You think
Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis are worried if Skype is a "fad"? You really
think Bebo founders are crying over $850 million? (I may think Falco was a
fool to pay that much for Bebo (or Witman for Skype, for that matter), but
that is NOT the point. We're talking about a company's ability to get to
payday, not if the acquirer was prudent. In that metric, whether it is 1998
or 2008, scale always matters. There are entities always willing to pay for
scale. AND they don't have to use conventional metrics you cited to derive
value out of that scale either.

You're not going to get scale if your intention is solely to be profitable
(37Signals) but you're not likely to get acquired unless you have scale. So
your ability to get to that big payday is directly proportional to your
ability to scale. FB has scale. You do the math.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 3:08am
Steve Baty
2009

Kontra,

You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
(founders), and the success of the *business*. I'm referring to the latter;
the former is irrelevant to what I'm saying with respect to the business
model.

Regards
Steve

2008/9/23 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>

> > What you've seen to-date is conditional success
> >
>
> All FB needs is a SINGLE acquirer to purchase them. Just a single metric:
> one company to buy FB. Just like Skype with eBay, MySpace with News Corp,
> Bebo with AOL, etc.
>
> When Google bought YouTube it certainly wasn't profitable in any way and it
> had a huge copyright cloud over its head. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen had a
> $1.65 billion payday. YouTube STILL isn't profitable and is being sued for
> $1 billion.
>
> You think either Google or the YouTube folks are complaining? You think
> Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis are worried if Skype is a "fad"? You
> really
> think Bebo founders are crying over $850 million? (I may think Falco was a
> fool to pay that much for Bebo (or Witman for Skype, for that matter), but
> that is NOT the point. We're talking about a company's ability to get to
> payday, not if the acquirer was prudent. In that metric, whether it is 1998
> or 2008, scale always matters. There are entities always willing to pay for
> scale. AND they don't have to use conventional metrics you cited to derive
> value out of that scale either.
>
> You're not going to get scale if your intention is solely to be profitable
> (37Signals) but you're not likely to get acquired unless you have scale. So
> your ability to get to that big payday is directly proportional to your
> ability to scale. FB has scale. You do the math.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com

Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

23 Sep 2008 - 3:24am
Kontra
2007

> You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
> (founders), and the success of the *business*.
>

Founders I cited were obviously colorful shorthand for shareholders, as I
have also specifically mentioned them. In fact, I went further to make the
point:

"I bet the shareholders of your company (with our without a profitable
business model) wouldn't mind seeing a $4 billion payoff day. It's the
American way."

Perhaps there's a parallel universe where "business" success means something
other than shareholders in a company getting satisfaction, but I'm not
living in it. Separating "business success" from "shareholder success" is so
much gobbledygook, I'm afraid.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 3:33am
Steve Baty
2009

Kontra,

Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in
the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the underlying
value of the business. It's the financial equivalent of pass-the-parcel and
hoping you're not left holding the bag.

So yes, current shareholders might off-load their shares for more than they
paid for them, but it doesn't answer the question about the fundamentals of
the business. Sorry, but it just doesn't.

Regards
Steve

2008/9/23 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>

> > You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
> > (founders), and the success of the *business*.
> >
>
> Founders I cited were obviously colorful shorthand for shareholders, as I
> have also specifically mentioned them. In fact, I went further to make the
> point:
>
> "I bet the shareholders of your company (with our without a profitable
> business model) wouldn't mind seeing a $4 billion payoff day. It's the
> American way."
>
> Perhaps there's a parallel universe where "business" success means
> something
> other than shareholders in a company getting satisfaction, but I'm not
> living in it. Separating "business success" from "shareholder success" is
> so
> much gobbledygook, I'm afraid.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
>
>

23 Sep 2008 - 4:02am
Kontra
2007

> Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in
> the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the underlying
> value of the business.
>

You're making gigantic assumptions here. It's perfectly OK to establish a
company SIMPLY to sell it at the earliest profitable opportunity to another
company. You can't walk a mile in the Valley without stumbling upon a
business just so constructed.

Now, does that immediately make them an MLM proposition? Who are you to tell
founders and/or shareholders of a company how they should get to their
payoff day?

If the company was constructed to sell, then that's what it's going to focus
on. That's Business 101. I have no idea what the founders and the subsequent
shareholders of YouTube, Skype, MySpace, Bebo, etc actually wanted, but I'm
fairly certain they are satisfied with what they have achieved.

Google, eBay, News Corp, AOL didn't quite get their money's worth and
couldn't make lemonade? How is that the fault of the acquired companies, as
they got satisfaction?

> the fundamentals of the business...
>

...is what others are willing to pay for it, not for uninvolved parties to
pontificate on.

As I previously said, what success means to one company may not necessarily
mean the same to an acquirer that may have entirely different metrics,
concerns, business models, etc.

Google, for example, doesn't focus on making money from services, and the
vast majority of its revenue comes from advertising. So acquiring the
world's biggest social network in FaceBook may mean, business wise,
something different to Google than FB or some other company. Google may have
entirely different capabilities of monetizing that network than FB. You may
think FB's business fundamentals are not there, because you're narrowly
stuck in FB-as-an-independent-company model, whereas Google may have far
different ambitions with FB.

You're seemingly blind to network effects, which is at the heart of many
successful online businesses.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 5:54am
Mark Schraad
2006

Kontra,

There is an inherent relationship between a company's core offering,
end user value, and profit. I believe the conversation was using
profit as a measure of success.

If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes
they can cash out... but this is pretty similar to a pyramid scheme.
If all that really happens is the final round of investors pay a lot
for company that provides no end user value, then the company would
hardly be considered a success. And we are talking about the success
of the company, not the profiteering of the founders.

Mark

On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Kontra wrote:

>> You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
>> (founders), and the success of the *business*.
>>
>
> Founders I cited were obviously colorful shorthand for
> shareholders, as I
> have also specifically mentioned them. In fact, I went further to
> make the
> point:
>
> "I bet the shareholders of your company (with our without a profitable
> business model) wouldn't mind seeing a $4 billion payoff day. It's the
> American way."
>
> Perhaps there's a parallel universe where "business" success means
> something
> other than shareholders in a company getting satisfaction, but I'm not
> living in it. Separating "business success" from "shareholder
> success" is so
> much gobbledygook, I'm afraid.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

23 Sep 2008 - 7:41am
Steve Baty
2009

Kontra,

I'd hate to take up any more of your time pontificating about concepts and
ideas to which I'm blind. I think we're a long way from the original point
of this thread, so I'll respectfully agree to disagree and move on.

Regards
Steve

2008/9/23 Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com>

> > Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in
> > the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the
> underlying
> > value of the business.
> >
>
> You're making gigantic assumptions here. It's perfectly OK to establish a
> company SIMPLY to sell it at the earliest profitable opportunity to another
> company. You can't walk a mile in the Valley without stumbling upon a
> business just so constructed.
>
> Now, does that immediately make them an MLM proposition? Who are you to
> tell
> founders and/or shareholders of a company how they should get to their
> payoff day?
>
> If the company was constructed to sell, then that's what it's going to
> focus
> on. That's Business 101. I have no idea what the founders and the
> subsequent
> shareholders of YouTube, Skype, MySpace, Bebo, etc actually wanted, but I'm
> fairly certain they are satisfied with what they have achieved.
>
> Google, eBay, News Corp, AOL didn't quite get their money's worth and
> couldn't make lemonade? How is that the fault of the acquired companies, as
> they got satisfaction?
>
>
> > the fundamentals of the business...
> >
>
> ...is what others are willing to pay for it, not for uninvolved parties to
> pontificate on.
>
> As I previously said, what success means to one company may not necessarily
> mean the same to an acquirer that may have entirely different metrics,
> concerns, business models, etc.
>
> Google, for example, doesn't focus on making money from services, and the
> vast majority of its revenue comes from advertising. So acquiring the
> world's biggest social network in FaceBook may mean, business wise,
> something different to Google than FB or some other company. Google may
> have
> entirely different capabilities of monetizing that network than FB. You may
> think FB's business fundamentals are not there, because you're narrowly
> stuck in FB-as-an-independent-company model, whereas Google may have far
> different ambitions with FB.
>
> You're seemingly blind to network effects, which is at the heart of many
> successful online businesses.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com

Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org
Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org
Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

Syndicate content Get the feed