Category Archives: facebook

Twitter the Open Source Social Platform and Command Line

This is the story of how the Facebook dev platform is sooo 2007, while Twitter – as a platform and social command line – will be the story of 2009.  Twitter’s openness as an app platform could make it the default development platform for community apps.

Facebook: The King of 2007

The incredible popularity of facebook’s dev platform from it’s launch in May of 2007 – shown by both from the huge number of 3rd party app developers as the incredible amount of users – provides firm evidence there is a huge market for social applications.  Users want to engage with other users both friends and the like minded public and platforms and applications that offer that functionality will be very successful.

Despite a platform that was generating 25 billion page views a month with a user base of 25+ million a month, Facebook decided to pull back.  Facebook decided it didn’t want to be a personal billboard service where a user could express themselves with badges from any number of apps.  Facebook is now a controlled sandbox where only certain things are allowed.  Facebook wants to be a personal automated rolodex with built in messaging & annoucements (aka news feed).  There’s nothing wrong with facebook’s chosen direction (except for the fact they pulled the rug out from thousands of app developers but that’s a different story).  Even just as a super, automated personal CRM, facebook is is a hugely valuable business.

In the wake of Facebook’s changes, the opportunity for a truly open, flexible, non-walled garden social platform presents itself.  Myspace as the social expression platform makes sense except Myspace seems to have evolved into the Fan Club platform – again a valuable market but it is what it is. But what has happened is that given

Twitter: The King of 2009

If there is an open source social platform – it’s Twitter. There are a minimum set of rules other then the 140 character messaging limitation. There are no limits on who and how often you message folks who follow you.  All the apps built on Twitter are by default open – as all tweeted items are in the public Twitter domain.  Thus all commands, messages, actions, reactions cause Twitter to look and feel like a public command line.  Twitter is not about private back channel api’s.  For instance, Stocktwits might have popularized the $stock symbol short hand, but it doesn’t own it.  Any other app can take advantage of the $ short hand even co-opting Stocktwits audience.  Tipjoy is popularizing the command “p” for micropayments and so on.  And what’s great about the open command line model – Twitter isn’t dictating functions from inside the kremlin it’s letting its users and developers do it for them.

Twitter is now a powerful platform for social apps and the folks who figure out how to build popular apps and communities on top of it will do very well for themselves.  Facebook might have the social graph, Myspace the fan clubs, but Twitter will have the truly social apps.

facebook bites the pr bullet on beacon, but it lives on because in the end users don’t appear to be bothered

Whether his words or his team’s, Zuckerberg eats some crow today via the corporate facebook blog and apologizes for essentially some poor product decisions in Beacon. Responding to some critics, Facebook will offer a global opt-out for Beacon. As I posted previously, Beacon already offered a partner by partner opt-out. Using the same dashboard Facebook added the option via a checkbox at the bottom of the list of partners. As Dave McClure and I grokked this morning and now blogs – given how few users will opt-out why Facebook didn’t launch with this feature is a fair question and they are right to apologize to the offended users.


Jay Meattle over at the Compete.com blog posts an interesting chart showing traffic to the Facebook privacy page. What’s interesting is how Jay notes the spike when Facebook announced it was opening up profiles to search crawlers allowing profiles to appear in Google, et al. search results compared to recently given the public criticism of Beacon. As I predicted – users aren’t concerned and will embrace Beacon’s goals of sharing more of what’s going in a user’s world.

facebook’s beacon program isn’t the spawn of the devil – why you’ll grow to love it too

Based on all the hyperbole being spewed about Facebook’s recently-launched Beacon program from asinine FTC complaints to political activism run amok (and that’s my liberal friend Scott’s point of view) one would think that Facebook’s Beacon program was the spawn of the devil. I’ve heard creepy, nightmare, scary, invasive all used to describe Beacon. But when examined, I think you might agree that not only is Beacon a logical extension of what Facebook was already doing, but more importantly something that vast majority of Facebook users will embrace.

[Ed. Note: I am speaking at Web Community Forum's conference Community Building in the Age of Facebook next week Dec. 5th and 6th in Seattle]

How exactly does this supposed affront to mankind Beacon work?

Beacon simply is a way for online activities outside of Facebook to be shared with your friends inside Facebook via the News Feed. Doesn’t exactly get my emotions riled up either, does it?

Let’s see what it looks like in action. First, you have to be a Facebook user for any of this to matter. Second, you have to be actively logged into Facebook when visiting others sites. So unless you’re keeping Facebook open in the background or another tab in your browser, you’ve got nothing to worry about (even if it were worth worrying about).

Once DC special interest groups start jumping in on the bach Facebook and Beacon bandwagon, I wondered if the hyperbole around this issue was due to folks missing the salient point about needing to be a Facebook user. Facebook can’t share your online actions with your Facebook friends unless you’re a member of Facebook. So all you big brother conspiracy believers take a deep breath – you are safe.

OK so you’re a Facebook user like me and you decide to visit a Facebook Beacon partner’s website. Here’s a list of the initial Beacon partners:

AllPosters.com, Blockbuster, Bluefly.com, CBS Interactive (CBSSports.com & Dotspotter), eBay, ExpoTV, Fandango, Gamefly, Hotwire, IAC (College Humor, Busted Tees, iWon, CitySearch, Pronto.com and echomusic), Joost, Kiva, Kongregate, LiveJournal, Live Nation, Mercantila, National Basketball Association, NYTimes.com, Overstock.com, (RED), Redlight, SeamlessWeb, Sony Online Entertainment LLC, Sony Pictures, STA Travel, The Knot, TripAdvisor, Travel Ticker, Travelocity, TypePad, viagogo, Vox, Yelp, WeddingChannel.com and Zappos.com

Once you visit a Beacon site (like I and a friend did yesterday to play with Beacon) and complete a targeted action (as determined by the host site) – the following “slider” appears (it’s actual size here). To me at least, this notice is very reminiscent of the notices that Entourage or Outlook popup in the lower right of your screen when you get a new email:

Since I wanted to share this Facebook I hit Close instead of No Thanks. So I ventured over to Facebook to see what would happen on Facebook. And here’s what happens on your Facebook homepage aka News Feed:

Once you hit OK that action gets posted as news in both your Mini-Feed on your personal profile page as well as potentially on your friends News Feed. Here’s what posts on a Mini-Feed look like:

or

And sooner or later the item appears in your friends News Feed. News feed items look like:

Dave McClure does a similar analysis in case you want to see another example of the same process.

You Mean That’s it? That’s all Beacon does? So the big deal is what exactly?

Now you’re getting it. Let’s review the main point of misplaced angst: Can Users Control their Beacon News?

YES. Of-course and they always have been able to. Not one, Not two, but yes THREE opt-out opportunities exist.

First, the notice that appears when you do a targeted action on a Beacon partner site. If you understand what “No Thanks” means and actually pay attention to notices that appear on your screen then it’s a reasonable opt-out. It is certainly no different language then the opt-out i get on every adobe reader upgrade trying to goad me into downloading the Google toolbar. That same notice even includes a link called Learn More to a pretty informative page on Kongregate’s site that includes the links to block the items from showing on Facebook in case you change your mind.

Second, there is the notice that appears on your Facebook home page aka News Feed. Now this time there are two different opt-outs – a big honking “Okay” button and a separate “Remove” button (meant more for removing an item if multiple items are potentially going to be published to your profile.

And if that weren’t enough – there’s the ability to Opt-out on a Beacon partner-by-partner basis permanently (as well as permanently opt-in for what its worth). Here’s the link and image of that screen. You’ll notice that you have 3 options – Opt-out forever from this partner, Opt-in forever or the default ask my everytime an action might be reported on my profile. Again pretty straightforward.

Now there were some complaints about these notices in their initial versions about how easy it was for users to opt-out. Examples of Christmas gifts being bought and being broadcast to their recipient was one notable. So Facebook rolled some changes yesterday to make it easier for users to opt-out (aka hit the No Thanks link). Personally given the above, if users can’t figure what’s going on and they allow their actions to be published in Facebook, then it’s their own darn fault. C’mon folks take some responsibility here. Anyway for more on the changes start here. The images on this post represent what the notices look like post-changes. If you compare them to the pre-rollout you’ll find some subtle differences the biggest being that the expanded notice is shown by default especially the one on the homepage aka News Feed. (Dave McClure’s images show the prior versions).

Why Beacon will grow to be loved and admired and a key part of Facebook’s Success

The most obvious reason for users to join Facebook is to connect with their friends, colleagues, acquaintances and family. If it was just about keeping one’s address book up to date Plaxo would be what Facebook is today. The genius of Facebook was the creation of the News Feed. What the News Feed figured out is that by automatically notifying your circle of friends of what you were up to as well as telling you what your friends were up to – you could keep in touch without having really to do anything except interact with Facebook.

Now when the News Feed launched – a similar level of controversy erupted as we’re seeing around Beacon as Justin over at Inside Facebook noted. But as users realized the benefit of having their information shared and its ability to provide context about individuals, the controversy died and Facebook’s growth took off (3 to 5x depending on what start date you use). Facebook figured out that people are too busy and distracted to keep everyone informed as to what they’re up to. Sure folks could constantly update their Facebook status and many do but that requires proactive behavior. It’s a lot easier in a passive system for information to be shared. So when a user makes a change to their Facebook profile – it’s automatically projected across their friends. That’s not a privacy issue since if you wanted to remain private you never would have signed up for Facebook in the first place.

So first Facebook’s News Feed focused on the promoting profile changes – updated photos, changes in address, new friends being added, events attending. Then when Facebook’s application platform rolled out – Facebook starting broadcasting the actions of users from those applications. So if you added TripAdvisor’s Cities I’ve Visited app – everytime you added a new city – that was broadcast across your friends’ News Feed. And we know what happened – the Facebook application platform became the fastest growing user engagement environment the Internet has ever seen.

A key part of the success was how users actions were being shared or perhaps said promoted to their friends. Discovering new apps inside Facebook was revolutionized by the News Feed as Facebook effectively figured out how to build the world’s first passive word of mouth marketing platform. Users weren’t endorsing products by writing reviews as in the more traditional way people think of online word of mouth marketing. Instead just the act of engaging with a service or application was a viable way to promote them. And from a user’s perspective it created a powerful way to see what your friends were interested in and up to – by passively getting a chance to observe their Facebook behaviors. So when your friends added the iLike music app – you could see what music they really liked by how they interacted with iLike and having that reported in your News Feed. So instead of being limited to the 3 bands they proactively listed on their profile page – you were able to see and learn about the 300 bands they actually listened to providing a much stronger and more interesting insights into your friend’s tastes.

In that context, Facebook Beacon becomes the logical next step. The Facebook application platform demonstrated that user’s behaviors and engagement with online applications is interesting to users. There was no controversy over Facebook apps’ behaviors being broadcast in News Feeds so the logical extension is to include web services outside of Facebook proper. Then users will be able to get an even richer view of their friends as they interact with services in the Beacon program they’ll learn more – oh Austen bought a plane ticket to Hawaii – I should give him some tips from my last trip. Oh Todd’s really into online gaming – I know a site i should recommend to him.

Yes Facebook is starting out with commercial sites and they are paying Facebook for including their user’s actions in the Facebook News Feed. But commercial doesn’t mean evil. Facebook has to figure out how to monetize its users and since users don’t click on banner ads inside Facebook they are looking at other ideas. And since the Facebook applications showed that users will click on links and News Feed items published by those Apps – its worth seeing if users will click on those commercial actions being broadcast. So its paid relationship – being commercial doesn’t mean being evil. Facebook and its commercial partners aren’t creating user actions so the actions are authentic. And like in Google with their paid listings, the search results are still authentic. It’s just as Overture figured out way back in the beginning of paid search, commercial value is a pretty good proxy for determining what’s useful and valuable to users. Facebook had to start somewhere with regards to what actions it included and effectively its letting the marketplace figure out for them what actions are valuable. Do I expect Facebook to open an API and eventually let non-commercial entities publish actions to Facebook – yes I do.

The Conclusion: Thumps Up for Beacon

Opening up Facebook’s News Feed via Beacon to the world of actions outside of Facebook is a genius of an idea. And as it provides valuable information about individuals with regards to their interests and status, users will come to embrace it much like they did the original News Feed. Yes Facebook needs to respect users choices. And as the online population shifts to a model of how do I share about myself vs. how do I protect myself, Facebook has planted itself as the company who not only has the product to take advantage of that trend but perhaps the platform to actual make a business out of it (beyond just showing standard ads). Facebook might just yet hit Lee Lorenzen’s $100 billion valuation for the company.

linkedin in play? if so where’s yahoo and msft?

My online penpal Allen Stern passes along the rumor that Fox Interactive Media is in discussions to buy the business networking behomoth LinkedIn.  Bravo – I say.  Linkedin would certainly offer a nice counter weight to the antics displayed within most MySpace profiles.  And if identities online stay splintered (personal dairy on MySpace, professional relationships on LinkedIn) then it’s a really, really smart play by FIM.

And before anyone pooh-poohs LinkedIn in comparison the hotness of Facebook – Facebook still has a long way to go in the professional world.  Every business contact I make these days is active on LinkedIn.  Well less then half of those same contacts are currently using Facebook.  Facebook’s catching up but it has a long way to go.

But I wonder why Yahoo and Microsoft aren’t rumored to be in on the talks as well.  LinkedIn could be a valuable asset to each’s desires to remain relevant in the world of the social graph.  And given LinkedIn’s relatively strong subscription base of recruiters and sales professionals it’s not a flight of financial fancy necessarily.

Perhaps Yahoo is content flailing along with the largely irrelevant Yahoo 360 and doesn’t really need one of the top 10 most successful social networks to date.  Maybe Microsoft doesn’t want to own the properties but just monetize them.

Time will tell.

cross post – Why Facebook Applications offer a Safe Harbor to Advertisers

Just posted on the Lookery blog about how Facebook apps are a potential safe harbor in the sea of unpredictable UGC comment.

What’s amazing as I talk to friends in the online ad space how much advertisers and media planners are scared about being affiliated with inappropriate content. Facebook apps as my post notes are a great potential safe harbor but the company that nails the the technology to automatically, 100% of the time allow sponsors and advertisers to avoid inappropriate content will do really well for themselves.

omg facebook traffic declines?!?!? not exactly

Om Malik, a rising Facebook hater (likely a reaction to the over the top lovefest that tends to invade the valley from time to time -even if in the long run the love fest is right it can be a little much), pens a dismissive post pointing to comscore’s september numbers.  Here’s the graphic Om links to:

But unfortunately Om falls into the fallacy of a single source and even more importantly the fallacy of Comscore numbers.  Anyone who has published a website knows that Comscore numbers aren’t that reliable.  They woefully under report traffic and skew demographically compared to internal stats and user surveys.  Since comscore relies on a downloaded app/toolbar they potentially have a skewed audience.  Comscore is a far from perfect source.

But to keep things fair let’s compare comscore to the other toolbar web traffic guys – Alexa:

 

Unfortunately we’re still waiting for Quantcast and my buddy Dave Cancel’s former company – Compete to release their September numbers.   And once I get a link to Dave Morin’s slides he showed at Dave McClure’s Graphing Social Patterns conference – his graph for traffic shows no such decline.

Graphing Social Patterns

Dave McClure wrote a good article today on TechCrunch that is a great primer on why the social graph concept is so important and how you can use it on social networks like Facebook to launch, promote and build an audience for your startup, company or product.  It’s as close to marketing inside Facebook for Dummies (and that’s a good compliment by the way) that I’ve seen.

Dave is also putting on a conference in San Jose Oct. 7-9 called appropriately enough Graphing Social Patterns: The Business and Technology of Facebook that will be a great primer for folks, startups, and companies looking to understand and take advantage of Facebook eco-system.  Dave’s lined up a great lineup of speakers with plenty of Facebook insiders as well as the folks building companies in the Facebook eco-system.  I plan on attending as well so hopefully I will see some of you there.  And don’t worry unlike other Facebook conferences which require a very inside baseball knowledge to understand what’s going on, Dave’s conference promises to be interesting for the social graph experts out there as well as newcomers to the scene but looking to learn how to jump in with both feet.

People Search Article

Good article over at Search Engine Land from my new found buddy search and developer relations guru Vanessa Fox on People Search.  Vanessa interviews the players in the space including the CEO’s of Spock and Wink.  Very exhuastive review of the article.

Vanessa quotes me (and notes my former role at Spock) in response to a question of what Facebook might mean to the people search market:

“When people search companies started, the assumption was that they would help aggregate and distill the multiple identities people were creating online.  The goal was to create the complete view of you—likes, dislikes, background, friends, etc and since that information was spread around the net—aggregating that disparate information potentially provides a ton of value.

What none of the people search engines expected was Facebook.  In a social network like Facebook, users willingly handing over all the information that people search engines are trying to cull and aggregate.  Thus in a world where everyone is on Facebook, Facebook becomes the only place people need to go search for people.  Now, if everyone doesn’t flock to Facebook and other dominant profile-based networks emerge, then people search engines provide the important layer on top of those networks helping to connect the dots across them.”

Facebook is really an interesting question to the people search question.  Right now Facebook isn’t even close to being the single destination envisioned in my quote but in a world of what-if’s its an interesting question.

As a former member of the Spock team – I want to see them succeed so I am biased, but it will be an interesting horse race.  What’s perhaps even more interesting is that a year ago the question was more likely to be how does one compete against Google in the space.  Now no one questions how to defend against Google but instead focuses on how to beat Facebook.   Of course given how crappy Facebook’s search function is on their site, I think the folks at the various people search engines are likely sleeping a little more easily.

[Note I am advisor to Facebar not Facebook - folks always seem to make that mistake when reading my LinkedIn profile]

heh I came up with the idea of facebook first – yeah – that’s the ticket

There has been a lot of news of folks claiming to have come up with the idea of Facebook before the Facebook folks did. And all I could think of was Jon Lovitz’s Pathological Liar character from SNL. First there was the lawsuit from the ConnectU guys, then last week another contender for the ‘heh facebook was my idea’ title popped up. Although in fairness to the latest contender – aaron greenspan – he’s using his claim only as a clever ploy to get press and blog coverage (and it worked like a charm – as I make the mental note for future pr efforts I’ll likely be responsible for in the future). Anyway, I digress.

My point in reading about the posts in my normal valleywag loving way, is that it doesn’t matter who came up with the idea for Facebook first. At it’s core, it’s not that unique. Seriously how unique is a social network? What are there 5,000 different social networks littering the landscape these days? Seriously how many social networks can hit swinging a dead cat around the latest web 2.0 conference? Who invented the first social network – was it myspace? friendster? heck what about seattle’s own classmates.com? Good core business ideas are usually so obvious that lots of people think of them.

Heck – I could make a claim to have come up with the idea for YouTube first. I did co-found a company called SimplyTV with the idea of putting independently produced video online and on-demand way back in 1997 – heck the Internet as we know it was barely alive back then. Even if that wasn’t enough – I did it again at Loudeye when we created a service called MyHomeMovie.net back in 1999-2000. And the point of MyHomeMovie.net was for users to submit their homemade videos to our website for public playback and sharing. Wait that sounds exactly what the YouTube guys claim inspired them to start YouTube! Those bastards stole my idea – I better sue! Am I really claiming credit for YouTube? No. I am not that delusional (oh wait I need to someday so I can get my next startup some pub by making that claim).

And I’ve got more examples of other startups from my own ideas (for instance in early 2003 I wrote a business plan called Project Navigator for an open source wifi network that today looks a lot like FoN – those guys out of spain – even pitching it to some folks in town before getting advice that wifi was likely a couple of years out from being a mass market deal) to many others that look exactly like successful companies today.

x

So why doesn’t it matter that I or dozens of others came up with an idea before someone else who was successful with it? Because in startups and businesses – it’s not the idea that matters – it is the timing and execution that matters. Great execution and good timing will still be bad and likely result in a place on TechCrunch’s Deadpool list (a theme blogged about before here). But great execution and good timing usually mean success. And in this case the Facebook team nailed it. Yes execution means a lot of unique ideas in terms of expressing the idea into a tangible reality but the core idea was not unique. Why has Facebook been successful – clean layout, the news feed, more recently the platform and easy ways to add friends are all obvious and oft-mentioned. Was Facebook the first social network? Nope. Is it a raging homerun anyway? Absolutely. Does Facebook deserve it’s success? Yeppers.

Why was YouTube successful where I and my colleagues weren’t? Super simple method of uploading video and early adoption of flash video come to mind. Would a YouTube have eventually occured if YouTube hadn’t come along? Most likely.

It would be great to be remembered in the lore of where an idea originated or product but if I am not the one or part of the team that executed the idea to success then I and others don’t deserve to be remembered in all truth other then as an obscure footnote to history – quick inside baseball note (feel to skip ahead) this is also a throw in to you mcclure – remember my footnote when you’re current project is a huge success :)

So the next time person X or person Y claims to have come up with the idea for something – a better way to look at the claim might be through the lens of our friend the Pathological Liar – “Yeah I came up with the idea for X, yeah that’s the ticket.”

Are you insane?!?! $2.3 million for a Facebook App! (or the logic behind paying $1.30 per user and why it’s not so insane)

ivebeen


Yep another Facebook post (hopefully I won’t turn into Dave McClure <jk>) but I think the reaction to Trip Advisor’s purchase of the Where I’ve Been FB app for $1.30 per user or $3 million for 2.3 million users justifies some analysis. Not only is the word insane used in the title of Pete’s blog post – the one word email I got from a friend this evening said simply “Insane” as well.

(As a former new yorker I couldn’t help but visualize Crazy Eddie)

At first blush as Pete opines at Mashable – it does seem insane especially compared to the 4 cents per user, as Inside Facebook notes, that Slide paid for the Favorite Peeps application 2 months (helping to set off the gold rush in FB app development). So how should we value Where I’ve Been?

First let’s take Craig’s point of view. It’s important to realize that the Where I’ve Been app has strong affinity to a very important and large category of e-commerce – travel. Auto, Personal Finance (at least until the mortgage market blew up this month), and Travel have dominated the e-commerce landscape for the last few years. And anyone who has auto, finance or travel related content online and has tried to monetize that content via advertising knows it’s potentially quite lucrative. That’s because the transaction and lead gen affiliate commissions paid by those categories are quite large especially for hotel bookings. Travel content has commercial value. It would have been relatively easy for Craig Ulliott, the developer behind the Where I’ve Been app, to app travel-related ads and monetize it himself. At $10 per hotel booking made from an ad in his application it would only have taken 400,000 to 500,000 bookings over the lifetime of the app (I know 300k x $10 = $3mil, but I am applying a swag for a discount rate to account for the NPV of the future cash flows). Over the next year or two that doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility, does it? So from Craig’s perspective, his app could definitely be worth $3 million.

On the flip side, it is safe to argue the Favorite Peeps app doesn’t lend itself to a commercial category and its had to see its commercial value other then as a platform to show ads. And given the thin value prop, users won’t likely tolerate a heavy does of ads in the app. At a $.10 Run of Network CPM, even getting to $.04 (at 10 cents that’s $0.0001 per ad show or 400 ads to get to $0.04) could be a challenge for Slide.

So getting back to the Where I’ve Been app, what is it worth to Trip Advisor. First I think it’s important to try and understand what Trip Advisor’s getting – are they getting something akin to a toolbar – another application that companies pay for new users. For instance when you download Adobe Acrobat Reader, DivX, the Real Player, and many more apps you get an opt-out offer to download the Google toolbar. For every new toolbar application installed via those host applications, Google pays anywhere from $1.50 to $6 per user. Ask.com via its FunWeb division pays for distributing its toolbar upwards of supposedly $3.50 per new user. Now toolbar installs are worth quite a bit of money because as people use them to conduct searches, they are presented with paid search results which are quite lucrative. Google supposedly makes more then $12 per user per year! Now unless the Where I’ve Been application was turned into a booking engine that users regularly interacted with, i’m not sure the toolbar analogy is a good one in this case. But it does show at least how certain types of applications are currently being valued on a per user basis.

My friend and colleague, David Stern, my partner in crime when it comes to discussing any advertising or lead gen based online business, have been talking about how when it comes to acquiring consumers FB apps might be a cheaper way to acquire customers then paid search these days. With CPC’s having from my experience now squeezed every last ounce of blood out of online marketers in terms of pushing us to the breaking point, buying an app as a proxy to a click doesn’t seem so crazy. Would I rather pay $1.30 for a click on google or $1.30 for a user who’s clearly indicated a strong affinity for travel on FB? Obviously the answer is it depends on the ROI, but it’s again not so crazy to see how one can justify $1.30 per user in this case.

Another way to look at this is compared against traditional lead gen fees. Given FB apps allow you to see the contact information for a user (though currently FB imposes restrictions on your ability to use that information) the audience for an FB app is essentially a big long list of leads. In this case, a 2.3 million long list of leads. Now since its hard to say that showing an interest in signing up for a travel app in FB means you’ll buy travel from the owner of that app, those leads are not worth a great deal. Since really valuable e-commerce leads go for upwards of $100 per qualified lead, the likely thin value of these leads puts them at the other end of spectrum like say $1.30. Maybe it’s the equivalent of buying a light travel newsletter with 2.3 million readers. Paying $1.30 for per email newsletter subscriber is well within the range of my experience.

And so we see different ways to justify the acquisition of FB apps – especially in lieu of any real financial performance to base these decisions on (at least not until my friend’s Scott Rafer and Dave Cancel revolutionize the monetization of FB apps with Lookery).