The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Is Facebook’s Demise, Inevitable?
March 9, 2011, 6:15 am
Filed under: Comment

Facebook launched in 2004.

In just 7 odd years, it now has a global “membership” of between 500-600 million people and a line of companies desperate to hand over tens of millions of their dollars for some sort of marketing association.

Who cares that a significant proportion of their audience are seemingly very casual – if at all – users, or that [arguably] the most significant and influential country on earth has almost 3 times the population of Facebook and yet they never access it, mainly because they can’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Facebook, but that is what I think is it’s ultimate downfall.

OK, not because I like it personally – but I’m sure that doesn’t help – but because if the average age of people who originally signed up were say, 18 – they’re 25 now and in ten years time they’ll be 35 and then 10 years after that, 45 [see how good at maths I am] and let’s be honest, as the younger generations come online [literally and metaphorically] it’s pretty unlikely they’re going to want to hang where their embarrassing parents are socialising.

Yes I know there are ways around it and that many people are doing it now … plus to claim Facebook will disappear is wrong, because I can see them being around in some form for decades [so that’s the headline of this post screwed] … however as with many things in life, as the user base gets older the appeal to the younger generations gets weaker [which is dangerous for Facebook as many marketers like it because they think it’s the playground of youth, regardless of how accurate this is or not] and so unless Facebook manage this very well [which will be additionally difficult given the massive base of 30+ people who will be camped out there] I foresee a time where we will have a totally new ‘holy grail’ social hub, which is why if I was a company investing hundreds of millions of dollars into Facebook advertising, I’d be holding some back and trying to invest it into the creation of Facebook 2.0 rather than just adopting a passive attitude and waiting till someone else makes billions from it.

Sure it’s risky, sure it’s out of their core competency – plus I’m talking about something that might happen in 10-20 years down the line – but for all the talk of future planning, I am always surprised how few marketing/agency/media companies actually do anything about it, favouring to switch to whichever channel is winning the battle of the day/month/year like they’re some Italian soldier in a World War. [Sorry Mum, that was just a joke]


youve gone serious again.

i fucking hate it when you go serious.

Comment by andy@cynic

It’s an interesting question because it challenges the usual product life cycle norms. For what it’s worth and that aint much on my part, nothing lasts forever. However if Zuckerberg can keep money out of the model as much as possible or as little as possible (and despite the orthodox narrative, so far he has) there’s every reason to believe that Facebook could be as unremarkable and remarkable as electricity. Which is why I think it needs to be nationalised in a globalised sense and treated like a utility.

Comment by Charles

Interesting point Charles, but I wonder if the investment companies currently involved in promoting the brand would welcome such an approach.

Comment by Pete

I take your point Pete. I just feel the investment companies are being taken for a ride. It does have that dot com feel to it.

Comment by Charles

I know the investors at Goldman Sachs won’t care about this post but they should because you raise a great point.

Personally I feel Facebook will be around in one way or another for a very long time, but the issue about them being able to attract a younger generation to a platform potentially filled with the older generation is a major one and something that I haven’t heard talked about previously.

It’s not impossible to do but there will be implications and ramifications so it will be interesting to see whether they try to please all or adopt a strategy of sacrifice.

Really good point Rob and unlike Andy, I do like it when you go serious.

Comment by Pete

Forget parents being on it, Rob is on it, isn’t that the guaranteed kiss of death?

Comment by DH

Actually Orkut, by way of mountain view, has been doing some interesting things in this regard.

they have been actively asking users to change (and provide tools) for multiple personas within the network…

Though to be honest with the new privacy settings FB is taking some steps to ensure people can restrict access to parts of the conversations.

My bet.. FB will actually embrace the parent-kid dilemma and try to tie in families.. by going hardware and producing a phone, that mom and dad will pay for kids (like the old landlines).. kids will have privacy, FB data and revenue, folks a false sense of control/cool…

Comment by niko

any brand that says “families” is fucking doomed.

Comment by andy@cynic

Restricting isn’t the same as protecting which is why I can foresee a time where younger people will gravitate to a new platform alternative. I think Rob raises another good point when he asks why brands wouldn’t try and be that alternative, rather than be a high paying advertiser.

Comment by Pete

because companies dont like blowing millions of dollars on shit thats outside their core competence do they. that and the fact the fuckers know theyd plaster the fucking site in bullshit logos and product placement so it would all end in tears.

seriously, even if their great great great grandpa was on fucking facebook, would a kid really want their shit to remain private to the point theyd sign up to be a member of http://www.kraftcheesetastyfriendbook,com?

which means ive answered campbells question. the answer is no.

next question.

Comment by andy@cynic

Pete I agree, but the 18-35 demo has always been fickle, be it tv, music, clothes or platforms.. question is, is that where the money is

Do babies need designer clothes? No, but parents want it anyways..hence the billions dollars junior indutries around the world..

Abba still make a shitload of money, Bon Jovi was the highest grossing tourband of 2010 or 2009…

just a thought..

Comment by niko

youre basing your fucking argument on bon jovi? bon fucking jovi. i think im going to be fucking sick.

Comment by andy@cynic

It freaks me out that I might still have a Facebook page in 20-30 years time. Not so much having it, but the fact that I can track back and see chunks of my whole life in taggings and wall posts.

Comment by Age

how do you think campbell will feel in 30 years when he reads this blog and sees he was a fan of his mate pauls massive cock?

everyone thinks theyre the fucker with the biggest issues dont they age. when the fuck is it al official by the way? i dont give a shit but at least itll make sure you dont sell your soul to a fucking research company again.

Comment by andy@cynic

All official Andy, thanks 🙂
To be fair, they’re not like most research companies. Most of the focus was ethno stuff so it was at least out in the real world, as opposed to assumptions and forced answers from a round table and mirrored walls.

Comment by Age

“the focus was ethno stuff so it was at least out in the real world, as opposed to assumptions and forced”

read that again then fucking apologise.

and youve left the fuckers now so theres no need to be so fucking nice. be like northern, hes constantly kicking the fuckers and hes not going to be happy till they bleed.

Comment by andy@cynic


Comment by Charles

this is going to be a fucking serious comment day isnt it? i fucking hate when that happens.

i despise facebook. fucking despise it. i signed up like a fucking sheep but never fucking use the thing anymore. i can accept its useful for some sad, lonely, lazy motherfuckers, but theres too much fucking money sloshing around to develop in ways people actually could find useful. its all going to be focused on “monetization” which basically means flogging your fucking everything to the highest fucking bidder.

does facebook actually make money? are they actually a profitable organisation? i couldnt give a flying fuck if they live or die but at least campbell is raising a point i havent heard any other fucker talk about and its a good one because facebook would be a big fucker now and if things swung against them the impact could be more fucking dramatic than their internet bubble gullibles could ever fucking imagine.

that is the end of all fucking seriousness, im going to the bar to get pissed.

Comment by andy@cynic

I’ll sign up for anything where there’s hot chicks with low self esteem.

Comment by Billy Whizz

is that why youre a member of the fashion channel fanclub?

Comment by andy@cynic

When even Andy writes a semi-serious comment, I must have done something right. Or wrong … depends on your perspective.

Despite the overly pragmatic post heading, I don’t think Facebook will go away in the longterm, however as much as Niko correctly points out that Facebook has security settings that allows people to protect certain aspects of their conversation/habits [not to mention the fact we’re seeing more and more people having 2 profiles, public and private] – I agree with Pete that restrictive access isn’t the same as protected which is why it will be so interesting to see how they handle the basic teen dynamic of not wanting to always be directly associated with your parents choices.

As for whether it should be nationalisaed as Charles said – I would imagine that would be similar to what I’m suggesting will put younger generations off joining up, albeit for a concern about government than parents – but if it was used more in a utility sense, maybe there’s a value but I doubt investors expecting billions would be happy with actually being offered peanuts, ha!

Comment by Rob

ill never fucking forgive you for making me do that. bastard.

Comment by andy@cynic

Rob made Andy break my heart.

Comment by Billy Whizz

Yep. Facebook will die in time. Probably sooner rather than later.

Douglas Rushkoff wrote some very clever words about the topic a while ago. The core quote: “…it’s not that MySpace lost and Facebook won. It’s that MySpace won first, and Facebook won next. They’ll go down in the same order.”

All of these sites are a passing fancy. Ways of connecting with people online keep getting more complex and more popular. Before Facebook there was MySpace. Before MySpace there was Friendster. Before Friendster there was LiveJournal. Before LiveJournal there was Geocities. Before Geocities there were BBSes.

All did the same thing: Waste massive amounts of your time on shallow social interaction. And I love them for it. Shallow social interaction is one of things I do best.

I would suggest that for advertisers, investing in the myriad of ‘Facebook killers’ is interesting, but a massive risk – there’s hundreds out there, most of them suck, and investment from advertisers is likely to scare off the early adopters (assuming that the investors insist on getting some immediate promotion).

On the other hand, something like Google’s 80/20 rule might be interesting – 80% of online dollars goes to ‘proven’ sites and campaigns, and 20% could go to advertising on or sponsoring random start ups with good ideas.

Random idea, but might have interesting results.

Comment by Felix

I have to say I don’t entirely agree with the first part of your comment Felix.

I dont think Facebook is a “passing fancy” at all. In fact I think it will live on for a long time yet, basically as long as the current generation live; the main reason for this being the massive investment most people have already made in uploading their lives onto the site. I don’t have to tell you it’s now the largest photo database on the web etc. I have friends and youngr cousins who have literally hundreds of albums on facebook. As well as a thought out database of their “likes”. I just can’t see people walking away from that large personal investment the same way they walked away from crappilly constructed MySpace.

I think you’re right in that others will come and battle for the thrown eventually and this might be where Rob’s theory about kids not wanting to be hanging where their parents are might come in, allowing a new network to gain momentum and challenge.

Comment by Age

Don’t get me wrong, Age, it’ll take a hell of a lot to push Facebook off its perch.

But something will. The investment does create huge inertia, but it’s not hard to imagine someone creating a fly-by-night Facebook app, or a cleverly crafted browser plugin that rips the information out of your Facebook profile, downloads your pictures, tags, links, etc, and then gives you a local copy or uploads them to a new service (Diaspora, anyone?)

Lockin and inertia are huge barriers, but they can be overcome.

Of course, if Facebook are really crafty, then maybe they’ll set up Facebook’s eventual competitors themselves – build semi-compatible social networks that allow the kids to be on a different network than their parents, with all the groovy new features they’re craving.

Then it’ll be a case of ‘Facebook is dead, long live Facebook’.

On an unrelated note, you seem excited about the new job. So congrats. I won’t comment on the value of ethnos.

Comment by Felix

“It’s not that MySpace lost and Facebook won. It’s that MySpace won first, and Facebook won next”.

Best overview I’ve read in ages.

Comment by DH

The fact that I can see my hairline receding in real time in the photos from 2006 to now freaks me the fuck out.

That’s the worst thing about Facebook sticking around for me.

Comment by Rafik

Now that is scary!

Comment by Rob

I completely agree. However, I was wondering about one point that I think is really important. Future planning, marketing, agency and specially media companies always are repeating the same concepts about facebook or digital media. When I hear things like, the people spend thousand of hours connected, so your brand must be there I really feel sick because they are taking only one tiny part of the reality. The world is repeating the same products, speech, communication, ads, ideas, thought, schedules, movies, just copy paste, copy paste, as the result, everybody see the same part of the reality.
It could be awesome spend more time in investigation taking new variables, brand new variables of everything.

Comment by name

It’s a small exception but still important shift. BBC reported yesterday that Facebook are working with The Samaritans to have a socially activated suicide alert.

I realise they are a business but there are few other businesses that will actively get involved in preventing people taking their own lives.

Comment by Charles

Facebook is a ‘business’ not a social connector -do good sort of thing. It’s motivated by business interests and as long as it can sustain [ innovate / segregate / whatever] the business interests , it will survive. Or till the next interesting thing arrives

Some people will make money from it and cash out while others will lose. I guess it all depends on how , or should I say who is measuring it’s success.

Comment by bhaskar

I’m still divided on this.

In principle I agree that something is bound to knock Facebook off it’s perch. However, the way it has integrated itself into our daily lives and the amount of interconnected social data and value it has will make it much harder to beat than (for example) Myspace.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

That’s what yahoo, nokia and sony thought.

Comment by DH

Hi Rob,

I saw you speak at Creative a few weeks back and loved it.

We also shared the same view as you and many others that Facebook can’t remain cool if parents are socialising there. But we decided to test our hunch.

We run an annual research study of 5,000 18-29 year old Australians (No, we are not a research company but a media and marketing company who specialises in this demo) and a key focus of this year’s study was this very subject.

The results are in, and it doesn’t appear that this issue is having much impact at all on usage. 28% are using Facebook less than they did a year ago, but the main reason is boredom and a loss of novelty value. Of those using it less, only 6% cited because their parents use it as the reason.

28% using it less sounds like a lot, and it is, but Facebook fatigue seems to be a more likely reason.

65% have increased their use over the last year.

My personal view is that Facebook will continue to hold and engage people because of its ubiquity as a communications platform.

Comment by Neil Ackland

I’ll say what I know Rob will say. What people give as a reason is not always what the real reason is.

Comment by DH

I hate Facebook & killed my account a long time ago. But, I don’t think it is going away anytime soon. Sure it is the latest cog in the wheel of social innovation. But, each stage cut deeper – MySpace was a lot more pervasive than Friendster and Facebook is far broader than MySpace.

What advertisers should learn from the music industry’s failure with MySpace is that fans won’t automatically jump to the next new thing in a linear fashion. MySpace followers didn’t line up nicely behind blogs or fan pages.

And, why does everyone assume that arbitrary likes are equally meaningful? They might be more passive than an ad-watch or just as passionate as a fan-connection.

Comment by Fernando

I find it quite disturbing that you’ve written this post. I find it even more disturbing that you used the term “core compentency”.

Comment by Marcus

2 hours sleep. A bad day. And a very bad mood.

Comment by Rob

Put you bad mood in a time zone. Bad mood today or yesterday?

Comment by Marcus

First of all I’m thrilled [read: amazed] this post has opened a proper debate. As I said in the post, the ‘title’ and what I think will actually happen are slightly out-of-line because I do think that Facebook will be around in one way or another for decades – however I also have seen too many “unsurpassable” brands end up in the dumpster and while there are a variety of reasons for that, a mature audience base versus a young audience requirement has been at the heart of more than one.

I have no idea if Facebook will ultimately die – but I do think it is completely ridiculous to think it will constantly be the market leader and I genuinely think one of the reasons for any longer-term decline will be because the people they require won’t be appealing to the people they’ve got.

Few housekeeping things …

1/ Hello Neil. Thanks for the kind words and the info from your study, Sadly Dave does know me very well and that’s why I would want to know how ‘boredom’ has been defined, because it could be that the environment they know find on Facebook, is too filled with ‘adults’ which undermines their sense of adventure and pragmatism.

I’m not saying this is the case, but neither can anyone say it isn’t.

2/ Hello ‘name’, good points and thanks for making them.

3/ Hello Fernando, hope all is well and I 10,000,000% back your view on the ridiculous praise heaped on clicking a fucking ‘like’ button.

4/ I wholeheartedly agree the Samaritans thing is a good thing and they should be applauded for doing it – though they are in no means unique in trying to do things that help society so we shouldn’t go too over-the-top.

Amazed how good the comments are, it’ll never last – but that’s probably due more to my posts than you lot, though of course I’d never admit that in public.

Comment by Rob

All businesses face inevitable demise. The speed of that demise has increased rapidly in the past couple of decades due to increased communication and globalisation. The same will apply to Facebook – barriers to entry always look large until somebody sweeps them aside – unless they keep moving and adding new services which embed it as an infrastructure/ecosystem in its users lives.

In the medium term the huge threat will not be a competitor but an attitudinal shift that moves the space away from Facebook et al – specifically the tendency for people to want to own and control their own data rather than deposit it in someone else’s silo.

Comment by john

That’s only true if people realise it’s someone else’s silo, John.

Comment by Marcus

That realisation will come soon enough Marcus, once govs start taxing people for the value of their data and other online activities..

Comment by niko

I’m not sure that’s entirely true, Niko.

Comment by Marcus

respectfully disagree, but given that the matter is somewhat out of the scope of this thread (and we only go off thread with nonsense, not other ‘sense’ :)) I’d be happy to discuss it’s merits face en face.. or not..

Comment by niko

Do you really think it’s that off topic? I don’t. I’ve been thinking about this a great deal over the course of the last couple of months.

Our world (and by this I mean the people who hang around the web telling everybody “what it is”) is very small and a tiny bit silly. I don’t think we actually understand what’s going on.

I’ve been spending a great deal of time watching how the rest of my family and old school friends use Facebook and it’s quite surprising. I’ve started talking to them about it and for nearly all of them Facebook is the Internet and Facebook has become very good at becoming the Internet.

Do you know what the versificator is? It’s a machine that appeared in 1984:

“Its primary purpose is to act as a ‘writing machine’, a machine which produces both literature and music, its primary target audience being the proles.
The purpose of the versificator is to provide a means of producing ‘creative’ output without having any of the party members having to actually engage in a creative thought. The versificator is capable of producing newspapers, containing content similar to that found in modern day tabloid, featuring stories concerning sports, crime and astrology. The machine is also capable of producing films, low quality paperback novels, and music, of a sort.”

It was a machine to keep the “proles” amused. It’s also interesting to note how this diagram of Oceanian society resembles the 1/9/90 user generated content diagram:

Anyway, I’m not sure that people realise what they’re doing, and I’m pretty sure that a large majority wouldn’t be swayed by taxation.

Comment by Marcus

You raise a bunch of really good points Marcus of which one is that many of the so called gurus are pissing in the wind.

Those who really know what’s going on is much, much smaller than those who claim to know.

Luckily I am happy in my ignorance which is why I prefer to make hypothesis based on human behaviours and needs, not just one dimensional and blinkered interactions.

At least I try to.

Comment by Rob

Marcus, I did not know any of that..

I do still believe the immenent taxation that will occur once the govs figure out that if value is being co(created) they need to get a piece of that pie, people will become more data-value literate, if only to be able to fil out tax forms..

There are already in the usa state vs corp lawsuits about how to regulate/tax data and value added by citizens to govs..

Now will the people revolt? NO.. they get the concept of taxes, life is ok-ish, upload speed is decent.

My point was just that Jonh hit upon a strand that could be more interesting to the demise of FB than young vs old..

I think Pete and Rob also touched upon it but I only now spotted it..

restriction vs protection.. the survival of FB and Goog for that matter could be based more upon what role they choose to play..Protecting citizens or restricting them.. naturally alternatives will play of this..

Comment by niko

Social tools/destinations I still use regardless of the fact my parents do to:

1. Phone – I never stopped talking to my friends on the phone.
2. Cinema – we went to the same cinema. We just watched different movies.
3. New York (I’m from Australia) – my parents being in New York didn’t make the city any less cool. Mainly because within the city of NY, we had our own networks and sphere of interest and we could interact with each other on our own terms.

Of course, each of the above examples has its limitations in a comparison to Facebook. And I’m not denying that Facebook may at some point go under. But it won’t be because kids are playing in the same place as their parents. Ultimately, it’ll be because they’ve failed to remain relevant (which, arguably happened to Cinemas).

Rob – Love the new header and your ability to make a controversial statement and cover your ass at the same time.

Comment by Andy

Hi Andy …

All fair points except I doubt you’d use the phone to talk to your friends if you knew your parents were listening in, nor see certain films if you were aware your parents were sat behind you.

I know what you’re saying, but it’s not about sharing the same location, it’s about sharing the parts of you that you don’t want them to see.

Comment by Rob

And a fair point to you sir. But I guess that’s one reason why Facebook introduced the ability to let certain groups of friends see certain posts and not others.

Maybe that won’t be enough. But my Mum being on Facebook doesn’t seem to alter my 15 y.o sister’s online behaviour.

Comment by Andy

or thats what you think.

Comment by andy@cynic

Wow – this is a break from the norm. Great discussion.

So either Facebook will become a utility, due to the power of its social graph and its attempts to use Facebook Connect as a one-stop login/registration method for sites all over the web. (This is clearly Zuckerberg’s preference.)

Or Facebook will be the network of choice of a generational cohort, leaving it open to replacement over time by younger, cooler rivals (who will doubtless be bought by Facebook).

A third option, based on what happens in ‘old media’, may be that your preferences change as you age and your lifestyle changes. Facebook would be the network for people in their teens through to their 30s, but over time is supplanted by business-focused networks (LinkedIn) or specialist vertical networks (forums etc).

Not sure it will happen, as Facebook is a jealous god, and people have to invest far more into a social propety than they do a magazine or a TV station. But the assumption that the Facebook-mad 20somethings of today will always be Facebook-mad might not hold.

Comment by David

It’s scary isn’t it David. What has got into you all, not to mention me!

Comment by Rob

Should I bring up the issue that most companies are kidding themselves thinking they get an ROI on their Facebook investment because [1] they don’t know what they’re doing, falling for the old “have to be in it because my competitor is” strategy [2] justify to themselves that someone who clicks ‘like’ can be classed as quantifiable revenue which is a bit like people in focus groups saying they’d “buy product x” because talk [or clicking] is easy.

The reason I say this is because it could be another layer that could ultimately start getting people to question the value of the brand – at least in economic terms – and if that happened, the potential to shake shareholder confidence is high, except the investment banks would make sure it doesn’t get out and too many companies talk about ROI but basically just want to be wherever there’s lots of people.

I don’t know why I said this, I just am shocked at how many companies are investing massive amounts and being satisfied with questionable ‘results’ whereas other media are scrutinised to within an inch of its life.

Still think the current Facebook model of relevance will be impacted as the current membership gets older and for the life of me, I have looked to see if this has been discussed in adland and I can’t find anything. I’m not saying that to look clever – because I’m not and it’s not – but it’s rather scary the so called media agency experts haven’t brought this issue up, but then why would they when they get to ride the commission gravy train.

And clients think their media partners are always working in their best interests. Hahaha.

As I said, I’m quite a fan of Facebook and certainly of digital – but I also think many people are falling for the same old internet bubble stories that burnt us before.

Comment by Rob

1.) See my comment above.
2.) Another tiny little secret to Facebook is, Facebook is what you make of it. For Robert Scoble it’s a pain in the arse ( ), for my Dad it’s a way of keeping up with family and posting photos of his dogs. For some of my friends it’s just a way of organising and documenting an evening out and for my daughters is about games, photos and messing about. So “age” doesn’t really matter. Getting “old” doesn’t really matter.
3.) The whole ROI discussion is a joke.

Comment by Marcus

You’re right Marcus, Facebook is defined by it’s users, not it’s “owners” or “advertisers” however I still believe the generational playground thing will have an effect on their business at some point and I think a brand [if done properly] could be encouraging that change rather than simply trying to shove irrelevant and unwanted ads all over the place.

As for the ROI thing – you are so right – which is why if you want a laugh, ask Facebook to come and talk to you about it, they are making a massive deal about it and their argument is not only flawed, but so anti-user that if they heard it, I reckon a large percentage would walk away.

You OK lovely?

Comment by Rob

I was at a conference last week. The head of a very (very) large marketing department told the audience that to make their Social Media Campaign (Facebook thingy) work (get fans) they had to run TV ads. Adverts for Adverts. That’s the ROI model right there.

Turn your skype on and I’ll tell you how I am.

Comment by Marcus

I’m on a concall so can’t skype right now. Can you tell I’m interested in what’s being discussed? Maybe I shouldn’t say that – but the issue is I. DON’T. GIVE. A. FUCK.

Talk tomorrow?


Comment by Rob

here’s my PowerPoint slide version:
• if facebook can develop new forms of citizenry, it may remain relevant.
• what if facebook is the reason that kids don’t mind sharing some info with their parents, knowing they have restricted other.
• nsfw and the mum factor will be easy tags to develop and assign access to
• zuckerberg needs to work a little harder for his ‘time magazine 2010 hard-on’ title and the kids will make sure of that.
• nothing turns kids off quicker than marketing managers chasing them around the table.

Comment by lauren

why sould Facebook develop new forms of citizenry?

Comment by Marcus

i know this sounds like a cop-out, but – because they can.

because they have already started to change the way that people think about themselves, the world, what it means to have stuff, to share things, to remember (or not remember) people/events/places and to collect.

because so often their numbers are already accepted in terms of ‘country’ and governance and site, history, politics, etc, and people are consciously behaving in groups again.

and because the layperson seems to already feel that they are not participating in a business, and as such, resist business ontology, direction and language.

and because i’m a silly idealist.

Comment by lauren

the comments on this post have depressed the fuck out of me.

Comment by andy@cynic


Comment by Marcus

everyone is being fucking normal. this blog has become fucking normal. the beginning of the end. the real end, its always been shit. i need to save us before its too fucking late so lets move the topic on to great big tits. my vote goes for kevin roberts. any takers?

Comment by andy@cynic

Something to do with his creative temperament. And the fact that it’s imbuing campbell with a semblance of credibility.

Comment by john

the words campbell and credibility must never fucking ever be used in the same sentence. fucking never, are we clear?

Comment by andy@cynic

it would be nice if there was a family filter, is there? (vietnam continually makes it harder to access it).

Like an online living room. One christmas I saved the years photos from my facebook and my brothers (on a USB stick! classy), and gave it to my parents. That was the best way to share them.

Comment by Jacob

Facebook is dead. Why? Because I waved it goodbye a year ago.

Okay, seriously, it will go down the drain as soon as all the insane investors realise that on its own, it will never ever deliver what it’s said to be worth. Can’t be too long.

There will be something else. FB will still be there. Someone else, quite a few, will figure out a way how to do it all better. It’s already happening! Looking into developing own social networks is what I suggested months before killing my FB account, actually. Well, I also suggest world peace all the fucking time. Stupid race.

They should think about their costumer base in broader age-terms, I totally agree. But so should almost any company out there.

Comment by Evolution

Comments are closed.