Here is why Facebook will be worth more than $200B

In late 2010 I wrote a blog post about how Facebook could easily be worth $100B. Some of my colleagues called me up and did nothing short but claim that I must be crazy. That’s perfectly fine. I have a feeling that I’m going to get even more calls about this post. My rationale isn’t built up from an analyst’s financial model or from leveraging traditional market sizing techniques, it’s mostly based on intuition about how Facebook can become the key player in the world of Online marketing and advertising.

Google is the leader in performance and direct response advertising, converting users wants and needs to e-commerce transactions and sales leads. Facebook competes with Google on direct response and is becoming more and more effective in doing so by leveraging the Social and user’s click-stream data, capturing a growing portion of Google’s market.

However, Facebook’s untapped potential is actually in brand advertising, a space that currently has no clear winner and will account for almost half of total online advertising spending in 2015, according to e-marketer.

Brands already get it and are willing to pay; But Facebook hasn’t yet found the right model to fully incorporate them. The value of positive engagements between consumers and brands shared across the social space is hard to match, and Facebook will find ways to scale the monetization of that on across fan pages, ads and the newsfeed.

Analysts focus on revenues from ads delivered on, and Facebook has just started maximizing its potential there, but Facebook has not yet turned to monetize one of its greatest assets – the Open Graph.
Hundreds of millions of users are using Facebook’s open graph capabilities across million of websites (including most of the top sites in the world). More than 10,000 sites are adding the Open Graph capabilities each month. “Login with Facebook” is no longer an option – it’s a must.
Additionally, Facebook captures endless piles of data about people, their lives, and their friends. Think a lifetime worth of data and then multiple that by over 800 million users. Big Data indeed. This staggering amount of data will enable Facebook to deliver ad targeting capabilities which are unparalleled, optimizing performance and accuracy better than any marketing tool seen before. Whether this happens or not depends mostly on execution, not on the conceptual capability to deliver those tools. The data is there.

This all leads to Facebook having a unique opportunity to create an unparalleled display ad network outside of Facebook, adding social targeting to help drive up revenues. With this strategy, there is no reason why Facebook can’t control the same portion of the market in online branding as Google does with direct response. Facebook can eventually match Google ad revenues with a combination of brand and direct response ad products, inside and in many leading destination sites outside of Facebook. With other revenue streams, such as payments for virtual goods, Facebook can even outpace Google.

Compared to Google, Facebook’s business is potentially more defendable. In Search, Google dominance is driven by excellence in monetization, a powerful brand and great technology. However, Google does not “own” search, it just executes better than anybody else in the search world. as technology progresses Google’s tech advantage is becoming more incremental compared to some of its competitors, and can be potentially disrupted. It’s going to be crazy hard to disrupt Google, but it’s doable.

Facebook is not in the same boat. Social is already an inherent, must-have, layer in everything online – websites, mobile apps and smart TVs. Facebook “owns” Social, and in its dominance is driven by a powerful network affect. Technology is not the key driver here. Many can potentially try to create a social network service that outperforms or delivers more features than Facebook does, but it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that all your friends are on Facebook.
At this point in time, Disrupting Facebook requires more than a just better tech or flawless execution. It requires a paradigm shift to a whole new era of online computing, and even there it’s pretty safe to assume that Facebook will be all over the place.

So, whether it takes 12 month or 5 years, it’s pretty much inevitable – Facebook, as mission critical piece of our connected identity stack, will increasingly find ways to monetize its position and would be worth more than Google today at $200B.

Facebook fan pages changes – guest post by Guy Azar

This post is a guest post – an open letter to Facebook – written by a good friend, Guy Azar ( Guy has been working hard to build a business on top of Facebook, helping brands promote themselves on the platform.

Facebook significant changes to fan page platform, soon to take full effect on March 30, literally made the fan page as commercially effective as a personal profile. Many existing connection, engagement tools and techniques have become obsolete as a result. Most providers will take weeks to months to restore the usability of their products & services, and achieve partial effectiveness, at best, in continuing to promote their brands and customers.
This excludes, off course, the inner circle of providers such as Buddy media, Involver and others who were in on the hot details well in advance, just enough to be ready on time.

This is the classic move of the platform player: every once in a while making a few smart changes, which gradually snuff out revenues from the echo-system and further empowering platform revenues. Day by day this is causing fan page developers to clearly understand that we will never be able to build a big business on top of Facebook in the long run. Once our business is big enough, the platform will make changes, leaving us, the echo systems inhabitants, with just enough revenue to keep going.

One could say that this change shows how Facebook is facing the final countdown on earnings / IPO move. In fact, Facebook is probably desperate enough for short term profits that they are willing to make long term sacrifices on account of all the providers who leverage the platform. They are hurting the same echo system they were so smart to build in the first place, with their open APIs, available information, and overall pro-developers approach

Facebook knows that the true long term goals are beyond connecting a brand to a person. They wish to function as the main personal history and ID source for each and every one of us. This is their long term goal and its implications are beyond Economical. The vision they will only be realized by fiercely defending user privacy and provisioning commercial actions.
They are life changing, and the vast economical sides effects of this future are more than beneficial.

But the long path is jeweled with many financial challenges. Social media value is proven for corporations, mainly in Marketing: branding, accelerated buzz \ WOM generation, lead generation, customer relations and support, engagement, satisfaction, churn indicators, all decreasing CPA or increasing LTV in some way or another.

However, it seems as if the social media monetizable values are NOT clear for the social media platform itself.
Facebook latest move is, from my point of view, a BIG signal to developers. A big question mark. That question should be reflected back at Facebook – “What is our business model with brands?” and it’s derived from the more basic question mentioned above: “what function in people’s lives does Facebook fulfill?” and “what commercial aspects of people’s lives do we intend to facilitate?”. Facebook should moderate every commercial act over its platform, But they can contribute to the creation of the ethical, legal, foundations of it, shifting some responsibility back to the Brands & businesses. Once it is acknowledged culturally and legally that brands and businesses are responsible for their use of their user’s personal information.

So what will it be? Why can’t Facebook charge businesses for their commercial presence and activity? Facebook has the means to measure the connection, engagement and actions users perform with brands and businesses. With so many valid indicators, why can’t those indicators serve as the pricing and business model for brands and businesses on Facebook?
it makes sense – presence itself could to be billed for. With that model Facebook will be better aligned with it’s developres echo system, effective leveling the playfield by letting any developer share revenues with Facebook when their bring brands that engage with users on Facebook.

To summarize, as a fan page builder I am very disappointed with Facebook. letting the providers take the fall for their monetizing challenges. Instead they could come up with a vision in which presence, connection, and engagement indicators will function as billing meters. That could provide us the liberty to go back to the work with relevant customers who are interested in engaging users at a brand’s fan page, deliver a special customer experience, exclusive information, opportunities and offers, and share them with the brand and with fellow customers.

Another ex-fan page builder.

Social Gambling is right around the corner

Social Gambling (i.e. Zynga Texas-Holdem Poker, the world’s largest poker site of any kind) has been around for years now with virtual currency, but only recently has the media picked-up this theme and started playing around with it, drawing parallels to social gaming, and suggesting the Zynga might actually switch to real currency.

Investors and corporates, however, have been going back and forth with this for a while now and a few recent acquisitions in this space include Playtika and Double Down Interactive.
Harrah’s, a unit of Caesar’s Entertainment Corporation, acquired 51% of social games developer Playtika Ltd. at a company value of $90 million. This acquisition is astonishing by almost every measure, as it is the largest acquisition of an Israeli online gaming company, and for a company that has been around for less than a year(!). Meanwhile, Double Down Interactive, creator of multi-game app Double Down Casino, was just bought by International Game Technologies in a deal worth up to $500 million.

The potential in Social Gambling should come as no surprise to anyone.
Gambling is inherently social (think about any casino game, other than maybe slot machines), and social gaming (i.e. Farmville) has much in common with gambling.
One very good example of how close social gaming is to gambling, and how it basically triggers the same kind of brain reaction, was recently posted here.
See if this sounds familiar to you: To play, you put currency into the game. You then pull the knob and wait for the result. When the result is presented, you are rewarded with a cacophony of exciting sounds, attention-grabbing images, and some form of currency. You also have the opportunity with each play to win a rare prize of significantly higher value than the value of the currency you contributed to play the game.
That sounds a lot like a slot machine, right? Wrong. It’s the basic action loop in FarmVille.
Here is the same description again, but this time, with FarmVille specific details: To plant a crop, you must first spend resources on the seeds. You then plant the seeds and must wait for them to grow. When you harvest the seeds, you are rewarded with a cacophony of exciting sounds, attention-grabbing images, and some resources. You also have the opportunity with each play to win a rare prize of significantly higher value than the seeds that you purchased.

Couple that with the distribution channels available in Facebook and other Social Networks and here comes “Online Social Gambling”. Many online gambling sites have been dying to leverage the social customer acquisition channels for ages now, but have been barred by Facebook’s reluctance to approve gambling content, to avoid legal complication in the US. Those companies are more than willing to pour billions of dollars into customer acquisition in Facebook, just because they knew that they will optimize those acquisition channels to reach a rock-bottom customer acquisition cost. Social will also help drive stickiness and time spent, increasing the customer’s life-time-value in the game.

With the new Obama administration ruling that opens the door for states to allow some online gambling we are bound to see a slew of companies move aggressively into this space. Some of the more obvious candidates include, traded on the London Stock Exchange; Betfair, and other operators, like Bodog, Bet365 and After all, there are billion of dollars to be made in this business…

Facebook’s innovation machine

Facebook’s recent product releases in F8 are potentially disruptive on multiple fronts and very exciting. My plan is to write a few short posts about the changes, and this first post is mostly about Timeline.

Facebook’s strategy
Almost all of the changes announced reinforce Facebook’s strategy on increasing engagement, collecting more personal data, and extending the Open Graph platform outside Facebook. All of those changes will potentially enable Facebook to charge more advertising dollars in the future for letting brands access the Facebook user base.

This latest release also marks Facebook’s entry into new spaces beyond games, mostly entertainment related (music, video). Getting more users is no longer an issue for Facebook, it’s all about how to increase user level of engagement and own all the private and social data out there. Facebook has been doing a very good job so far:

Facebook’s Timeline
This one is a mix between 1000 memories and Myspace on steroids (especially with Facebook boxes back). Polishing profiles is a natural and irresistible behavior and back in the days Myspace (unintentionally) created an entire eco-system of profile enhancement, widgets and layouts around Myspace which drove a substantial part of the engagement there.

Funny that it took Facebook sometime to realize why Myspace worked (until it stopped working…) – because people were busy grooming their profiles. A friend from Facebook mentioned that user activity analysis showed that peeking into profiles (Did anybody say stalking?) and tweaking one’s own profile are key user behaviors, so Facebook decided to further develop that.

  • With Facebook’s focused on building your “Timeline”, developers will fight on who gets to push something into users’ Timelines because it becomes a sticky newsfeed item (and will squeeze more traffic out of newsfeed items)
  • Timeline has the potential to provide a big push for developers in specific verticals. For example, a company like Gogobot, which is working hard on tying in Social and Travel, can greatly benefit from doing a deep integration with Timeline. For Photo sharing and video sharing application timeline might actually be an empowering factor, if they execute correctly on the product side, or it could seriously hurt them if Facebook decides to push hard in this space through its own photo sharing (and Facebook now has 350M mobile users…)
  • Stay tuned for additional vignettes on some of the other interesting features.

    Google+ launch – is it too late to rebuild the Social Graph?

    This week Google has made a bunch of Silicon Valley folks happy with the launch of Google+ and a slew of additional social and communication features (Huddle, Hangout and Sparks). It seems like the Social Network “war” is officially back on, and remarkable this is happening exactly on the same week that Facebook’s old Nemesis, Myspace, is finally put to rest.

    From a user experience perspective it seems that Google’s product is getting positive feedback. I personally like it and think that circles is just fun to play with and that the main Google stream component has a good clean user interface.
    The successful launch and Google’s reach across different products will surely help Google+ acquire users, but the real questions is not whether they will come if Google builds it, it’s whether they will stick around.
    The attention span of users is limited and people use both Facebook and twitter because they provide two pretty different communication channels. Google+, however, is just too similar to Facebook, so it can either steal that attention span from Facebook or bust.

    With user retention it seems that Vic Gundotra and Bradley Horowitz are right on the spot – it all comes down to how broken and awkward online sharing is, but for me there is one question that just keeps lingering out there – do people really care about that anymore?
    Facebook, with over 750 million users, has done an amazing job educating the masses that privacy is dead and surprisingly enough, it’s working. If privacy is really dead, do we really need walls between our friends and peers at work anymore?
    Do young professionals really care if their boss sees their pictures from last night when they were wasted? Maybe not so much – relationship both on the professional setting and on the personal level are getting more informal.
    Does a college undergrad care that his mother knows he was out all night with a random girl? yeah well, mom choose to befriend him on Facebook so that will teach good old mom a lesson.

    Talking to a few startups this week that are focused on professional social networks and data analytic on top of Facebook, it seems that the Facebook environment is increasingly becoming a professional communication channel.
    The thin line between a professional and personal networks is becoming increasingly thinner and people are grouping their personal and business connections together. One startup, FellowUp, a personal productivity tool that taps into social accounts, reports that its users (mostly professionals) are connecting to their Facebook account 50% more often than to their LinkedIn accounts, and are leveraging the Facebook connection to reach-out their peers and counterparts at work alongside their friends.

    With a good product out there, it remains to be seen whether Google is able to change users’ habits and make them switch to Google+, because people think that Social sharing on Facebook is broken and would rather share content on Google+ instead. It’s one philosophy vs. the other and may the best one win. Or at least that is the case on the web browsing front.

    But what about mobile? Facebook faces one additional risk from Google in the Mobile Social Networking space – Google has that mobile DNA with Android and can build on top of that. For example, what would happen if Google preloads Google+ into Android devices? Facebook probably needs to get more serious about mobile, and fast.

    The Israeli VC market gap

    The fact that there is currently a sizable gap in the Israeli VC market is not new, but lately it seems that the situation is slowly improving. Also, US based venture firms have noticed this market gap and are making a move to benefit from it.

    A quick recap of the he Israeli VC industry history shows that 2010 has been the most difficult year for Israeli VC funds since it’s inception in 1992. Despite improvement in macro economical factors in 2010, Israeli VC funds were not able to attract new capital during 2010 (Yes, that’s right, they have raised $0). 2009 wasn’t that good either, with only $234 million raised by Israeli VC funds and $200 million of that amount raised by just one fund – Sequoia Israel.
    Local Funds still hold approx. $1.2B and are able to continue investing in 2011. Accordingly, Hi-Tech investment in Q1 2011 have gone up by over 100% compared to Q1 2010, with 140 Israeli high-tech companies raising $479 million from venture investors, both from local (69%) and foreign firms (31%).
    However, the future doesn’t look as promising and the ability of Israeli VC firms to raise follow-on funds in 2011 and 2012 will have a strong impact on the future of Israel’s high-tech sector.

    Meanwhile, a few US firms are moving to close the market gap. This week, two firms have expanded their Israeli activity – Innovation Endeavors and Greylock Capital.
    Eric Schmidt’s innovation endeavors, Founded a year ago, does not manage a predetermined amount of capital, but locates and invests in early-stage start-ups. Innovation endeavors appointed Doron Alter to head its local team and the fund’s managing partner, Dror Berman, will closely supervise the Israeli operations.
    Greylock Capital has just announced a new $160 million fund aimed at internet technology companies, deployed between Europe and Israel. This is Greylock Capital’s second fund, with he first one investing in Israel since 2006.

    With new and improved dynamics in the US IPO market and Israeli internet startup firms such as Conduit and Wix doing well the IVC’s (Israeli Venture Capital research center) outlook for capital raising is cautiously optimistic. Furthermore, Israel’s Ministry of Finance has recently announced an incentive program for Israeli Limited Partners to invest in Israeli funds and the program is expected to increase investment by $220 million in 2011-2012.
    Hopefully the improved dynamic coupled with renewed US interest will help keep Israeli innovation on track and further boost the local Hi-Tech industry, which is the Israel’s most notable economy’s growth engine.

    Social Media monitoring solutions are all the rage right now

    In the last two weeks the Social Media monitoring scene has been virtually lit on fire.

    With Salesforce snatching Radian6 for approximately $276 million in cash and $50 million in stock and shelling out another $10 million in stock and $4 million in cash to Radian6′s founders, and Visible Technologies raising an additional $6m in cash, it seems that this space is ripe for consolidation and a lot more action.

    A good question to ask would be whether this market is actually part of the “bubble” that is developing in Silicon Valley (or at least that is what experts are saying) or has some real substance to it – Does a price of $326 for Radian6 really makes sense? is the potential market this big?

    My intuitive answer is no (for this market being part of the “bubble”) and yes (for the market opportunity). I think it makes sense to assume that this market will be as big, if not even bigger, than the Web analytics market is now (Forrester reports that Web Analytics spending are around $600m annually). There are some indications supporting those thoughts:

  • Jeremiah Owyang indicated that corporate willingness to pay for Social Analytics tools has gone up to $294,000
  • According to Salesforce, Radian6 was already at a run rate of $35 million in annual revenue and is expected to bring in $50 million this year. Omniture was at a run rate of ~$100 Million before Adobe bought them back in 2009 for $1.8B
  • Social analytic and monitoring are a growing requirement for multiple groups in the enterprise, including marketing, sales, PR, customer support and research groups and other. Social Media monitoring solutions would potentially be more widely used than Web Analytics tools and those integrated solutions would be essential to business operations in today’s social web
  • 79% of corporates are undertaking Social Media activities right now, but in terms of spending the have a long way to go and we can expect double digit growth, with Social Media analytics and monitoring nicely placed in the top of the stack
  • A reminder about what platform play is all about

    The action on the Twitter platform last week with UberMedia reminded me what platform play is all about.

    Talking to colleges, I was surprised to hear that some people think that UberMedia can “beat the platform” and create an off-Twitter network. Knowing first hand some of the developer policies that platforms like Facebook and Twitter put in place, it’s pretty easy to see that any of those platforms can shut down any service they want, whenever they want, without potentially having a reason. Off course, that can be a highly unpopular move that will result in bad PR and upset users, but if it’s “self defense” they can do it with a blink of an eye and might actually get away with it. Furthermore, even if the consequence of shutting down a company that is positioning itself as a competitor is some loss of users or a slight regression in adoption rate, that might be a small price to pay compared to the alternative.

    Personally, I think Twitter made the right move, they got worried that UberMedia controls such a large percentage of twitter’s user base, so they made UberMedia behaves sooner rather than later, before they have an even greater user reach. Twitter could have looked away and ignored it, but they decided to stop this madness right now, and make sure UberMedia remembers who controls this platform. As a nice side benefit, twitter also enjoyed two days of increased user adoption for their mobile and web tools because the redirected users that wanted to learn more about the outage to their own applications.

    Another recent example is an automatic algorithm used by Facebook to block application according to some criteria. Developer’s claim that Facebook is blocking application algorithmically that are growing “too fast”, regardless of whether they abuse Facebook’s developers policy. You can follow the conversation onQuora here.

    At the end of the day, companies building layers of services on top of those platforms need to understand the rules of the game, and realize that as long as everybody gets along it all good, but if something goes bad, the platform can always pull the trigger on them, at any time.

    Update(3/11/2011): Twitter have formerly announced that third-party developers should stop doing Twitter clients. Here is updated they have just made to their API terms of service:
    “Developers have told us that they’d like more guidance from us about the best opportunities to build on Twitter. More specifically, developers ask us if they should build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience. The answer is no,” Sarver writes very matter-of-factly.

    “If you are an existing developer of client apps, you can continue to serve your user base, but we will be holding you to high standards to ensure you do not violate users’ privacy, that you provide consistency in the user experience, and that you rigorously adhere to all areas of our Terms of Service. We have spoken with the major client applications in the Twitter ecosystem about these needs on an ongoing basis, and will continue to ensure a high bar is maintained,”

    Is Facebook overvalued at $50 billion?

    Does Facebook valuation indicate that a Tech Bubble is build up?
    In the last week we’ve heard quite a few voices claiming that Facebook might be overvalued at $50 billion, and that a new bubble might be forming in tech sector (Here are a two – Economist –, Bloomberg –

    There might be a Tech bubble out there, and I’m probably the last person that might have good  insights on whether such a bubble exists or not, but I do think that adding Facebook to the mix and inferring that Facebook’s is overvalued might be wrong. It could be that there is Tech bubble and Facebook may still be truly worth $50 billion or more and there might not be a bubble and Facebook will still be worth that or much more.

    I’m one of strong believers in the notion that Facebook’s Market Cap will quickly reach $100 billion or more, and have been bullish on them for a few years now. Here is why:

    Facebook Connect (Social Graph API)
    Over 250 million users use Facebook Connect each month. 10,000 sites are adding Facebook Connect each month and a total of over a million websites (including most of the top sites) are leveraging the connect technology today. Soon enough almost any site out there would have a “login with Facebook” option, and Facebook will have a staggering number of impressions outside
    Facebook will be able leverage Facebook Connect to create a huge display and social ad network outside Facebook, adding profile and Social graph to the mix, as well as targeting and retargeting capabilities, to appeal to publisher to allocate more ad inventory to serve effective Social ds.

    User reach and campaign innovation
    Facebook’s key web metrics, such as Time spent, impressions, Unique visitors, and number of active monthly users are consistently growing and fast, while their main competition’s stats (Google and Yahoo) are either falling or standing still. Soon enough they will be the leader, by far, on any key metric.

    Facebook have not yet fully ramped up their ads in and are playing around with new ad units to try to deliver more value to advertisers. For example, the ad product they unveiled this week – Facebook sponsored stories ( is another interesting attempt, a bit like Twitter’s promoted tweets, that might actually work.

    Mobile, local and the Facebook platform
    Facebook understands the importance of mobile and are heavily investing in it. They already have hundreds of millions of mobile users and coupled with a local strategy they will be a serious force in the mobile ad space.
    On top of that Facebook is pushing hard on other initiatives on their platform, such virtual currency and e-commerce. Their platform partners, such as Zynga, are virtually printing money today and it’s just a matter of time until Facebook figures out the right angle to claim their share of the revenues partners make on the platform. I feel we can expect them to create a steady and decent revenue stream from those initiatives.

    Finally, it seems that Social is an inherit layer in anything that is Web or Mobile, and that Facebook will dominate this space. If Social is everywhere and Facebook is Social, Facebook will be everywhere, just like Google is everywhere today. I would not be blown off my feet if two years from now Facebook and Google will be head-to-head in terms of Market Cap.

    Update (2/27): has recently published a forecast of Facebook ad revenues, expecting it to hit ~$4 Billion in 2011.

    Social platform integration – Which platform is right for you?

    Although I’m a fan of integrating as many social platforms as possible in external sites and application, it’s clear that marketers are sometimes forced to focus their efforts and budgets on one platform or the other.

    Having a clear strategy and goals in place can help make smart choices. For example, if you are planning on integrating social authentication in your site or app you will probably want to consider a wide range of authentication providers, including Google and Yahoo, but if your focus is on sharing user activities and driving traffic, you are probably debating whether you want to integrate Facebook, Twitter or both. In this post, I’ll try to focus on driving traffic to external websites and applications and compare between the two platforms.

    Facebook has 600+ million users, compared to 180 million Twitter users. But is user reach the critical factor in deciding which platform you should integrate more tightly? it really depends.
    A young startup that is trying to maximize traction and word-of-mouth, targeting tech-savvy early adopters with minimal costs, might consider Twitter as your top option, while a mature brand, which targets teens, will probably consider Facebook as a top priority.

    The fact that there are so many Facebook users out there is not always positive. With Facebook you get a larger audience that includes consumers that might not be in your target segments. This requires potentially leveraging targeting technologies to reach the right audience and you might need to put in more effort in outreach to drive clicks.
    On the other hand, Twitter conversations have gaping holes in the middle, often leaving Twitter users hanging with just bits and pieces, and leaving them with quite a bit of questions. This could potentially be a con for the brand conversation you are trying to develop on Twitter. Also, Twitter have had a history of security breaches and uptime issues that are just trouble for services that integrate with them.

    A recent study done by SocialTwist, in which they analyzed more than one million links on both platforms, indicates that Facebook’s shared links average only 3 clicks, while Twitter’s embedded tweets generate 19. There might be a few good explanation for that:

  • The relatively new Twitter interface that includes the split screen and view pane design is good for marketing. Businesses can effectively share updated videos on their Twitter profiles, instead of just repeatedly tweeting messages, and users are potentially better exposed to those messages.
  • Twitter’s audience is more tech-savvy. with third-party applications through and features such as scheduled tweets and searches and with only 140 characters, a lot of tweets leave readers waiting for more. This factors into a desire to click on more links and drives click-through rates per items posted higher.
  • Twitter requires less time for actionable exposure and reaches a more specific audience and consumer base. The amount of distraction on Twitter is also far less than the amount of distraction on Facebook
  • For B2B marketers, Linkedin might offer an interesting opportunity as well. Back in April 2010, the business-oriented social network gave users the ability to follow companies in addition to following users. Even before that, Linkedin added newsfeed activities, such as “like” and “comment”, very similarly to Facebook’s newsfeed, and enabled users to integrate their Twitter accounts into their LinkedIn feed.
    My overall feeling (unfortunately, I don’t have any data to back this, it’s just a hunch) is that all those features have substantially increased user engagement on the platform. LinkedIn, like the other platform has API in place that enables sharing links, and as professionals spend more time engaging with LinkedIn, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the platform can deliver good results in driving interest for business products.

    To summarize, choosing Facebook because everybody else does it is not always the right answer. One best practice would be to have a clear understanding of your target audience and use publicly available data to figure out in which platform your core audience spends more time in, helping you deliver more bang for the buck.