This essay reads like an advanced lifeform encountering, and misunderstanding, the average human consumer.
Two quotes stick out:
(1) That he goes "on Facebook. . . as infrequently as I possibly can."
This statement disqualifies his entire experience.
Hundreds of millions of average-consumers use Facebook DAILY.
These users update their content, they integrate more of their life. They click the like buttons. They share.
This in turn creates more specific opportunities for advertisers to target more relevant ads vs. the junk broad market ads he uses as examples of their failure (credit cards, dating, classmates known to be JUNK-CPM offers that work everywhere).
(2) That his perfect model is inclusive of "Vendor Relationship Management" that lets people manage their vendors, vs the vendors managing the people.
I might use VRM along with my HN brethren but average consumers won't adopt VRM because it requires them to choose.
Advertising works because people prefer to be told what to do.
This article fits nicely into the "FB is destined to fail" cannon, but I find the author to be grossly misinformed by his own experiences.
Grossly misinformed is perhaps a bit much. I don't think a guy like Doc Searls is so out of touch to not know what the general populace is doing. He contributed to The Cluetrain Manifesto, he's a well-respected writer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Searls
I think making statements like what you quote in (1), he's making a bet: I understand what people are really truly like, and this stuff will prove to be just a fad; eventually, people will realize I'm right. He predicts online social networks as we know them to decline in 2013.
If he's right, then it doesn't matter what Facebook users are doing today, even if they are using it daily. There was a time when MySpace and Friendster were the top social networks on the Internet too. Facebook just out-executed them. The interesting question is if Facebook had not been around, would MySpace or Friendster still have been around in 10 years anyway? Or would it have been proven to be too faddish after the activity level reached a certain boiling point?
I would argue that VRM already exists to some extent. When I want to buy something, I Google it. You can instantly comparison shop and add items to a shopping list to keep an eye on the price over time. You might not directly negotiate with vendor's, but I am not sure most people really want to or need to, including HN'ers.
Two quotes stick out:
(1) That he goes "on Facebook. . . as infrequently as I possibly can."
This statement disqualifies his entire experience.
Hundreds of millions of average-consumers use Facebook DAILY.
These users update their content, they integrate more of their life. They click the like buttons. They share.
This in turn creates more specific opportunities for advertisers to target more relevant ads vs. the junk broad market ads he uses as examples of their failure (credit cards, dating, classmates known to be JUNK-CPM offers that work everywhere).
(2) That his perfect model is inclusive of "Vendor Relationship Management" that lets people manage their vendors, vs the vendors managing the people.
I might use VRM along with my HN brethren but average consumers won't adopt VRM because it requires them to choose.
Advertising works because people prefer to be told what to do.
This article fits nicely into the "FB is destined to fail" cannon, but I find the author to be grossly misinformed by his own experiences.