If there wasn't all this youth worship in Silicon Valley, nobody would see this as a problem for Facebook. We have a lot more disposable income than teenagers do.
That's arguable. Most people I know with teenagers would say their kids have more influence on family spending than they do.
For me personally, years of barely scraping by have left me with anxiety and guilt anytime I spend money on frivolous things. My kids on the other hand seem to have no issue spending their allowance on movies, toys, and shitty little trinkets. I'm not sure how to instill a sense of frugality without letting them go hungry for a while.
Non-parent (I only rent them from friends and family) advice here: Charitable work with the poor. Anything that gets them interacting with the less fortunate on a personal level, not just abstract stories from Dad about it was like when he was a kid, but stories from the people living them right now. You don't feel bad about depriving your kids, they learn some empathy for people with different life experiences and how lucky they are to be born into the right family and last but not least, in the process you help to make the world a better place.
The only cash I got was from grandparents for birthday/christmas, or doing yard work. But my main hobby was reading, so I just went to the library and never did any yard work as I didn't need the money.
As a teenager it slightly irritated me, when I saw some of my friends whose parents gave them 20 euros a week or w/e- but now as an adult I live as frugally as one can live as an engineer in the bay area (I still eat out way too much, silly social pressure) and am glad my parents did it that way.
I remember my dad making various attempts to teach me to be careful with money when i was a kid. It was all water off a duck's back, because it was obvious to both of us that it was just a game. Then i went to university and had a rigidly fixed amount of student loan to live off. And hey presto, i learned how not to spend money.
I don't have any teenagers, but I spend way more money as a young adult than I ever did as a kid. Kids spend money on movies and toys and trinkets, but grownups buy cars, handbags, computers, meals at expensive restaurants, etc.
Because, come to think of it, the moment my parents joined Facebook, I immediately had to start regulating what I posted too. And I'm in my middle 30s!
Most marketing research would disagree with you, not strictly on available disposable income, we (24-35 year olds) are not nearly as valuable as teens.
- More susceptible to viral/video/visual/interactive marketing
- More Impulsive
- More trendy (their friends have it, they must)
- Are one of the best ways to separate a discerning parent from their money
- Less Discerning.
- More Naive
- Have a longer lifetime value
I wonder if FB had implemented a feature like G+'s circles, if this wouldn't be an issue.
Snapchat? Recipient views picture once, and if they try to save it you know.
Does that mean something? Is there a new app you double tape on things to "love" them instead of "like" them?
Like -> Love -> (Have Sex With) -> (Worship as The One True God) -> (Idealize as The Genius Successor of Steve Jobs) -> (Give Read/Write Access to My Bank Accounts) -> (Grant my Power of Attorney To) -> (Dissolve Myself and Transfer My Full Agency as a Human To)
Couldn't "Plus I have my interests pretty fixed." be the answer to that question?
On the other hand, watching my own kids, its star wars today, gone tomorrow. Minecraft today, gone tomorrow. Lego today, gone tomorrow. Even if you could track my son and accurately predict his current interests, knowing that he WAS really into star wars a year ago is pretty much financially useless given that he seems to be into lego branded cartoons right now, although next year both will be forgotten in favor of something else.
One poster has a middle-aged interest in hard sci-fi; for $x advertising allocation per individual it's going to be difficult to shift his interests. The same $x applied to teenagers year after year 'flips' them from one revenue-generating interest to another. And sets them up, the advertisers hope, for a non-niche middle-aged interest.
The first one is simple: Facebook and other social apps are about network effects and habits: checking daily to see what your friend are up to, while sharing the same. I'm not sure what the stat is in the past year, but for every year since it started the most stunning stat to me was that 50% of their users checked every day. When the habit starts to erode the network effects can cause acceleration, raising questions about Facebook's future.
The other reason is that teens are a very hard demographic to reach. Twenty years ago, companies could air commercials on MTV, put ads on FM radio, and create full page ads in magazines to reach teens. Today, teens are doing a lot less of this. As a result, companies that can reach these younger audiences can charge a hefty premium due to scarcity. You're a highly desirable demographic as well -- 25-44 with disposable income. But they already have ways to reach people like us.
Lets play a fun game. Only us wanna be near senior citizens get to play. Its claimed that its financially valuable to monetize teen "tech" fads, now that we're old and wealthy lets see how companies are cashing in on our teen years, to get an idea of how incredibly valuable it will be to cash in on todays teen fads.
1) The music market dominance of heavy metal and grunge, and cassette tape as its delivery medium.
2) Beanie babies as an investment portfolio, also baseball cards. I'm a hair too young for the MtG card fad.
3) AOL chat rooms lead the market, as does AOL in general.
I will admit defeat in womens fashion which follows a generational pattern, where my mom wore bell bottom pants, therefore all the girls were wearing bell bottom pants again, 20 years after she did. Similar patterns in the popularity of tights/yoga pants, and the cyclical nature of miniskirt length. But these are not tech related issues and they appear impossible to profit off of, unless you're in the biz and you simply ship this year whatever was cool 20 years ago.
I've been hearing this claim that teens are molded into inflexible consumers all my life without any actual citations, so I feel safe calling it bogus in the future if its always proven bogus in the past.
> But there is little doubt that millions of teens will use these apps more and more, and older demographics will eventually join them. There's a good chance that will continue to be at the expense of Facebook.
Wow, that's quite the compelling evidence...the Guardian has "little doubt"!
Another great data point:
> The roll-out is still in its infancy, but after one music streaming service in the Middle East added the WhatsApp sharing button, its was surprised to find its users sharing 50% more songs via WhatsApp than Facebook.
The "one music streaming service in the Middle East" that apparently is so popular it doesn't need to be named! Of course, the above statement could also be true if the startup's users previously shared one song on Facebook and have shared 2 on Whatsapp, but who's counting?
Either way, it would be more interesting to discuss your own opinions
>When people set up events and get-togethers on Facebook, West and her boyfriend tend to reply on WhatsApp instead because...
This article actually mentions it. That's exactly what I've seen happen. Facebook is still used, but it is used differently.
My reasons? Well it got really annoying how it turned into a Womans Magazine! Maybe I'm getting to that age when my friends are getting married and having kids, but I'm really not interested in posts of babies, Miley Cyrus BS, Royal Wedding nonsense etc... The list goes on and I only subscribed to reputable news sources like the Times, Guardian.
Users are avoiding processing words or concepts without imagery. The length of the facebook post / tweet is decreasing, the content - or level of content are suffering.
Not that any one service will win, but in order for any of them to do well, I think they need to do the following:
- Private messaging
- Group messages
- Free, or very very cheap (I don't think anybody has really tested the idea of charging a fee yet)
- Cross-platform - leaving out BBM and iMessage
- Some way of getting your address book from an existing address book
-- Web/desktop messaging. This isn't as important for the younger generation but for many others it is.
The only reason BBM and iMessage are or were popular was because they came pretty early and came with devices, but leaving friends out of conversations because they use a different platform from you is damaging, which is why WhatsApp became so popular, and why Facebook Messenger is so popular too.
But WhatsApp is mobile-only, isn't it? That's why I don't use it. As you said:
> -- Web/desktop messaging. This isn't as important for the younger generation but for many others it is.
I would add "open protocols" to my requirements list, but I understand it's not something that the people in general care about.
The fact that GTalk--err--Hangouts and Facebook Messenger are standard XMPP means that I can use them _anywhere_ (with Pidgin on Linux, Xabber on Android, etc etc.) and I'm not tied to a client from a vendor.
I'm in the last group, but I know that people that had to pay for WhatsApp.
The only social network I like more than FB is Path.
Also, I do enjoy Facebooks "Messenger" app. I use it often.
I wanna hook up with ppl 'right now' and sustain only what really matters for me; I don't wanna 'look this is my weekend', 'love u grandma', 'dude likes that company', 'that rockband is awesome!'. Fuck.
In this sense I think twitter is genius. Feels like instant messaging and still people get to know you in a 'lighter' way than facebook, without that ego avalanche.
* saying "fuck it" to Facebook and using Instagram as their primary means of communication to "everyone"
* using SnapChat or WhatsApp for other communication
* people are actually starting to text.
When I look at my FB feed, I see the posts of 10-15 people max. I do check people's pages just to make sure FB is not fucking me over (and sometimes it is) but most of the time, people just drop off facebook. They're not "leaving" but they're not using it.
Facebook is more for people you know. (Filled with babies and relatives.. etc) where Instagram has been great for finding like minded folks and following along with their lives in short snippets.
As for how to communicate, Instagram has user tagging. Even in others comments. Basically the same as sms messaging.
( My wife has more followers than me and I need to catch up: http://instagram.com/wandering_tim )
So for instance, I have a friend who posted a picture of her new apartment. That spurred a discussion about it. Pretty simple :)
It's actually more convenient than facebook, at least I found it so. And I don't have to read anyone's stupid post about "I wish it'd stop" or "Never again" or "You're a bitch blah blah blah blah blah. You know who you are" -.-
People may be getting misled by all the bullying stories and whatnot and forgot that.
So what they do? the same I would: leave and move to a better solution. I did that all the time back in the day, but its not so easy today, why? because now professional life demands you be part of whatever is work-trendy right now, and that includes having an up-to-date profile on every damn social network out there that isn't considered lame (cough myspace)
It's bikeshedding to the max: did you build something truly innovative and significative? sorry brah it's not on my feed! and your klout score is really low, how can you be "in the know" if you barely tweet?
I've been saying goodbye to Facebook too. Not because I've got a preferred alternative, but because it's deliberately engineered to suck you into it. In the short term, you spend more time on it. In the long term, you set up systems to avoid visiting such a time sink. I never feel good after spending time browsing Facebook.
Fair enough if using a fashionably retro 'dumb' phone and not a smart phone, in which case you can't use WhatsApp anyway. If you are using a smart phone without a data connection, then why? Surely you're missing out on all of the benefits of owning a smart phone like maps and instant access to online information, free messaging (WhatsApp anyone?).
If you just don't want a data plan, you can still use WiFi which would likely cover you for 80% of the time (home and work).
Citation needed. Pay and go plans in the UK still charge data by the megabyte.
I know plenty of people who aren't willing to pay that even though they use a smartphone (mostly on wifi)... and 20p/megabyte for occasional or accidental data use is just outrageous. Data prices are still a huge problem imo.
Wi-fi covers me for most apps. I figured a messaging app might not be so useful if it didn't work at the precise moments I went out to meet people. Maybe that's not how it's used though.
More reason to think they might "beat" Facebook is that a) many are already owned by Internet giants, i.e., have tons of resources to drive growth. WeChat is owned by Tencent/QQ and Line by South Korea's Naver. And b) they are Asia-centric where Facebook is weaker. Maybe these "international" players end up beating Facebook on its home turf.
Stand-alone messaging apps are, according to the statistics, gaining traction but these two can go side by side with Facebook pretty easily. The only thing teenagers might be leaving according this article could be Facebook Messenger...
There is a finite amount of time. Facebook acquired most of the non-business social network space over the course of a particularly fast growing five or six years.
For apps like Snapchat to exist, with their huge user base and usage numbers, it must take time away from Facebook. The US market, as an example, is mostly tapped out on saturation when it comes to social media reach.
The posts that would have gone to Facebook in 2005 by college students, are no longer going to Facebook.
Who are Snapchat's users? The same users that typically adopt everything like this, the youngest consumers: teens and early 20 somethings.
It follows that Facebook has to be losing time share among young consumers to this phenomenon.
Parse.com would be ideal, but unfortunately is far too expensive for this use-case.
If this already exists, or someone would be interested in exploring this with me, let me know.
I think you might wanna qualify that one a bit more.
Such a waste of former market leadership
Most teenagers probably don't want all their phone book imported magically in to their IM app either: 1) because they probably IM and Skype with more, and more varied, people than they text or phone, and 2) because their phone book probably includes their annoying aunties and relatives.
I also love the design of the BBM app (on Android). It's straightforward, single purpose and clean.
I've never used Blackberry Messenger. What makes you think it could be the "FB of messenger?"
WhatsApp | 350 million monthly active users
Viber | 200 million registered users
Line | 280 million registered users
KakaoTalk | 100 million users
Skype | 300 million connected users (663 million registered users in 2010)
WeChat | 400 million registered users (mostly in China)
Tango | 100 million registered users
just read an article on how western society is becoming more and more aggressive towards kids due to people not being accustomed to them anymore. hotels, restaurants banning kids altogether.
It will show you a list with users sorted by distance, letting you know if the person is close to you or not. Here is a screenshot: http://imgur.com/88AIbgv
If anyone has kik installed and wants to try it, simply open http://nearby.pw on your phone and it will start in the kik messenger. It hasn't been fully optimized yet, so if you find any bugs please let me know.