搜索
人大经济论坛 › 标签 › FACEBOOK › 相关日志

tag 标签: FACEBOOK经管大学堂：名校名师名课

相关日志

分享 3 key business lessons from Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg
alloon 2016-8-29 08:52
About 10 years ago, in room H33 of Harvard University's Kirkland House, one 19-year-old launched "thefacebook.com." Today that 19-year-old is 32 years old and sits at the helm of a $340 billion social networking empire. Facebook 's ability to give every private citizen a public identity revolutionized the way we share our lives and raise awareness about our ideas. It created a breeding ground for entrepreneurs like Evan Spiegel, the Snapchat founder and CEO, who is worth upward of $2.1 billion at the young age of 26. From Zuckerberg we learned that goals deemed unachievable — like bringing back the nostalgia of Pokemon in an app that shattered the social sphere — thrive within the tech ecosystem. Today the Apple App Store, home to many of these popular platforms, grows by more than 1,000 apps every day, according to the International Business Times . So what's the by-product of all this noise? A community of new age entrepreneurs who are rapidly swiping left or right and filtering photos to grow their business. But before they began hashtagging, many of these self-made social media mogul's were just trying to learn the tools of the trade from leaders like Zuckerberg, who turned Silicon Valley and everything that came out of it on its head. Here are three relevant tips he gives to all new age entrepreneurs looking to disturb this racket even further: 1. Explore before you commit In a 2012 talk at Y Combinator Startup School, Zuckerberg stressed to founder Paul Graham that entrepreneurs need to give themselves more flexibility in each pursuit. "You can definitely do that in the framework of a company, but you have to be weary of working at a company and getting locked in," he said. In his first letter to shareholders, Zuckerberg explained that Facebook was never meant to be a company and that at first it was just a hobby of his. Over time it grew into a business. If you want to be an entrepreneur, it's fine to have ideas that will resolve small problems, but Zuckerberg believes that if you have an idea, it should marry big social impact. He told the group of young guns that in order to have big impact, "you're going to change what you do," encouraging them to explore and determine what they don't enjoy so that they can commit to what they do enjoy when they find it. Moral: Open yourself up to learning new things, and follow only what you love. 2. Don't try to be superhuman Mistakes are a good, very necessary part of being an entrepreneur. During a live QA, a shy eighth-grader once asked Zuckerberg how he overcame challenges, such as finding lead investors and creating hype among users, during the early days of Facebook. "No person knows how to deal with everything. But if you can find a team of people, or friends, or family … then that's what's really going to get you through," he answered. Many want-to-be entrepreneurs are afraid to take risk and make mistakes, but Zuckerberg believes that having a strong support system and a team that shares your vision allows for room to appreciate mistakes for what they're worth. "You don't have to be superhuman; you have to just kind of keep on going." Moral: It's a long journey, but you don't have to go alone. Find people who share your passion. 3. Done is better than perfect In Menlo Park, California, where Facebook HQ resides, the phrase "Done is better than perfect" is painted on the inner walls as a social mantra for the company. In other words, producing, gauging a reaction and improving should be considered a badge of honor. After Facebook filed its S-1 to IPO at the beginning of 2012, Zuckerberg explained the philosophy behind this mantra as "The Hacker Way." He said, "Instead of debating for days whether a new idea is possible or what the best way to build something is, hackers would rather just prototype something and see what works." By doing so, Facebook embraces an optimistic culture that allows them to test boundaries and say, "This can be better." Moral: Rather than trying to get everything perfect all at once, seek to continually improve and test boundaries.
23 次阅读|0 个评论
分享 Was The Department Of Defense Behind Facebook’s Controversial Manipulation Stud
insight 2014-7-4 16:20
Was The Department Of Defense Behind Facebook’s Controversial Manipulation Study? Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/01/2014 23:05 -0400 Reality Twitter Twitter University of California lang: en_U in Share 28 Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog , I’ve spent pretty much all day reading as much as possible about the extremely controversial Facebook “emotional contagion” study in which the company intentionally altered itsnews feed algorithm to see if it could manipulate its users’ emotions. In case you weren’t aware, Facebook is always altering your news feed under the assumption that there’s no way they could fill your feed with all of your “friends’” pointless, self-absorbed, dull updates (there’s just too much garbage). As such, Facebook filters your news feed all the time, something which advertisers must find particularly convenient. In any event, the particular alteration under question occurred duringone week in January 2012, and the company filled some people’s feeds with positive posts, while others were fed more negative posts. Once the data was compiled, academics from the University of California, San Francisco and Cornell University were brought in to analyzethe results. Their findings were thenpublished in the prestigiousProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They found that: For people who had positive content reduced in their News Feed, a larger percentage of words in people’s status updates were negative and a smaller percentage were positive. When negativity was reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results suggest that the emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods, constituting, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social networks. You probably know most of this already, but here is where it starts to get really strange. Initially, the press releasefrom Cornell highlighting the study said at the bottom: “The study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office.” Once people started asking questions about this, Cornell claimed it had made a mistake, and that there was no outside funding. Jay Rosen, Journalism Professor at NYU, seems to find this highly questionable. He wrote on his Facebook page that: Strange little turn in the story of the Facebook “emotional contagion” study. Last month’s press release from Cornell highlighting the study had said at the bottom: “The study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office.” Why would the military be interested? I wanted to know. So I asked Adam D.I. Kramer, the Facebook researcher, that question on his Facebook page, where he has posted what he called a public explanation. (He didn’t reply to my or anyone else’s questions.) See: https://www.facebook.com/akramer/posts/10152987150867796 Now it turns out Cornell was wrong! Or it says it was wrong. The press release now reads: “Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that the study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office. In fact, the study received no external funding.” Why do I call this strange? Any time my work has been featured in an NYU press release, the PR officers involved show me drafts and coordinate closely with me, for the simple reason that they don’t want to mischaracterize scholarly work. So now we have to believe that Cornell’s Professor of Communication and Information Science, Jeffrey Hancock, wasn’t shown or didn’t read the press release in which he is quoted about the study’s results (weird) or he did read it but somehow failed to notice that it said his study was funded by the Army when it actually wasn’t (weirder). I think I would notice if my university was falsely telling the world that my research was partially funded by the Pentagon… but, hey, maybe there’s an innocent and boring explanation that I am overlooking. It gets even more interesting from here. TheProfessor of Communication and Information Science, Jeffrey Hancock, who Mr. Rosen mentions above, has a history of working with the U.S. military, specifically the Minerva Institute. In case you forgot what this is, the Guardian reported on it earlier this year. It explained: A US Department of Defense (DoD) research program is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar program is designed to develop immediate and long-term “warfighter-relevant insights” for senior officials and decision makers in “the defense policy community,” and to inform policy implemented by “combatant commands.” Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD ‘Minerva Research Initiative’ partners with universities “to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US.” SCG News has written one of the best articles I have seen yet on the links between the Facebook study and the Department of Defense. It notes: In the official credits for the study conducted by Facebook you’ll find Jeffrey T. Hancock from Cornell University. If you go to the Minerva initiative website you’ll find that Jeffery Hancock received funding from the Department of Defense for a study called“Cornell: Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes”. If you go to the project site for that study you’ll find a visualization program that models the spread of beliefs and disease. Cornell University is currently being funded for another DoD study right now called“Cornell: Tracking Critical-Mass Outbreaks in Social Contagions”(you’ll find the description for this project on the Minerva Initiative’s funding page). So I went ahead and looked at the study mentioned above, and sure enough I found this: There he is, Jeff Hancock, the same guy who analyzed the Facebook data for Cornell, which initially claimed funding from the Pentagon and then denied it. I call bull*****. Stinking bull*****. So it seems that Facebook and the U.S. military are likely working together to study civil unrest and work on ways to manipulate the masses into apathy or misguided feelings of contentment in the face of continued banker and oligarch theft. This is extremely disturbing, but this whole affair is highly troubling in spite of this. For one thing, although governments and universities need to take certain precautions when conducting such “research,” private companies like Facebook apparently do not. Rather, allthey have to do is get people to click “I accept” to a terms of service agreement they never read, which allows companies to do almost anything they want to you, your data and your emotions. What we basically need to do as a society is completely update our laws. For starters, if a private corporation is going to lets say totally violate your most basiccivil liberties as defined under the Bill of Rights, a simple terms of service agreement should not be sufficient. For more invasive violations ofsuchrights, perhaps a one page simple-to-read document explaining clearly whichof your basic civil libertiesyou are giving away should be mandatory. For example, had Facebook not partnered at the university level to analyze thisdata, we wouldn’t even know this happened at all. So what sort of invasive, mind-****ing behavior do you think all these large corporations with access to your personal data are up to. Every. Single. Day. The Faculty Lounge blog put it perfectly when it stated: Academic researchers’ status as academics already makes it more burdensome for them to engage in exactly the same kinds of studies that corporations like Facebook can engage in at will. If, on top of that, IRBs didn’t recognize our society’s shifting expectations of privacy (and manipulation) and incorporate those evolving expectations into their minimal risk analysis, that would make academic research still harder, and would only serve to help ensure that those who are most likely to study the effects of a manipulative practice and share those results with the rest of us have reduced incentives to do so. Would we have ever known the extent to which Facebook manipulates its News Feed algorithms had Facebook not collaborated with academics incentivized to publish their findings? We can certainly have a conversation about the appropriateness of Facebook-like manipulations, data mining, and other 21st-century practices. But so long as we allow private entities freely to engage in these practices, we ought not unduly restrain academics trying to determine their effects. Recall those fear appeals I mentioned above. As one social psychology doctoral candidate noted on Twitter, IRBs make it impossible to study the effects of appeals that carry the same intensity of fear as real-world appeals to which people are exposed routinely, and on a mass scale, with unknown consequences. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. What corporations can do at will to serve their bottom line, and non-profits can do to serve their cause, we shouldn’t make (even) harder—or impossible—for those seeking to produce generalizable knowledge to do. If you read Liberty Blitzkrieg, you know I strongly dislike Facebook as a company. However, this is much bigger thanjust one experiment by Facebook with what appears to be military ties. What this is really about is thefrightening reality that these sorts of things are happening every single day, and we have no idea it’s happening. We need to draw the lines as far as to what extentwe as a society wish to be data-mined and experimented onby corporations with access to all of our private data. Until we do this, we will continue to be violated and manipulated at will. For some of my Facebook critical articles from earlier this year, read: The Chief Operating Officer of Facebook Wants to Ban the Word “Bossy” How UK Prime Minister David Cameron Paid Thousands of Dollars for Facebook “Likes” How Facebook Exploits Underage Girls in its Quest for Ad Revenue This Man’s $600,000 Facebook Disaster is a Warning For All Small Businesses Average: 4.92 Your rating: None Average: 4.9 ( 25 votes)
个人分类: exceptional american|39 次阅读|0 个评论
分享 处女作——数字化变革：零售银行面临的机遇与挑战
繁清 2013-5-28 17:51
全球零售银行业正面临一场新的巨大变革，世界各地的金 融机构开始推行一系列广泛的举措，将创新和大胆的改革投入 到新的数字技术应用上，以期从根本上改变吸引和保留客户的 方式。 多数银行大力投资发展智能手机以及平板电脑应用程序， 以方便客户能够随时随地处理各类银行业务。另一些银行则开 发了互动工具，帮助客户分析他们的消费习惯并加强他们的资 金管理能力。还有一些银行则利用社交网络的力量，吸引粉丝 光顾他们功能丰富的Facebook网页，从而利用资源优势打造自 身独特的品牌并吸引客户共享个人信息。 这些举措均标志着一个重大变化开始的，即银行开始利用 变化纷呈的数字技术、无限制的移动宽带服务以及充满活力的 社交媒体与客户展开互动。然而，在很大程度上，准备开始搭 建数字化平台以及尚未下定决心实现数字化的银行依然在为生 存而战，因为他们必须全力以赴，方能跟上客户迅速向无线连 接转变的步伐。 历史上，不仅金融行业，众多全球机构在发展阶段中均面 临了电子化变革带来的挑战，各大机构针对挑战进行了一个又 一个行业的技术改造。摄影技术先驱柯达公司以及曾经一度辉 煌的电影录像带租赁供应商Blockbuster便未能顺应潮流，最终落 败于掌握了速度更快、成本更低的数字成像技术以及拥有在线 视频流的后来者。而一些创新者，如亚马逊（Amazon.com）和 苹果公司的iTunes 则应用新的数字技术，彻底改变了出版和音 乐产业，一扫根深蒂固的老牌企业。我们还是将目光投入到银 行业，随着贝宝、谷歌钱包以及其他移动支付技术的兴起和繁 荣，银行已经开始感受到来自这些竞争对手的压力，因为他们 有可能会取代银行继而为消费者提供日常的交易甚至信用服务。 对于银行而言，这既是机会也是挑战（参见以下“五种常 见的错误概念”）。赢家将能够缩小地域覆盖范围，减少至少 30%的网点并在整个银行业的利润率持续收缩时大规模地降低 成本。同时，他们将能够扩大产品的种类、提供定制服务、加 快服务速度、挖掘新的收入来源并加深与客户之间的关系从而 提高客户保留率和盈利能力。 技术本身并不会带来竞争优势；凭借技术提供独特、个性 化的客户体验对银行而言才是最重要。想要取得成功，单单将 高科技装置和酷炫的应用附加在银行传统的基础设施和思维方 式之上是远远不够的。事实上，技术本身代价高昂且容易让人 分心，同时会增加复杂度、影响决策并妨碍组织的适应能力。若 不采取严格的方法，银行将无法专注于从表面和文化深层次上 打破零售银行的传统界限，并凭借自己的力量与所有渠道的客 户展开无缝互动。 贝恩公司对来自全球15 家领先的金融服务机构的20 多位 高管人员开展了深入的访谈，发现因各种深层次的体制和文化 原因，想要把握银行业的数字化发展机会极具挑战。相对于围 绕客户体验实现创新，零售银行家们更加关注交易的处理，因 此，他们通常将面向客户的新技术整合纳入核心业务的速度作 为创新重点，发展一直较为缓慢。往往通过重新设计产品和服 务、调整定价和渠道战略以及重新思考招聘、培训和部署一线 员工的局部方式推动改革，而对于充分利用技术的潜力一直表 现得更为犹豫。由于银行缺乏明确的战略依据，他们的数字化 举措成效甚微，不仅未能给银行带来竞争优势，相反还增加了 IT支出。 利用数字技术建立一个无边界的银行还需要敏感的触觉。 客户期望在安全的环境中储蓄、消费和转移资金的需求并未发 生变化，但是他们的行为却从根本上发生了改变。他们与银行 之间的互动将轻松地连接线上和线下世界。相比亲临银行网点， 客户更乐意使用互联网来征求意见和获取产品、服务信息。他 们希望能够选择一个对他们而言最便利的渠道，无论是亲自到 银行网点、浏览银行网站或是使用视频客服中心，他们会坚持 认为，所有的渠道能够和谐共存。他们期望与之有业务往来的 所有公司，尤其是银行，能够了解他们每个个体需求、预见他 们的需要并积极地参与到为他们量身定制解决方案的过程中。 并且客户非常乐意使用社交媒体让其他客户了解他们在银行的 体验。
个人分类: 金融前沿|50 次阅读|0 个评论
分享 Facebook Insiders Boost Plans to Cash Out in IPO
weidu302 2012-5-17 16:22
Some of Facebook Inc.'s biggest investors now plan to cash out as much as half of their stakes in the social network's initial public offering this week. Facebook said Wednesday it will boost the size of its IPO by 25%, or about 100 million shares, as early investors sell as much as $3.8 billion in additional shares. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Tiger Global Management and Facebook director Peter Thiel—who was one of the social network's first investors—more than doubled the amount of stock they plan to sell.
个人分类: 经济新闻|20 次阅读|0 个评论
分享 给Facebook估价
lymtics 2012-5-17 09:29
给Facebook估价
给Facebook估价 英国《金融时报》 Lex专栏 2012年05月17日 06:07 AM 你在Facebook上的那3000个“朋友”才不在乎你买股票时，出价是不是太高了，也不在乎你是不是喜欢那部电影。Facebook计划在本月进行首次公开发行(IPO)，在IPO之前，投资者需要对Facebook这只股票，而不是Facebook这个文化现象进行思考。Facebook是怎样的一种公司，该如何理性地对其估值？ Facebook的IPO预计至少将筹得100亿美元资金，使其成为迄今最大的一宗科技企业上市案例。然而Facebook上市的重要意义却不仅在于金额。Facebook上市的成败，不仅会被解读为市场对整整一代企业——它们希望从人们的在线社交生活中赚取利润——作出的判断，还将被用来衡量当前充满不确定性的市场承担风险的意愿。围绕Facebook上市已经产生出狂热的氛围。这样一来，冷静下来，像评估一家普通企业一样评估Facebook变得更加重要。 既要当微软又要当谷歌 为Facebook估值尤其需要小心，因为尽管它的当前业绩十分出色，但并非毫无瑕疵，所以并不是我们预测其未来的完美指导。有意对Facebook下注的投资者需要仔细地考虑以下两个基本的问题。 第一，Facebook将渗透到互联网上发生的一切活动中去，还是仅仅只是多种数字化工具中的一种？要想使目前的高昂估值显得合理，Facebook就必须要在互联网领域取得微软(Microsoft)曾经在个人电脑市场达到的地位。微软拥有操作系统、浏览器和文档处理软件，就像无处不在的水，所有电脑用户都在其中畅游----尽管用户视而不见，可能也并不十分喜欢，但却利润丰厚。用户的计算机使用必须变得深度社交网络化，而且Facebook必须拥有这个社交网络，并让其赚钱。 第二，Facebook为数字广告带来的转变，能否像谷歌(Google)在过去十年中做到的那样深刻？通过互联网搜索，谷歌让广告商能够根据用户的搜索行为（也就是根据用户的明确意愿）直接命中目标消费者。广告商获得的回报可以衡量，而且很高。Facebook想利用用户的社交关系，来做谷歌利用用户的意愿做到的事。用户是否愿意配合还有待观察。如果答案是否定的，Facebook就无法满足如此高的期待。 利润率很“赞” Facebook已经取得了很大的成就。去年收入在20亿美元的基础上增长了88%，营业利润率近50%，表现不俗。五年前谷歌正在以相似的速度增长时，其利润率要低很多，而且至今一直如此。微软则直到上世纪90年代末才取得Facebook当前的利润率，当时其收入规模已经达到了每年200亿美元。尽管如此，业务增长的趋势并不会像一条直线那样上升。Facebook用户和广告商增加的速度还不足以抹平季节性波动。过去两年中，一季度广告收入均低于上年四季度。去年Facebook广告收入占总收入的84%。 况且Facebook也还没有解决所有互联网媒体企业面临的问题：准入门槛低、竞争残酷。还记得Friendster和MySpace吗？都大势已去。你可能会觉得Facebook已经大到了竞争对手赶不上的地步，但它却在像面临着生死威胁那样花钱。Facebook曾宣称照片分享是一项核心服务，然而上个月却又突然掷出10亿美元现金和股票，收购初创的照片分享网站Instagram。这似乎表明，市场的自然准入门槛很低，因此Facebook可能需要花真金白银人为地建立门槛。 尽管创立一家社交网络站点很容易，但运营一个大型的社交网络却成本高昂，需要购置实物资产。去年，Facebook的资本支出为收入的30%，达10亿美元，上季度更是达到总收入的近一半。自由现金流资产回报率很高，但谷歌却是Facebook的两倍。 随着Facebook的业务增长，资产回报率应该也会改善。但即使资本支出相对于收入出现下降，运营成本的变动趋势仍然无法使人安心。尽管年化销售额远超40亿美元，但几乎没有迹象表明Facebook收入增长的速度能够超过其成本基础。 最后还有管理问题。Facebook掌握在27岁的首席执行官马克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)手中，在IPO之后他将控制超过一半的有投票权的股份。对一个人信任到这种程度令人不安。不过在这个问题上，Facebook倒没有对投资者有所隐瞒。 人多了就不好玩了 关于Facebook的现在，我们就说到这里。在讨论它的未来之前，记住这几个颠扑不破的财务定律：超高的增长率不可能永远持续；回报率永远会越来越低；新的威胁会不断出现。 因此，第一个重大问题：Facebook是会像微软那样将触角伸到计算机行业的各个角落，还是会被下一个新生事物所取代？显然，社交网络在早期的时候不稳定。但达到一定规模以后，它们的抗压能力就会增强。任何已经开始流行的通讯工具都在吸引新用户方面拥有优势，这就是“网络效应”。软件设计师在设计最新最好的程序时，会瞄准最大的平台——在移动计算机领域，苹果(Apple)和Android就是这一现象的获益者。 有9亿名活跃用户的Facebook似乎已经取得了主导地位。但投资者们必须考虑这样一种可能性：如大多数产品一样，它的作用将达到极限，随后开始下降。用户在社交网络中建立的许多联系人可能会慢慢变得无趣。社交网络携带的噪音将开始超过有用的信息。人们会寻找更有趣的东西。随着社交网络的发展，它会自然地趋于稳定，但同时，一项很大的不稳定因素也会增长：腻烦。 使这个问题更严重的是，你母亲（或父亲、老师）也在Facebook上的可能性看来似乎是会不断增加的。也就是说，随着用户数量的不断增长，这个社交网络变得不那么酷了。 Facebook可能会辩称，它不需要很酷。一旦用户数量达到一定规模，它就变得不可替代了。如果Facebook在社交网络领域取得了稳定的垄断地位，我们就容易想象，有朝一日，搜索信息、阅读新闻、看电视、写文件或语音通话等活动，都将在Facebook上进行，或在一种来自Facebook、并被其控制的社交维度中进行。正是这种可能性，使得一些分析师认为，Facebook的估值可能达到1000亿美元甚至更高。当然，潜在的收入池是巨大的。 但用户可能不会永远保持忠诚。诚然，所有构成用户身份的东西——评论、照片、“赞”、好友关系——实际上都由Facebook拥有和掌管。Facebook的精心设计旨在提高用户注销的成本。但问题是，这个成本是否高到足以防止用户转投未来的新型网络和工具？我们很难弃用微软的软件或谷歌的搜索引擎，不仅因为网络效应，还因为这些工具所提供的服务是几乎所有人都必须用到的。转投微软或谷歌的竞争对手要花费更高的成本，或无法获得同样质量的服务。而Facebook对人们的生活或工作并没有那么重要。 而且，Facebook是在PC时代的末期开发的。随着智能手机的出现，这家企业已经被一些根植于移动设备的竞争者甩在了身后。当然，即便Facebook无法垄断计算机业的整个社交领域，它也可以生存。但那样的话，Facebook可能需要花很多钱来保护市场份额，这意味着它的利润率会降低。 一种“更优越”的广告形式？ 不管垄断不垄断，Facebook能否提供更好的网络广告服务？ 人们担心的是，Facebook的模式太可怕了。Facebook在它的IPO文件中写道：“广告商可以要求我们根据用户统计因素和用户分享中显示的兴趣，对特定用户进行定点广告投放……广告商可以在‘社交背景’中发布市场推广信息。社交背景是一种信息，它凸显一名好友与某个品牌或某种业务之间的联系，例如，一名好友‘赞’了某种产品，或去过某家餐厅。”说白了就是：我们会收集关于你的信息，利用这些信息帮助广告商将一些东西卖给你，或（更可怕的是）帮助广告商“插进”你和朋友们之间的对话。 如今，关于这一点，人们的反响可能在转好。最终，广告商提供的东西可能是人们实际上想要的。隐私保护机制也会被启用。但问题是，Facebook为提高所收集用户数据的价值而做的一些事，是否会让用户变得不那么喜欢Facebook，也不再那么频繁地使用Facebook。用户可能会开始认为，自己是一项“产品”，而非顾客。这种感觉不好玩。 令人瞩目的是，在这一点上，谷歌的情况则大不相同。如果笔者在谷歌中键入“惠普(HP)12C计算器”，在出现搜索结果的同时会出现一些类似广告的东西。用户搜索某样东西时，确实常常是打算购买。而Facebook的情况完全不同。如果Facebook无法在不招用户讨厌的情况下进行广告定点投放，它的营收增长就会放慢，而且用不了多长时间。 所以，一个值得关注的衡量标准是，每名用户的平均营收增长率。这项数字看起来不妙。增长率仍然保持在两位数，但明显有下降的趋势。营收增长更多地来自用户的增加，而非广告效果的提高。如果这种情况继续下去，就标志着Facebook的经营模式面临严重问题。 一个Facebook好友值多少钱？ 在评估Facebook价值的时候，如何把这一切都计算进去？Facebook的IPO估值为1000亿美元或更高，在未来5至7年内，几件事情必须实现，这么高的估值才能算合理。首先，Facebook必须逐渐大幅降低资本密集度（包括减少并购），如谷歌和微软所做到的那样。这是比较容易的部分。其次，Facebook还需要基本保持当前的利润率水平（约50%），这一点目前还没有任何企业做到过。第三，在未来5至7年内，Facebook的销售额也必须增长至少5倍。 最后一点是绝对可能实现的。以谷歌为例，它只花了7年时间就把营收在Facebook如今的水平上提高了10倍。1993年，微软的营收达到40亿美元后，它也只花了10年时间就把营收提高了10倍。 结论是：如果Facebook无法变得无处不在，或无法兑现提供更优越网络广告的承诺，那么我们就很难想象它能实现必要的增长率或利润率。如果Facebook做不到这两点，超过1000亿美元的估值之于投资者的意义，恐怕仅仅相当于3000名好友之于用户的意义。 译者/何黎
个人分类: 上市公司|36 次阅读|0 个评论

京ICP备16021002号-2 京B2-20170662号 京公网安备 11010802022788号 论坛法律顾问：王进律师 知识产权保护声明   免责及隐私声明

GMT+8, 2025-12-25 04:53