New way of?!

Hi,

I know we finished our class, but today when I was on Instagram, I found the new way of advertising.

Take a look at this photo that I attached

Generation Do it Your(selfie): self-branding, self-promotion, self-expression

Generation Do it Your(selfie): self-branding, self-promotion, self-expression

 

With the development of technologies and communication mediums, the subject of the current state of media and how its presence has affected its content and users is greatly analyzed. Because New Media has become such a prominent and easily accessible form of media, its user base range among all ages and generations. McLuhan’s theory’s which present the intricate relationship between technology and media and their impact on society is on that is undeniable. McLuhan expressed that “Once a new technology comes into a social milieu it cannot cease to penetrate that milieu until every institution is saturated” (McLuhan, 1964, p. 177) This societal change that has been brought on by the advancement of technology is inevitably noticeable, not only on a social level, but also in the way we obtain and disseminate almost all information. The affects of new media has altered all aspects of society from the process of education, politics, economics and social interaction. 

Throughout the semester we have discussed many of these changes and evaluated the aspects of “new media” and “new new media” at a variety of levels. Going back to the wide range of new media consumers, many of the overall effects that these developments have had on its users differ between generations.  Among the generations that participate in the use of new media, those born prior to the 1980’s have had the ability to observe the effects brought on by the development of technology and the introduction of the internet.  These generations have also worked to adapt to these changes integrating new forms of media into their already established day to day life. The younger generations however, have experienced a different relationship with new media, therefore evoking its own respective effects on the generation as a whole. 

The intention of this term paper is to discuss “generation selfie” also know as Millennials and how the development of “new media” has seemingly shaped this entire generation. In an article written by the New York Daily News this generation of “tech savvy” individuals is referred to as “generation selfie” based on their overall lack of conformity and interest in traditional institution. The article works to identify this autonomous generation offering a positive perception that goes beyond the “selfie” stereotype. Oxford Dictionary named “selfie” the word of the year in 2013 defining it as “A photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a social media website” (Oxford Dictionaries ) Looking passed its assumable “narcissistic” characteristics, the proposed intention of the “selfie” generation is simple “Why ask someone to take my picture when I can take it myself”

Before going any further, we must first determine exactly who falls under “Generation Selfie”. This generation, commonly titled Millenials or Generation Y, is the demographic cohort following generation X: defined as those born in the 1980’s - early 2000s. Based on research from the United States census bureau using the years 1978-2000, there are approximately 76 million Millennials in the United States. Often referred to as “digital natives”, Millennials are the first generation that did not have to adapt to the digital era of internet, cell phones and social media. When analyzing this generation it seems that majority of its characteristics can be associated with the development of new media.

The New York Daily News explains that “Half of Millennials now describe themselves as political independents and 29 percent are not affiliated with any religion — numbers that are at or near the highest levels of political and religious disaffiliation recorded for any generation in the last quarter-century.”  (Cupp, 2013) Although these statistics are limited to the United States, this generation has proven to be distinctly more liberal-minded across the globe.  The article continues by describing Millenials as “a generation in which institutions are subordinate to the individual and social networks are digitally generated rather than interpersonally accrued.” (Cupp, 2013) It seems that with every meaningless “selfie” taken and the absurdly irrelevant tweet or status posted, my favorites being “eating a delicious sandwich” or “finally going to the bathroom”, generation “selfie” is labeled as self-centered and egomaniacal.  Although I do agree that some Millenials have taken the “selfie” thing a little overboard, I believe that this phenomenon proves to be a symbol representing an independent, self-empowered generation.  With the collapse of the economy and its detrimental effect on jobs, healthcare and students loans, it’s understandable that much of generation Y has detached from seemingly failed Institutions and turned to entrepanourship for success.  “According to a report by the Young Invincibles, 11% of 18-to-34- year-olds plan to start a business of their own in the next year.” (Cupp, 2013)

Having grown up alongside the development of new media, it is inevitable that the factors accompanying these mediums have affected this generation so strongly.

New Media is generally defined by media ecologist Robert K. Logan as, “digital media that are interactive, incorporating two way communication, and involve some form of computing.” (Logan, 2010) Unlike older media such as radio and television, new media include interactive digital based mediums such as the web and use of email or chat. These forms of media are individually accessed and allow for control/manipulation from the user.  These media sources are “experienced on an intimate level, each user working alone with the screen and interface” (Logan, 2010) The use of new media allow for a great deal of participation, allowing users to determine the information they are interested in seeking or the ability to produce content themselves.

Looking deeper into New Media, Paul Levinson categorized the most current evolutions of media as new new media. “New new media” separates mediums such as Facebook, Twitter and Blogging (whose core concept allows every consumer to be a producer) from the general “new media” of email or search engines.

Although each new new media source offers unique components, the underlying driven factors all seem to focus on self branding, self promotion and self expression. These factors, which will be discussed in greater detail, have become an integral part of the lives of generation “selfie” contributing to the original idea presented “why not do it ourselves.”

Nearly all new media forms start with the general concept of a “profile.” The information given range from a basic profile including the users name, age, and contact information to more detailed profiles: presenting the users picture and a variety of personal details. The significance of a users profile is unique to each specific medium. As explained above, one of the main factors of new media is interaction from the user. The use of a profile often acts as a personal key or digital identity allowing for interaction with the medium. When looking at new media such as amazon or iTunes, which call for personal interaction with the source rather than social interaction with other consumers, the profile creates the virtual identity needed for use. The information provided in these types of profiles tends to be standard and limited to information necessary for use. This information may include residential address for shipping purposes or billing information to allow for payment of goods or services. In cases such as this, the information provided in a users profile offers some type privacy and is only accessible by the producer. New new media on the other hand calls for a greater deal of interaction, allowing all consumers to be producers, therefore making the position of the producer interchangeable.  Similar to new media profiles, a new new media profile acts as a digital identity. In this instance however, the profile often describes the identity of the producer. In many cases the profile becomes the extent of the content. Facebook for example allows users to create unique personal profiles including a variety of information and details ultimately shaping a rounder digital identity. This identity can then socially interact with other users sending messages, sharing pictures etc. Ideally, profiles allow the consumer to produce their own identity, projecting an image of themselves and how they want to be viewed by others. As almost all new new media users know, the ability to control a digital identity is easier said than done. Many of these mediums allow users to connect and contribute to other by tagging in statuses or uploading pictures that ultimately become part of a profile. This can result in a change in perception accompanied with a digital identity. Fortunately, new new media sources have adapted to this with different levels of privacy setting. Privacy settings give the user yet another control factor in shaping their digital identity. Properly understanding the privacy settings associated with a profile can be critical in obtaining and holding up a user’s integrity, both on and off the screen.

With the ability to create a digital identity, new new media also offers users the capability to promote or market themselves along with the content that they have produced. Blogging is a perfect example of how one can promote themselves or their work. The number of consumers who have access to a blog can be endless, assuming that the settings of the blog allow for it. Producers can also promote their blog on other new media sources by sharing the blog link on personal profiles and as comments of the profile or blog of another. Bloggers are given the freedom to write about any topic they would like as well as control over its moderation. When discussing blogging, Levinson describes comment moderation as gatekeeping; moderating comments and allowing for discussions as well further promotion of the blog post itself. Levinson continues the discussion of self promotion by explaining that “entering a comment on someone else’s blog can be a very easy way of promoting your own blog. If your comment is about an issue that you are blogging about and you sign your comment, then readers of your comment can easily find your blog”  

As McLuhan originally theorized, the content of any new medium often develops with that of another older medium. “The content of the telegraph is print, and the content of print is writing, the content of writing is speech, and the content of speech is thought.” (McLuhan, 1964) To take McLuhan’s idea and integrate it into the current state of media, the content of web pages become blogs, the content of tweets become statuses, the content of blogs become posts or comments. Bolter and Grusin defined new media in terms of remediation by explaining that “we call the representation of one medium in another remediation and we will argue that remediation is the defining characteristic of the new digital media…..all mediation is remediation.”  

            McLuhan was quoted in 1957 stating that “Today we are beginning to notice that the new media are not just mechanical gimmicks for creating worlds of illusion, but new languages with new and unique powers of expression.” (1957, 272; Logan 13) Self-expression acts as yet another strength of new new media. The ability to express oneself at the click of a button acted as the base of many forms of new new media. The contextual freedom, speed, and quickness of expressing oneself through a blog post, Instagram picture, or status updated, draws users to constantly think about what they can post next.  As Logan stated “ new media provide an outlet for creativity” (Logan, 2010) Logan provides more information on this by referencing noted musician and virtual reality pioneer Jason Lanier, who pointed out factors in regards to creativity.

“What we see with interactive media like the Web is not only the end result of the creative process, but the creative process itself, set down for all people to see and share.” (Brockman, 1996; Logan, 2010) This describes the general underlying creative capacity that new media allows for.

Looking back at New York Daily News article “Have Faith in Generation Selfie” we can conclude that much of the self-driven aspects that embody the use of new media have projected onto the generation that has grown alongside it. As we can see the development of New Media has allowed for the ability to brand oneself and create an Identity along with the power to promote that identity. Generation Y or Generation “selfie” have taken that self-controlled, self-facilitating mindset and utilized it in every aspect of their life.

Bibliography

Crossfire (Director). (2014). Generation Selfie: We Do It Better [Motion Picture].

Cupp, S. E. (2013, Nov 20). Have More Faith in Generation Selfie. Retrieved from New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/faith-generation-selfie-article-1.1522639

Karge, M. (1999). The digital Self in Cyperspace.

(2010). In R. K. Logan, Understanding New Media: Extending Marshal McLuhan (p. 4). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Oxford Dictionaries . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/selfie

 

 

 

Using Social Media for Crisis Communication

Al-Hakim Mclaurin

COMM 6090

Final Term Paper: Using Social Media for Crisis Communication

May 13, 2014

We live in a society that is continually affected by various natural disasters. Natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and forest fires have plagued this nation throughout history and are all considered crises. Also and organizational crisis, such as corporation misdoings are huge crises that play a huge role in society. Regardless of where you live or the kind of work you do, many different types of crisis have the potential to significantly disrupt your life. If I were to put in my terms, crisis communications is how an organizations deals with a crisis which is plain and simple. Social media has evolved from a simple interactive social networking tool to what is now considered an overall crucial element in crisis response. When discussing media it is safe to note that media consist of internet, television, radio and newspaper. All of these outlets are faced with a difficult struggle trying to find a balance between ethical and moral responsibilities. Social media outlets are obliged to report accurately and objectively but often times conflict with this obligation. Deciding which media outlet to watch or read depends on the points of view of the particular individual watching. While many like to believe that the news and all media are unbiased and only present facts but truth be told this not the case. In fact, many of the major news organizations are biased and quite opinionated. It is the way in which this information is presented from different media outlets that sways public opinion and shapes the audience’s awareness and perception of what is going on in society.

Crisis communications focuses more on managing the outcome, impact, and the public perception of a crisis. Too add on, it is messages that are integrated and critical elements of a five-part overall crisis management process that includes Detection, Prevention, Containment, Recovery, and Learning. Originally crisis communications sole purpose was to generate strategic post crisis responses that reduced and in most cases shift, blame and responsibility. Now it’s associated with coordination of resources such as equipment, personnel, and information to avoid or reduce harm for coordinating resources during post-crisis support and recovery that can better known as risk identification. Crisis communicators have the gifted ability to form how a crisis and the organization are viewed by public perception.

Initial Crisis Response Best Practices

1. Be quick and try to have initial response within the first hour.

2. Be accurate by carefully checking all facts.

3. Be consistent by keeping spokespeople informed of crisis events and key message points.

4. Make public safety the number one priority.

5. Use all of the available communication channels including the Internet, Intranet, and mass notification systems.

6. Provide some expression of concern/sympathy for victims

7. Remember to include employees in the initial response.

8. Be ready to provide stress and trauma counseling to victims of the crisis and their families, including employees.

With new developments in technology, people around the world now have the ability to watch as a major disaster happens.  One of the purposes of this paper is to demonstrate how crisis communications is important today now more than ever with media (new and traditional) proliferation increasing the exposure of the crisis, and new media particularly social media, which adds to creating this exposure. Social media can deter organizations crisis communications by allowing false information to rapidly spread. Being as though there is nobody to monitor the false information someone may post, there is no way of proven whether information is reliable or someone is maliciously trying to ruin an organization’s reputation. I believe that a quick, clear, honest response from an official organizational representative can eliminate someone of the flow of false rumors. Mainly, social media is used to gather and communicate information since it empowers everyday people to share what they see with the world.

“Social media does have many pros in the event of a crisis. Yes it has helped officials with relying on witness’s personal photos and videos that become circulated to identify important information” (Lewis, 2012). When using social media there is the ability to have a two way flow of communication. People can respond and react to the information they receive, and allow others can to view these responses as well. The audience has some degree of feedback into the information and how it affects them because they have a firm amount of control with the information. Whereas with the traditional media, there is only a one- way communication flow.  During many national crises such as the Boston Bombing and the Newton School shootings, social media helped police officials in identifying the victims and suspects in each case as well as providing others with a steady flow of information.

During the Newton School Shootings, misinformation quickly swamped news reports as the media attempted to keep the world with updated information. During this horrible tragedy which took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, gunman Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, as well as 20 young children.  Being as though 20 small children in the United States were brutally murdered, this story became a huge global matter. The desire to be first rather than be accurate created a huge problem in the media which is very much prevalent.  The problem of the need to be first has affected how and when the media handles a fast breaking issue. CNN, a trusted global news source, is one of the biggest media organizations that have received great criticism for its negligent and inconsistent reporting during the crisis. In CNN’s coverage of shooting, many noteworthy errors were made. First, the Killings were wrongly linked to handguns. Secondly, there was substantial confusion about the identity of the shooter and how many shooters there were.

On April 15, 2013, two bombs which were made from pressure cookers exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon killing three people and injuring over 250 others. After the initial reports of the explosions, twitter became a vital tool for those looking for more information. “A quarter of Americans got information about the devastating explosions and the hunt for the bombers on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, according to a report from the Pew Research Center” (Petrecca USA Today). These results show that people stayed abreast with the bombing via social media, relying solely on the accuracy of these non credible sources.

Pros & Cons to Social Media Crisis

PROS

•           It allows messages to reach a global scale in a split second and hence enables mobilization of resources around the world

•           Heightens situational awareness

•           Aids organizations to appeal directly o the public, bypassing the traditional medium of communication

•           Used to defend reputation or image

CONS

•           May reduce the amount of face-to-face communication we have with one another, diminishing on interpersonal communication skills

•           Information can be spread in a negative way at massive speed

•           Crisis Trigger in forms of rumors, hacking, security breaks, & cyber terrorism

Social media in crisis is a contentious topic because there are both pros and cons that outweigh each other. “Mainstream media puts a spotlight on the crisis while social media amplifies the crisis” (Holmes report, 2012).  The more something is being discussed over social media, the more people tend to react and express emotions about the story. This importance of this story will be evident because it is everywhere they look. The new digital age of social media is more likely to trust social media more than traditional news mediums because it is current and interactive. Personally, I feel as though news coming from opinionated people on social media can be very bias and not credible. Being as though social media is a new happening, I find it that for older individuals it may be harder to grasp its value and significance. I know from personal experience, my grandmother who is now 73 years of age is so frustrated with the advance s of technology that she has never used or visited any social networking tools. She even hates the fact that her phone provider made her upgrade her phone and now she does not understand it. “And what is this nonsense?” she asked as she pointed to the applications from Facebook and Twitter on her phone.  New technologies and innovations are simply more appealing to younger generations. The more new social media platforms surface, it appears to become necessary to keep up with the developments in the modern technology-conscious society. This is why it is necessary to be cognizant of social media’s significance and its effect on present culture.

I found it extremely fascinating over the course of this semester to dive deeper into the world of new media. With the knowledge obtained from this course and the Media Ecology, I truly feel that I understand the true essential of new media. By studying Marshall McLuhan theories I truly understand that media is an true extension of ourselves. Although Robert Logan begins to explain further that he believes media starts to extend itself, I truly believe that media is an extension of ourselves and it is up to a particular individual on how they want to use media.

Works Cited

Petrecca, Laura. “Social Media Informs Many, Frustrates Some, after Boston Marathon Bombing.” USA Today, Gannet, 23 Apr, 2013. Web. Nov. 2013

Laadanjali, and Gerald Lewis. “ Role of Social Media in Crisis Communication.” (2012): n. pag.  Web.

Mishra, Guarav, “How Social Media Is changing News and Crisis: The Crisis Curve Framework.” How Social Media Is changing News and Crisis: The Crisis Curve Framework.  The Holmes Report, 29 Jan. 2012. Web.03 Nov. 2013.

American Public Health Association. (n.d.). Special Report: Expert Round Table on Social Media and Risk Communication During Times of Crises – Strategic Challenges and Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.apha.org/.

Gonzales-Herrero, A., & Smith, S. (2008). Crisis communications management on the web: How Internet-based technologies are changing the way public relations professionals handle business crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(3), 143-163.

Levs, Josh. "Boy, 8, One of 3 Killed in Bombings at Boston Marathon; Scores Wounded." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 03 May 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions>.

"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 May 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-ho

The Inception, Success, and Future of Facebook

The Inception, Success, and Future of Facebook

Ahmad Alnogaly

Fairleigh Dickinson University

Abstract

Ten decades ago, life seemed rather plain by itself without the advent of the social networking sites that we have today. Even though there did exist some social networking companies like AOL instant messenger which made its first appearance on the internet in 1997 and MySpace which became popular in 2003, there still weren’t many people on the internet to truly make social networking sites what they are today. Generally, social networking fanatics describe their lives before social networking sites as static and lacking fun. In fact, they believe that most people on the internet today actually use it simply to connect to one another. Partly, this may be true since statistics show that social networking websites account for a greater percentage of online users in the world. People merely go online to connect, and that is one of their true purposes on the internet. In this paper, I discuss the inception, upbringing, and success of the popular social networking site Facebook aside from discussing its future in the next ten years.

The Beginning of Facebook

     The entry of Facebook changed the entire social networking in a whole new way. What was once termed as social networking was indeed old and needed a new spark in it, and this was evidenced by how people started leaving their original social networking sites which at that time boomed, but due to the new changes, they ended up preferring Facebook. Facebook’s roots are pretty deep as well, and its precise conception cannot be ideally pointed to a specific person following the controversy that followed it soon after it became a hit site. Mark Zuckerberg, the current CEO and initial founder of the popular social networking website Facebook faced controversy over who was the original inceptor of the idea. The site which was once known as “theFacebook.com” years ago has now become a multi-billion dollar company just after being used in small campuses in the U.S., but Zuckerberg seems to have stolen the idea of the social networking site from seniors in his school, Harvard (Carlson, 2010).

     Reports say that Mark was given a project by three seniors Cameron Winklevoss, Divya Narendra, and Tyler Winklevoss to design a social network for Harvard students and alumni students as well. They simply needed a web developer to steer forward their idea and this was exactly what Mark was good at. The sophomore from Dobbs Ferry in New York was actually handed the project by Victor Gao, another Harvard student who was known for his prowess in coding, but due to issues, he could not complete the project (Carlson, 2010). Apparently, Mark fell in love with the idea of creating a social networking website that would not only touch the lives of campus students within Harvard, but everywhere else in the world, and these three students had just given him the drive that he needed to for coming up with a site similar to the one he wanted to work on, but different in its purpose.

     Critics have thus deemed the conception of the idea of Facebook as stolen and unoriginal based on this idea. This is because they view Zuckerberg as an idea stealer who managed to wrongfully use another student’s idea and forge it into its own. Despite attempts to put Zuckerberg in a bad light regarding this story, his lawyers put up a good case in defending Zuckerberg. In fact, there was an instance where the accusers stated that Zuckerberg’s hard drive should be brought forth to the court so that the instant messages between Zuckerberg and the three students could be extracted to show that indeed Zuckerberg was guilty of copying their idea, but the hard drive was never brought forth, leaving many people in the dark about whether Mark had indeed stolen the idea or not.

     These factors however, have not crippled the social media site in any way, as it continues to amass more wealth and even penetrate deeper into areas where it had not. Its success rate seemed to also be on the rise in its first years of inception especially after it had just made its way out of the bracket of being used within campuses and started being used by the entire world. At first, Facebook never anticipated to get the ranking that it currently has since in the year 2006. Exactly two years after Facebook had gone public, MySpace was in fact the most popular social networking site in the U.S. alone, and almost everyone including celebrities were fixed on the social networking site. At this time, people related Facebook more to a campus social networking site rather than a social networking site that was geared for everyone. Consequently, Facebook had to pump in lots of effort in marketing and advertising itself as a new player in the market. Its success rate seemed to be on the rise as well since analysts predicted that two years later MySpace would be having half the number of subscribers that Facebook would be having based on the kinds of trends that were going down.

Destined Success For Facebook

     It was noted that Facebook was getting more and more subscribers each day, and this success rate could not be attributed to marketing alone. This is because the Facebook fans themselves were the marketers. A friend would join Facebook and invite other friends of his to also join Facebook so that they could keep the conversation flowing. This rapid growth scheme led to a situation where Facebook was getting more into the spotlight than any other social networking site. Additionally, Twitter made its way into the field at this exact time, and rather than competing with the now well-established Facebook and MySpace, it sought to create a different twist in social networking by incorporating social networking with microblogging. In fact, the site was launched as a social networking and microblogging site that would enable its members to send and receive some 140-character long messages called tweets between friends.

     By 2007, many people started seeing the success in Facebook and it was evident that the social networking site was destined for better things in the future. Microsoft, the leader in developing the popular computer operating system, Windows, bought a stake in Facebook in the year 2007. In the same year, Facebook also started allowing third-party developers to come up with applications for the site. It additionally launched its Beacon advertising system which was centered on exposing user purchasing activity. It generally worked on the basis of sending data from external websites to Facebook servers so that targeted advertisements could be presented. This of course was not to stay forever owing to the privacy protests that it received from a civic action group called MoveOn.org as well as many other protestors. In the long run, Beacon was shut down two years later because of this. In 2008, Facebook had indeed surpassed MySpace in the total number of monthly users joining Facebook, and it was just as the analysts had predicted some two years back. Feeling like a giant in the social networking world, Facebook attempted to purchase Twitter during the same year, but tweeter felt like it was destined for greater success and never signed the deal. 2009 saw the ultimate rise of Facebook over MySpace since it had amassed more than 200 million users which was twice as that of MySpace (Curtis, 2014).

     As Facebook kept growing stronger, MySpace kept getting weaker, and in 2010, Facebook had over 400 million users while MySpace users seemed to have declined to merely 57 million users down from a previous value of 75 million users. New competitors tried to join the race in 2010 such as Google’s Buzz, which was a social networking site that was integrated into Gmail. however it never went too far. This is because Facebook was gaining even more popularity with more than 550 million users in the year 2011. This number soon doubled to one billion users in the year 2012, and climbing to 1.11 billion users by the year 2013 (Curtis, 2014).

     Clearly, it’s easy to see the kind of ladder that Facebook used to get to the top. Its inception was almost undefined, but with the right kind of drive, it slowly climbed to a point where nothing about its inception ever really mattered, and the only thing that was standing in the way of Facebook’s success was the effort of Zuckerberg’s team. It faced stiff competition from the initial sites that added meaning to the whole purpose of what defined social networking sites at that time. MySpace, which was popular at that time, along with other sites such as Friendster also added to the competition. However, Facebook’s method of climbing up the ladder was straightforward unlike the story behind its inception. People were not being added into Facebook by robots or being tagged along by strangers. The idea of friends getting friends of friends to join Facebook was the big drive in Facebook’s success (Curtis, 2014).

     However, this makes one wonder what else Facebook does apart from standing out as a social networking site. Additionally, one wonders how it is that Facebook is trying to stand out from the rest of the social networking sites and maintaining that spark that it once had in the beginning. In the next section, we look at scenes behind Facebook and what it does besides connecting people through their popular website Facebook.com.

The Scenes Behind Facebook

     It is a wonder how any social networking site would maintain its popularity and large number of fans for years without the number of fans dropping out after a loss of interest in the site. In fact, analysts believe that the number of Facebook users has reached its peak and will now start losing its users. Researchers claim that it might only take a year before Facebook loses 80% of its users, and they based this theory on the rise and fall of MySpace to predict what will happen to Facebook (Prigg, 2014). Google also backs up this theory based on the number of searches that hit the web containing the phrases Facebook or FB. Google noted that in between 2010 and 2013, the number of search queries has stagnated and as we get deeper into the year 2014, Facebook is indeed losing the number of search queries on Google (Prigg, 2014). Whereas their penetration in the world seems to be on the rise, the same cannot be said about its users.

     There is a sense of boredom with social networking sites among users as soon as they realize that there is something new and something better than what they currently have. A true depiction of this theory is with MySpace which lost a good number of fans as soon as Facebook started stealing the spotlight. The good thing, however, is that Facebook itself is not blind to this trend, and it has been doing all sorts of things to keep its users happy and complete within this single social networking site. Facebook has improved its privacy settings, making everyone the own bosses of their Facebook accounts such that you only dictate what is to be revealed and to which extent it is to be revealed (Prigg, 2014). The addition of third-part apps to the site also bodes well with its success rate since Facebook is finding more ways of keeping its users happy and satisfied. However, all this is not sufficient enough, and Google’s findings clearly reveal that a lot has to be done by Facebook if it plans to stay at the top. Its current global rank is at position two, just one position shy of beating Google which sits at the top (Alexa.com, 2014). With the decline in the number of users, Facebook has been spreading its wings to become something more than a social networking site like the way MySpace was since they had figured that their trend might lead them straight to where MySpace currently sits at.

Garner everything at any cost

     News about Facebook’s acquisitions only hit the web when major companies like WhatsApp or Instagram are being sold for billions of dollars, and it would be easy for the average person to claim that Facebook has not more than five acquisitions in total. This, however, is totally false, since Facebook has been getting its hands busy in acquiring other companies during the years it has been in service. There have been over 40 acquisitions made by the company in a span of seven years (Jain, 2014). While most people believe that these acquisitions are benefitting Facebook in that it is getting revenue from the running of these sites, Facebook actually refers these acquisitions as talent acquisitions in that the products that they acquire are always shut down so as to clearly bring forward Facebook and what it has to offer. Some of the notable social networking companies that it has acquired since 2007 include ConnectU, FriendFeed, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Friendster.

     Contrary to Facebook’s culture of acquiring and shutting down the products that it has acquired so as to put Facebook on the spotlight, Instagram and WhatsApp didn’t seem to follow this trend because of the money that was used to acquire these sites. Billions of U.S. dollars have been used in the purchase of these two products, and it would be a wrong move to shut down these acquisitions so as to make Facebook shine.

Acquiring Instagram

     Facebook acquired Instagram during April in the year 2012, and it did have more than enough reasons to settle for this deal despite the huge sum of money involved. The first reason was that it was actually able to acquire this amount of money to buy such a big company like Instagram. It had already amassed a lot of money through its advert systems such that the one billion dollars did not send out Google to the public so as to acquire cash to make this big acquisition. Additionally, Facebook never wanted another competitor to add Instagram into its own system so as to have an upper hand over Facebook. Instagram, by itself, had already become popular among iPhone and Android users who loved the convenience of sharing photos through the simple and well laid out app (Hill, 2012). Big corporations like Google or Microsoft could have equally acquired Instagram without second guessing.

     Additionally, Instagram had done a better job of making a mobile app which people truly loved unlike the case with Facebook’s mobile app. There was also the fact that Facebook was getting stale and needed to hype up its activities so as to increase the number of users that joined Facebook. The mere act of getting Instagram added over 30 million hipsters in their bracket, and this was a plus on their side since more users meant that Facebook would not be falling out anytime soon.

     Instagram’s photo sharing experience was also more superior to that of Facebook. Users loved the fact that they would add cool filters to their photos before uploading them online, a feature that the Facebook app lacked at the time. It was also noted that a huge number of Facebook fans usually visited the site just to look at other people’s pictures and appreciate how they are living their lives or find humor in some of the funny photos that make rounds in Facebook. Instagram offered this exact solution and there was no way Facebook could say no to this deal. Zuckerberg was quick to notice that Instagram was a threat and acquiring it would be the only way to mitigate this threat without having to add in a lot of effort.

     The move to acquire Instagram also meant something more to Facebook. It meant that it would now have a better chance of optimizing its ads and bring you more customized ads based on the kind of pictures that you take. The data that Facebook acquires from Instagram is worth billions since it provides Facebook with better metrics of finding out what its fans love and how it can better help them to serve its users better (Hill, 2012).

     Evidently, this move to acquire Instagram was totally worth it as it has not only provided Facebook with more users, but it has also made it possible for Facebook to better understand its users by examining what they like. Facebook then integrates this into their system and helps them to serve their users better. One billion dollars may have been a lot of money, but the kind of benefits that this gives Facebook was priceless.

Acquiring WhatsApp

     The move to acquire Instagram may have taken the online world by surprise, but this move cannot be compared to that of the acquisition of WhatsApp. While Instagram was a big threat to Facebook’s eventual success, WhatsApp was a much bigger threat, especially when it came to the question of providing the best instant messenger (Blodget, 2014). In fact, the acquisition of WhatsApp proved to be the most expensive acquisitions of all time. Standing at $19 billion, Facebook must have had more than enough reasons to purchase WhatsApp, and it is easy to see why. This sum was split into three sections of which Facebook accepted to pay $12 billion in stock for the company, an additional $4 billion for the company itself, and another $3 billion for the founders and staff in stock grants only of they remain employed by Facebook for a duration of four years (Blodget, 2014). Unlike the case with Instagram where the one billion dollar value was easy to come up with and pay off in a flash, the acquisition of WhatsApp was entirely different.

     If we consider the fact that Facebook had an estimated revenue of only $20 million in 2013 alone, we can conclude that this was a staggering amount for Facebook since it represents roughly 10% of Facebook’s overall value (Blodget, 2014). However, the real question lies in whether this was a wise move or a decision that lacked skill and tact.

     For one, WhatsApp had a both offensive and defensive value to Facebook before it was purchased. WhatsApp was a fast-growing company in terms of the users it had. In fact is the fastest-growing company in history under this category to ever have that number of subscribers. The continued growth of the company coupled with the fact that it is now monetizing its users at a cheap rate of $1 for a one-year subscription will mean that the company will be worth much more than what WhatsApp was sold for. We also have to consider the fact that WhatsApp seemed to have been gobbling up users messaging and connection times which once belonged to Facebook. More people were moving to WhatsApp since they indeed found it convenient to use because of its simplicity. However, after the purchase, these users now belong to Facebook. Therefore, the move to buy WhatsApp allowed Facebook to own what would have been termed as “the next Facebook” and also prevent “the next Facebook” from eating away Facebook’s share of subscribers (Blodget, 2014).

Another reason why this was a wise move is because WhatsApp growth rate and usage was simply mind-boggling. It only took five years to have 450 million active monthly users, and approximately 315 million users rely on it every single day (Blodget, 2014). This amounts to a figure of 1 million users every day. Facebook itself used almost six to seven years to have 550 million users of which the number of daily users was much lower than this value. Facebook additionally believes that it will only take a few more years before WhatsApp hits the 1 billion user count of which Facebook itself has only 1.2 billion years after ten years (Blodget, 2014).

     WhatsApp’s simplicity and ease of use are some of the things that draw users to this popular messaging platform. In addition to making it easier for people to send instant messages to each other, it has other useful features such as the ability to send photos, voicemails, and videos to friends (Blodget, 2014). While Facebook could do all these things, it seemingly never paid attention to simplicity and ease of use of which WhatsApp seemed to have a better understanding of.

     WhatsApp’s revenue model is also outstanding and shows greater potential than what other messaging apps have to offer. It charges a mere $1 for a one year service after a user has exhausted the first year of service. Assuming that the current users do pay up this dollar, this would amount to a revenue stream of several millions of dollars from this app alone, and without much effort.

     Additionally, WhatsApp was running on very low costs which make it to be wildly profitable. It had a mere employee count of 55 (Wagstaff, 2014). If we assume an all-in cost of roughly $200,000 for every employee, this creates a total base cost of $11 million. If it grows to a value like 300 employees in the next few years, this will create a cost base of roughly $50 to $70 million, and as the company’s trajectory keeps on increasing, it would not take long before WhatsApp starts raking in a billion dollars in revenue in profit (Blodget, 2014). Evidently, $19 billion for WhatsApp seemed to be a fair deal which Facebook was quick to note.

Facebook in the next 5-8 years

     All that we’ve seen about Facebook is nothing but success so far. While they may have faced certain hurdles at some points, they have not staggered from their course, and that is the most important thing for them anyway. However, trends are revealing that the numbers of Facebook searches are starting to decline, and this can’t certainly be attributed to the reasoning that more and more users are now resorting to type in the web addresses directly into their web browsers.

     Analysts such as Jackson (2012) proclaim that the demise of Facebook will be in about five to eight years. He explains that Facebook will face a tougher road ahead owing to the shift to mobile which is bound to take place in roughly 5 to 8 years. He maintains that the common consensus currently in the industry is that mobile will end up being the next big thing in the next few years as a result of the rapid smartphone uptake in the few years that they’ve been out in the market. Jackson went on to add that Facebook loses money in the mobile industry and merely has simple iPad and iPhone versions of the desktop experience that it is offering. He believes that Facebook is in fact trying to find out how to make money on the web since it had $3.7 billion in revenue in the year 2011 and its revenue was decelerating fast in the first quarter of this year in comparison to the last quarter of the previous year.

     Jackson also adds that Facebook does not have a clue about how it will make money in the mobile. He bases Facebook’s failure on the three generations of internet companies and how they work.

Web 1.0 comprises the companies that were founded during the years 1994-2001. These included sites like Yahoo!, Amazon, Netscape, AOL, and eBay

Web 2.0 consists of the social sites such as Facebook itself, Groupon, and LinkedIn. These companies were founded in the years 2002-2009

Web 3.0 which is currently termed as “mobile” consists of Instagram and has been running since the year 2010

     Jackson maintains that Web 1.0 mainly relied on building something big with plenty of information so that you can get traffic. Web 2.0 ushered in the social platforms where getting connected was the main order of the day while Web 3.0 comes in as purely mobile-focused sets of companies who do not bother with setting up websites. His perception is that the kind of success that each of these generations need is different and that companies which were born in their individual generations are finding it difficult to succeed in the generations that follow them. A good example of this is Google’s Google Plus which aimed at being a social networking site to rival Facebook. While it does have a number of users, its success cannot be comparable to that of Facebook since these two corporations began in different generations.

     Jackson also believes that twitter is inherently a mobile company since it started out as an SMS messaging service, and it stands to do better than Facebook in the next couple of years. In response to the fact that Facebook had acquired Instagram which Jackson himself listed as one of the companies that was on the right path, he concludes that history suggests that the growth of this union will be stunted as part of a different entity rather than left to create their own.

     Consequently, it is easy to see that there is a lot of uncertainty in what will follow Facebook because of the fact that they dwell in a different generation and the fact that its move into the next generation may not be that fruitful. Google Plus is a neat example of Google’s attempt to move into a generation that is not its own, but this has not resulted in a lot of success since Facebook still sits at the throne as the social networking giant. Jackson’s (2012) perception that companies which are now targeting the mobile are destined for more success than those which are targeting the web is true when we bring in the story behind WhatsApp. The app does not base its services online, but rather on the smartphones which are now cropping up, and this might be a reason for its success. However, the fact that Instagram and WhatsApp have been acquired by a corporation which sits in another generation makes Facebook’s success questionable.

     All in all, there is much room for Facebook to keep its users happy and satisfied. Its history may not have been one that is full of struggles, but it surely does pay attention to what the users need and what makes them happy. Facebook has also played its cards right in acquiring different organizations like Instagram and WhatsApp which have the potential of taking its success on a whole new level. The acquisition of WhatsApp in particular stands as one of the best deals that Facebook has ever made so far, and this might have an impact on the number of years that Facebook will still boom the online world. However, a brief analysis of what happened to MySpace cannot blind us to the fact that the future might have something entirely different for the social networking site. The existence of different generations of internet companies stands to pull Facebook out of its race, and eventually wiping it out just the same way that MySpace was wiped out.

References

Alexa.com,. (2014). Alexa Top 500 Global Sites. Retrieved 9 May 2014, from Alexa website: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Blodget, H. (2014). Everyone Who Thinks Facebook Is Stupid To Buy WhatsApp For $19 Billion Should Think Again ... Retrieved 6 May 2014, from Business Insider website: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-facebook-buying-whatsapp-2014-2#!JleDS

Carlson, N. (2010). At Last -- The Full Story Of How Facebook Was Founded. Retrieved 6 May 2014, , from Business Insider website: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3?op=1#!JesNR

Curtis, A. (2014). The Brief History of Social Media. Retrieved 9 May 2014, from www2.uncp.edu website: http://www2.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/NewMedia/SocialMedia/SocialMediaHistory.html

Hill, K. (2012). 10 Reasons Why Facebook Bought Instagram. Forbes. Retrieved 6 May 2014, from Forbes website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/04/11/ten-reasons-why-facebook-bought-instagram/

Jackson, E. (2012). Here's Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years. Retrieved 6 May 2014, from Forbes website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/04/30/heres-why-google-and-facebook-might-completely-disappear-in-the-next-5-years/

Jain, A. (2014). Facebook Inc (FB) Acquisitions In 2014. Retrieved 9 May 2014, from Value Walk website: http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/04/facebook-inc-fb-acquisitions-in-2014/

Prigg, M. (2014). Facebook has peaked and will lose 80% of users, researchers say. Retrieved 6 May 2014, from Mail Online website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2544200/Facebook-like-infectious-disease-claim-researchers-say-peaked-lose-80-percent-users-YEAR.html

Wagstaff, K. (2014). WhatsApp's 55 Employees Are Rich. So Now What? - NBC News. Retrieved 9 May 2014, from NBC NEWS website: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/whatsapps-55-employees-are-rich-so-now-what-n34851