It took several years and several underwriting and Nasdaq related blunders, but Facebook has finally gone public. That's publicly traded, of course. Technically, Facebook and all its "friends" have been public domain for quite some time, and sometimes to the detriment of those who post less than flattering photos.
It seemed like Facebook stock was ready for prime time forever. Well, at least since the release of "The Social Network". The financial analysts and everyday investors pondered alike. Would this be the next Apple or Google? Or maybe the next Linked In? No matter. Either way, people couldn't wait to get their mitts on Facebook shares.
And as the IPO date became closer to reality, a burst of negativity came out of the woodwork. First, GM announced that it was pulling all of their national advertising from Facebook. Next, the media pundits went on the attack for Facebook's lack of a mobile strategy. And this led quickly to a sudden realization that maybe this company really didn't have a clear path to make money.
Has Facebook timed their public stock around "jumping the shark", or as it's known in their world as "Friending Jaws?" Probably not. However, they do have to find other ways to make money beyond advertising and Farmville.
So, I have a few suggestions on how Facebook can restore confidence in their shareholders, and extract a few more shekels from their loyal customers.
First, their should be a limit on the number of photos you're allowed to post. The first 50 are free. After that, it's 25 cents per picture. So choose wisely. Before you post another shot of you drunk in the Hamptons, your kid at Mommy and Me, or your 80th holiday picture, you may want to think twice. Fortunately, we all assume that our friends want to see everything that we post, so users will pay and pay dearly.
On the flip side, Facebook needs to charge a fee for anyone who chooses to "like"anything. If you like a photo, it's 10 cents. Like what's on someone's mind? 25 cents. Like a video? 50 cents. As we're all compelled to not only show everyone our lives, but also comment on other's, this is sure to be a golden egg for Facebook.
The next tier of revenue will come from Timeline. This less than successful upgrade is a dog, but people have been led to believe that this would suddenly enrich their Facebook experience. Here's a newsflash. It doesn't. But just because a majority of users were so quick to switch, you smack them with a $2.99 per month sub fee. You actually like Timeline? No problem, just keep paying monthly. This price structure would work like a premium channel on your cable bill where people would write a check without thinking.
The next item on the menu is a charge for "invitations." You want to invite someone to an event? Pay per invite. Do you feel compelled to ask people to join one of your online groups? Fine. Just open your wallet. What do you think Facebook is, a charity? They're for profit now baby, so no more free lunches.
And last but not least, it's time to pony up for Facebook chat. You pay for your landline and for your cell service, so just add this to your monthly expenses. If you're too lazy to speak with your friends by telephone, or better yet in person, then you should be prepared to be charged for the privilege of being anti-social.
Of course, to avoid all of these inevitable fees, there is one obvious solution:
Spend less time on Facebook.
Go out and see people. Show them pictures on your mobile phone. Or better yet, tell them stories about your weekend or vacation. Remember when you used to do hat? People would ask us how we were doing and we'd do something really novel. We'd tell them. Not show them.
Show don't tell works great in the movies, but not so much in real life. So maybe we're all at a crossroads. Either pay the eventual fees charged by Facebook's social media public platform.......or do something that we were all once accustomed to doing for free.
Socialize in public. Only time will tell if we're all foolish enough to pay for play.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The Voice
I don't watch karaoke reality shows. That would exclude me from the obvious. No "American Idol," and not a single installment from "The Voice."
Programs like these never made sense to me. After all, why are we supporting the artificial manufacturing of unknown voices? Especially when it's attached to winning a contest. I could understand if you went to see live music in the Village, heard a band that blew you away, and now you want to use every form of social media to get the word out. But karaoke with judges? No thanks.
Instead, I think we should be celebrating the past. And not just anyone. I mean the masters. The ones that all these wannabes mimic on these Glee-infested shows. So, I thought it was high time to honor the Top 10 greatest vocalists in Rock N Roll history.
I write this with great risk, as this list can be argued right down to the octave with the fervor of two men at a bar deciding on the world's greatest pitcher. But, I'll take my chances. So in no particular order:
STEVE PERRY - Journey - It's a shame his voice didn't hold up over the long term, but in his prime, few belted stronger. Whether hard rock or a ballad, he nailed it.
JOHN ANDERSON - YES - Some people didn't like the falsetto in a progressive rock band, but surrounded by some of the greatest musicians in the field, his voice often rose above.
BONO- U2 - The political angst of the band's early work was communicated perfectly through his Irish pipes, and as U2's sound matured, so did his voice.
PAUL RODGERS - Free, Bad Company, The Firm, Queen - He's fronted the largest number of bands in rock history. He's managed a pure, natural and powerful sound for decades and even stood in for the great Freddie Mercury.
ROBERT PLANT - Led Zeppelin - Often imitated, but never duplicated, this soulful, pre-metal, rock singer managed to race neck and neck with Jimmy Page's original guitar riffs.
FREDDIE MERCURY - Queen - Rock met Opera, and only he could have pulled it off. His voice often seemed too good for the music. He led Rock's first real supergroup.
BURTON CUMMINGS - Guess Who - Who? The least glamorous on the list, and probably the least well known. But think about the power behind "American Woman" and "No Time" and you see how he stands amongst the greats.
PETER GABRIEL - Genesis - His solo career was equal to his success with Genesis for one reason: His wailing voice didn't sound like anyone that came before or after.
CHRIS CORNELL - Temple of the Dog, Soundgarden, Audioslave - His vocals can be heard on tracks from 3 different groups and he blows through songs effortlessly. A James Bond theme to his credit doesn't hurt either.
JOHN WETTON - King Crimson, Asia - His most famous group, Asia, was dubbed a supergroup with an all-star at every position. His vocals were up to the task.
Honorable mention; Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull)
Well, that's it. Let the debate begin!!! Omissions? Complaints? Don't be shy.
Feel free to "voice" your opinion.
Programs like these never made sense to me. After all, why are we supporting the artificial manufacturing of unknown voices? Especially when it's attached to winning a contest. I could understand if you went to see live music in the Village, heard a band that blew you away, and now you want to use every form of social media to get the word out. But karaoke with judges? No thanks.
Instead, I think we should be celebrating the past. And not just anyone. I mean the masters. The ones that all these wannabes mimic on these Glee-infested shows. So, I thought it was high time to honor the Top 10 greatest vocalists in Rock N Roll history.
I write this with great risk, as this list can be argued right down to the octave with the fervor of two men at a bar deciding on the world's greatest pitcher. But, I'll take my chances. So in no particular order:
STEVE PERRY - Journey - It's a shame his voice didn't hold up over the long term, but in his prime, few belted stronger. Whether hard rock or a ballad, he nailed it.
JOHN ANDERSON - YES - Some people didn't like the falsetto in a progressive rock band, but surrounded by some of the greatest musicians in the field, his voice often rose above.
BONO- U2 - The political angst of the band's early work was communicated perfectly through his Irish pipes, and as U2's sound matured, so did his voice.
PAUL RODGERS - Free, Bad Company, The Firm, Queen - He's fronted the largest number of bands in rock history. He's managed a pure, natural and powerful sound for decades and even stood in for the great Freddie Mercury.
ROBERT PLANT - Led Zeppelin - Often imitated, but never duplicated, this soulful, pre-metal, rock singer managed to race neck and neck with Jimmy Page's original guitar riffs.
FREDDIE MERCURY - Queen - Rock met Opera, and only he could have pulled it off. His voice often seemed too good for the music. He led Rock's first real supergroup.
BURTON CUMMINGS - Guess Who - Who? The least glamorous on the list, and probably the least well known. But think about the power behind "American Woman" and "No Time" and you see how he stands amongst the greats.
PETER GABRIEL - Genesis - His solo career was equal to his success with Genesis for one reason: His wailing voice didn't sound like anyone that came before or after.
CHRIS CORNELL - Temple of the Dog, Soundgarden, Audioslave - His vocals can be heard on tracks from 3 different groups and he blows through songs effortlessly. A James Bond theme to his credit doesn't hurt either.
JOHN WETTON - King Crimson, Asia - His most famous group, Asia, was dubbed a supergroup with an all-star at every position. His vocals were up to the task.
Honorable mention; Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull)
Well, that's it. Let the debate begin!!! Omissions? Complaints? Don't be shy.
Feel free to "voice" your opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)