We consistently underestimate Facebook. We underestimate how much it has, and continues to, change communication, society, and indeed, the world. Moreover, we continue to underestimate its performance, identity, and future as a company.
I have written before on my skin-crawling revulsion for people’s claims of Facebook’s decline, or premature declaration of death. It. Is. Always. Bunk.
It is the social media reporter/researcher’s equivalent of being the “boy who cried wolf.” It is grandiose, and attention-seeking. And as I advised in the piece in which I decried this phenomenon, this sort of prediction is typically made by someone whose skills and expertise are also bunk.
Shockingly, in mid-January, Princeton University also joined this canon of misguided critics, by releasing a scathing study stating that Facebook will lose 80% of its users by 2017. As a result, for at least the next 48 hours that followed, anyone who wanted to baselessly appease an audience was more than happy to report it as a valid headline (I watched, disappointed, oatmeal bowl in hand, as CBC Newsworld broke the story first thing in the morning).
I will not go into why the study was flawed. Particularly when Facebook did it better than anyone could by using the same mistaken methodology to prove that by 2021, Princeton would lose 100% of its students. Suffice to say, Princeton was wrong.
However, being the venerated Ivy League institution that they are, they can be forgiven. They are not the first, and will definitely not be the last to make such a claim. And for those who would like to in the future, I would like to offer a couple contemplative points of consideration on the social network’s past, present, and future. My hope is that perhaps this will give pause before one decides to ring the old Facebook death knell.
Past
Now this is not a jab at him, it is just me being sensational. What I mean is that Zuckerberg had no idea of the greater significance of what he made, when he made it, and particularly its implications and the potential for what it could become, whether in communication, business, tech, politics, or society.
Really, who could? It would be like expecting the inventor of the wheel (or at least a medieval wagon-maker) to be able envision a combustion engine.
Certainly he has greater vision now, but remember that this also due to the multitude of brilliance that surrounds him, is employed by the company, and is driven by the very fact that Facebook is a social endeavour that, by and large, the world has bought into, participates in, builds, and guides on its way.
So, to those considering making a claim on its longevity, remember that Zuckerberg beat you to it, and he has since proven himself wrong.
Present
Ironically, while facing the claims of decline, or losing 80% of its users by 2017, in late January Facebook still pulled in record numbers (stocks at an all-time high, $2.6bil revenue, and continued overall growth). Although traditional business metrics may not be the most accurate representation of a company’s future, they certainly present a position that is difficult to argue with.
Additionally, a frequent claim is that despite its continued increase in users, Facebook is declining in popularity among youth, particularly teens. This is true, but as Mashable reports, it is also levelling off.
Moreover, this points to Facebook’s adaptability. It is always worthwhile to note that while Facebook is trailblazing, it was not a trailblazer. It asserted itself because it was able to read the failings of companies that came before it. As a result of that foresight (derived from other’s hindsight), and now given its current size and resources, it is able to read, grow, and evolve from its own mistakes.
In regards to the youth, and services that they may be going towards. Sure, SnapChat, and WhatsApp exist, but they are merely components of the broader services that Facebook does, can, and could provide. If anything, what they expose to Facebook are merely gaps to fill, and when they cannot fill them by acquiring them outright (as Facebook did with Instagram, and has tried with SnapChat), they can just look to provide a similar service that renders the "offender" all but irrelevant (as Facebook did with FourSquare).
Future
I really don’t know where to begin here, and could go on for days.
So let’s say, Warren Buffet.
Warren Buffet will not buy into Facebook, because for him, simply put, it is “unproven.”
However, that’s also the key to why Facebook will not decline, because it simply can’t be proven. Being the leader in an industry that both shapes, and is directly shaped by human interaction and behaviour, makes you less a business than it does a living, breathing, evolving organism.
Facebook has shown this capacity to evolve, moreover, that this capacity is born out of the participation of people worldwide, the production of content, the creation of data, and the desire to share. Original iterations of the site recalled platforms popular among youth of the day (MSN chat, ICQ, email), on mediums that were equally as popular (desktop PCs, laptops). Now, we already see Facebook moving to encompass current communication trends (focused circles, privacy), and on prevailing mediums (mobile).
Facebook is a company, but it is also an entity, much like Google, it is something that cannot be defined (i.e. Google is NOT a search engine), as such, is incredibly difficult to identify as a “prudent investment” by traditional financial means.
More importantly, Facebook is not “social media,” and for that matter, neither is social media a “thing.” We need to stop thinking this way, Facebook IS social, and social media IS human communication.
