The financial details that we’ve speculated over are now public and we can now make more than informed guesses about what Facebook is worth.

What jumps out when first looking at Facebook’s financial figures is the exponential growth in their revenue from 153 million dollars in 2007 to $3,700 million last year. A twenty-fold increase over four years.

Expenses though haven’t grown at the same rate going from 277 million to 1.95 billion over the same period. Like all bigger social media and web 2.0 companies, sales and marketing is the biggest expense.

The Google Experience

The closest comparison to Facebook is Google’s float in 2004. Google floated at a market capitalisation of 23 billion dollars on a reported revenue in their SEC statement of 389 million.

At the time, Google’s profit margins were substantially lower with costs coming in at 234 million. These figures alone indicate Facebook today is a better prospect that Google was at the time of being floated.

Google today is valued at $190 billion on a revenue of $38 billion and a profit of $25 billion. On those measures, Facebook investors will be expecting that exponential growth to continue.

Growing Income

How Facebook continues to grow their revenue is the big question. Currently over half of their revenue comes from advertising in the United States and the bulk of the rest from Canada, Australia and Western Europe.

If online advertising continues to grow spectacularly, as a  2010 Morgan Stanley research paper illustrated then  Facebook, as the biggest social medial platform, will get a large slice of that $50 billion global market opportunity. This in itself would justify their valuation.

One of Facebook’s biggest growth opportunities comes from games. Already Zynga, the developers of Farmville and Mafia Wars, contribute 12% of Facebook’s revenues.

The global games business is valued at 60 billion dollars and much of this market is moving to web based, online platforms. Facebook’s 30% cut of income from games on their service is another lucrative revenue stream with few operating costs.

While advertising remains Facebook’s main income stream, other payments from games and online payments went from almost 0 in 2010 to nearly 17% of income at the end of 2011.

The threats

This isn’t to say Facebook doesn’t face any threats in their businesses. The concentration of income from North America, Europe and Australia exposes how the service is a first world phenomenon, although they have high penetration rates in some countries like Chile and hope to achieve similar in India.

Social media though is a fast moving field and there are plenty of opportunities for upstart businesses to displace Facebook just as MySpace faded away.

In their established markets there’s the question of how sustainable social media as an advertising platform is; until recently social media was a novelty to most households and still is to businesses and advertisers.

User fatigue is possible in the mature markets and Facebook – along with other social media services – not achieve the advertising revenue they hope.

Privacy issues are also another concern; as users realise the value of their private information it may be that they demand more for it than seeing where their friends are drinking or playing an online game for free.

Overall though, Facebook does appear to be worth the 50 billion dollar valuation when compared to other similar businesses like Google and is probably more sensibly priced than recent other IPOs like Groupon and Zynga.

Whether the service will deliver on its promise remains to be seen, but those are the risks when investing in new industries.

Most of this criticism of Twitter revolves around the belief that every message should only edited or deleted by the person who posted the tweet.

Anything else a breach of free speech and a threat to the underlying principles of the internet.

That utopian view of the Internet doesn’t translate into real life; the online world is as subject to laws as any other part of life and social media companies have to comply with the same laws as newspaper organisations or fast food chains.

Regardless of what you think of those laws – and in many countries they certainly are unreasonable and oppressive – they do matter.

Were Twitter not to comply then the entire service would be at least blocked in those countries and, should an action be enforced in a US court, then the tweet removed anyway for every user around the world.

By introducing country specific blocking, the service can let the rest of the world see a tweet that would otherwise be lost and in countries with restrictive or authoritarian laws, local people can still use the service.

A particularly clever way of dealing with removal requests is to note that the specific message has been blocked in a country. This adds a level of transparency and accountability to the actions of courts and governments that want to close the service.

We can see that being particularly effective in jurisdictions like the UK where British judges have been quick to apply “superinjunctions” preventing the merest mention of something by anybody.

Should Britain’s overeager judges start demanding Twitter block tweets, those in the UK will quickly realise something is amiss. The effect will probably be to increase the interest in the blocked tweets that can be seen anywhere around the world.

Despite the utopian view that transparency and openess will solve the world’s problems, we don’t live in that world right now and people can – rightly or wrongly – ask that false, defamatory and damaging posts on the Internet can be removed.

Interestingly Google this morning announced they will be introducing a similar system to deal with country specific problems on their blogger platform.

Twitter’s handled this in the best way possible, in many ways this could be a step forward for social media and the Internet in general.

Some of the topics we’ll be looking at include;

• What are the minimum ages for using Facebook
• How should parents monitor usage
• Setting up privacy settings
• Being careful about sharing
• Deciding what applications should you allow
• How do other social networks affect your family

We love to hear from listeners so feel free call in with your questions or comments on 1300 222 702 or text on 19922702. If you’re on Twitter you can tweet 702 Sydney on @702sydney and Paul at @paulwallbank.

Despite the risk of impending disaster, I had a play with Google search and found the results to be far better than the established sites like Yahoo! and Altavista. Millions of others agreed.

Quickly Google became the definitive search engine. If you were serious about finding information on the web then Google was the way you found it.

For a while we wondered how Google would make money, it turned out that linking advertising to the search results was immensely profitable and the company quickly became one of the richest in the world.

Today, Google’s decided their searches will be something else. Rather than being a trusted source they’ll tell us what our friend think.

Which is great if our friends are trusted sources on Aristotle, post colonial South American politics, how to book sleepers on the Trans-Siberian or the best pie shop in Bathurst. But it’s kind of tricky if they aren’t.

As much as I love and enjoy the company of my friends both online and offline, not many of them are authorities in anything – except possibly pie shops.

This the flaw at the heart of integrating search and social media, they are two different things and we have different expectations for them.

As Pando Daily’s MG Seigler puts it; “Evil, Greed, And Antitrust Aren’t Google’s Real Problems, Relevancy Is.”

For most of my online searches, my friends views and ideas aren’t relevant. If they are, I already know how to find them.

The prediction is that tinkering with search will not end well for Google, it’s hard to disagree if we lose confidence in their results.

Google revolutionised the Internet when the service appeared just over a decade ago, the search engine’s clean and reliable results saw it quickly capture two thirds of the market from then competitors like Altavista and Yahoo!.

One of the keys to that success was trust – Google’s users had a fair degree of confidence that the service’s results would be an accurate representation of whatever they were looking for on the web.

With the continuing integration of social media services, local search, paid advertising and travel services into those search results, it’s time to ask whether we can continue to trust what Google delivers us.

Google’s attempt to become a social media service is seeing results being skewed with by Google Plus profiles. Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan yesterday illustrated how Google+ profiles are changing Google’s search results.

One thing that notable in these searches – and Google’s behaviour in enforcing “real names” on its Plus social media service – is the importance of brands and celebrities.

It’s no coincidence in the example Danny Sullivan shows above that typing “Brit” into a Google search comes up with the instant suggestions of Brittany Spears and British Airways.

More troubling is Google’s foray into travel with the purchase of  travel software company ITA. The travel industry site Tnooz recently looked at how searches for flights is now returning results from Google’s own service before the airlines or other travel websites.

Another of Google’s search strengths was the clean interface. When advertising was introduced, most users accepted this was the cost of a free service. Today a search result on Google is cluttered with Google+ suggestions, local business locations, travel results along with the ubiquitious advertising.

Suddenly Google’s search results aren’t looking so good and when you do find them, you can’t be sure they haven’t been skewed by the search engine’s determination to kill Google, Facebook or the online travel industry.

If it were only search and online advertising that Google was tinkering with, we could excuse this as being an innovative company experimenting with new business models in a developing industry, but a bigger problem lies outside its core business.

The purchase of Motorola Mobility – which is still subject to US government approval – changes the game for Google. Motorola Mobility employs 19,000 staff, increasing Google’s headcount by 60%.

Even if Google has only bought Motorola for the patents, closing down or divesting the operations and laying off nearly twenty thousand staff would be a big enough management distraction but there is real possibility though that Google want to make phones.

Google as a phone manufacturer, their previous attempt with the Nexus One wasn’t a great success, creates the problem of channel conflict with its partners who sell mobile phones with the Android operating system installed.

Right now those partners are having great success selling phones through mobile telcommunications companies who desperately want an alternative to the iPhone given they perceive, quite correctly, that Apple is taking their customers and the associated profits.

Apart from Apple the incumbents of the mobile phone industry are failing as Motorola have given up and are selling themselves to Google while Nokia are desperately seeking salvation in the arms of Microsoft.

Microsoft’s failure to take advantage of Google’s missteps is also instructive. Microsoft seem to be unable to capitalise on the conflicts in the mobile handset industry with Windows Phone while their competing search engine, Bing, seems to following Google’s cluttered inferface and anti-competitive practices.

With Microsoft largely out of the way with as an innovative competitor, it has fallen on newer business to challenge Google.

In social media we clearly have Facebook and Twitter while in phones Apple is by far the biggest and most profitable opponent, something emphasised by Google giving Android away for free.

The biggest question though is who can replace Google in web search, while there are worthy attempts like DuckDuckGo, Blekko and even Microsoft Bing, it’s difficult to see one of these displacing the dominant player right now.

Which isn’t to say it can’t happen; as we see with the examples of Nokia, Motorola and possibly Microsoft, the speed of change in modern business means empires fall quickly.

For Google, the lack of management focus on their core businesses may well cost them dearly in the next few years if web users stop trusting the company’s search results.

While there’s still a nagging doubt as to whether the @rupertmurdoch account is real, despite the assurances of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, there’s a few lessons other new users can draw from Rupert’s experience.

Shut up and listen

One of the unfortunate things about social media is how everybody assumes their voice has to be heard. It’s a mistake we all make when we first join theses services.

Like social contexts, it’s best to be quiet when you first join until you’ve figured out the protocols, manners and dynamics of the group.

Just stumbling in and blasting your opinions out doesn’t usually work well whether we’re at the pub, mothers’ group, updating Facebook or posting on Twitter. The key is to understand why you are there.

It’s about community

The first word in social media is “social”, these online services are a society and just restricting your circle to a select few isn’t go to give you a great deal of benefit.

Rupert Murdoch’s account is a good example of how many people restrict themselves; at the time of writing he’s following five users. If it really is Rupert Murdoch behind the account, he’s missing some good and relevant stuff.

If the person behind the account is really a new user, then they are probably wondering what all the fuss is about as two of the five accounts they are following haven’t been updated in months.

What’s your objective?

Why are you here is a good question. Have you come to listen to customers, learn from industry leaders, spruik a product, find a job, catch up with the folks or be one of the online hipsters?

All of these and any other zillion objectives are perfectly valid reasons for joining a social media service. So listening and posting in ways that help your objectives makes sense, as does following the right people.

The whole point of using social media services – be it Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or any of the other hundreds of online networking platforms – is to listen, learn and talk with your peers and the leaders of the areas you’re interested in. Perhaps you’ll even be considered a leader, as Rupert Murdoch certainly is.

Starting by listening and understanding how a social media service works and where it adds value for you will make using the site a far better investment of your time.

For the social media community this is encouraging as it shows that businesses are beginning understand there the value in online networks. It also illustrates the risks for both businesses and employees when these tools aren’t properly understood in the workplace.

The employer’s risks

As social media sites are one of ways businesses communicate with the public, managers have to understand these services are an asset too important to be left to the intern or youngest staff member in the office.

Should that intern move on – possibly at the next college semester – the business may find they are locked out of the account or it is even deleted.

Business pages and accounts should be set up in the name of senior people in the organisation and, where possible, administration should be shared by the relevant unit in the organisation (customer support, marketing or whatever).

The nominal owner and administrators should understand that the account is the property of the business and all posts on it will be work related and not personal.

When one of the administrators or owners leave the organisation, login details should be handed over and passwords need to be changed. Where possible, the ownership should be changed to another employee – this is one of the current problems with Google+ accounts at the moment.

Employers need to understand that the professional contacts individuals make during the course of their work isn’t their property, so trying to claim the personal LinkedIn contacts and Twitter followers of an employee’s private account probably will not be successful.

Similarly social media services like LinkedIn are not Customer Relationship Management programs (CRMs) and using them that way, as a company called Edcomm did, will almost certainly end up with problems and a possible dispute.

Traps for employees

When given a work social media account to maintain, it’s best to consider it as being like your work email – it’s best to use it for business related purposes only and you’ll have to give it up when you leave the organisation.

If you’re being held out as a representative of the business, as we see in the Phonedog_Noah dispute over a business Twitter account, then it’s best to set up a private account for your own use and not use the business account after leaving the organisation, even if they don’t ask for it when you leave.

On sites like LinkedIn and Facebook you should change your employment status as soon as you leave an organisation to make it clear you’re no longer working there. If you’ve left on bad terms, resist the temptation to insult your former employer when you change your details.

Staff using social media have to be aware that can be held accountable in the workplace for things they do on their personal online accounts; sexual harassment, abusing customers and workplace bullying through a Facebook or Twitter account can all result in disciplinary action.

In many ways the disputes we’re seeing on social media services reflect what we’ve seen in many other fields over the years – the ownership of intellectual property, professional contacts and even access to websites have all been thoroughly covered by the courts over the years and there’s little in these disagreements that would surprise a good lawyer.

With all business disputes though, it’s best to resolve them before lawyers and writs start being involved. Clearly defining and understanding what is expected of both employers and staff can save a lot of cost and stress.

As the Dealmix points out, “daily deals can either hurt or help small businesses, depending on how they’re structured.”

In figuring out whether a deal will work, Dealmix breaks a group buying deal into four elements; expiration, quantity, terms and price;

Pricing the deal

Of all the areas, the pricing is the most critical. Get this wrong and you won’t achieve your objectives and it could be very quickly drive you out of business.

The Dealmix recommends two ways of pricing an offer – by making a net profit on the deal or structuring it a way that the customer’s total spend  offsets the cost of the offer.

Using Average Customer Spend, or ACS, to estimate how much a customer will spend is problematic with specials and group buying deals as the takers are not going to be your average customers.

It’s likely group buying customers are going to be far less open with their wallets than your regulars. Trying to upsell price conscious is probably what brings cafes and restaurants unstuck with many of these deals.

Both methods rely on knowing the Cost Of Goods Sold and the Average Customer Spend. Notable in the stories of group buying disasters is just how many business owners don’t understand these basics.

If you don’t know what the total cost is to your business in providing the goods or services, you should be talking to an accountant before going near these deals.

Also keep in mind the group buying service is going to take their cut which will be between 15 and 100% depending on the size and nature of the deal. For many businesses the commission is a deal breaker.

Quantity

The biggest complaint from customers about group buying offers is the deals are booked out for months – it’s also how service businesses find themselves overwhelmed by the response to a keenly priced offer.

Again, before launching a group buying offer, understand the spare capacity of your business and ensure there is a maximum limit to the number of deals available – as The Dealmix points out, a sold out deal is a great marketing tool.

Terms

Conditions are probably the trickiest; put in too many gotchas and you’ll scare customers away or find yourself fighting with the 90% of clients who buy the deal without reading the T&Cs.

You can guarantee some of those fights will end up being public and it’s unlikely your business will win the public relations battle. This is not your business objective.

Make sure key terms like what days the deal is available on, maximum limits, types of service are reasonable and clearly defined at the time of the offer.

Expiration

When the deal expires is the key condition, it’s madness offering deals that never expires as they can come back to haunt you for years and it may even affect the resale value of your business.

The Dealmix suggests not restricting it to a month as you’ll be overwhelmed with customers while leaving it too long will dilute the value and any measurements.

Ideally the deal will last three to six months, which is another reason for understanding your business’ capacity at various times of the year.

Timing the expiry is important to, as The Dealmix suggests, the deal shouldn’t finish on a busy day and equally you should consider when your business is the quietest. If things are slow during school holidays, summer or Christmas then that might be the time you want to have the last minute rush of redemptions happening.

Business Planning

Probably the most important aspect of a group buying deal is how does it fit into your business objectives. Are you intending to build a customer base, contact list, pubicise your business, clear stock or give sales a boost? Those objectives are going to determine how you structure the offer.

As The Dealmix’s diagram shows, group buying deals are complex and the merchant has to give some thought on getting the offer right. Those business who do get the mix right can do very well from a well thought out online offer.

Like all business tools, group buying sites can be really useful when done well. The key is understanding what you’re doing with that tool.

We discuss group buying and building your own campaign in e-business, Seven Steps to Online Success. If you need help or advice in building an offer, Netsmarts can help you.

A constant in business is that anything that vaguely involves electricity gets flicked to the IT guru – setting up a phone’s speed dial, clearing a jammed photocopier or resetting the office burglar alarm are all things tech support gets called to fix. They breathe a sigh of relief that electric typewriters aren’t around anymore.

In the early of the Internet, it was the techs who were asked to set company web sites – which is like asking your plumber to run a cafe because making coffee involves water.

Of course some IT folk turned out to be good at designing websites – just as some plumbers turn out to be world class baristas – but it’s a gamble finding out.

Today the poor tech support teams in the less proactive organisations find themselves lumbered with the social media duties, something most of them don’t care about and barely understand themselves.

For those businesses, the problem is the corporate social media accounts are now the shopfront along with customer support and, with most journalists using social media, the PR department as well.

If you’re happy with your geeks looking after your media relations, sales and customer support then ask the IT department to look after the website and social media. Otherwise, you might want to take things a bit more seriously.

Leaving Facebook isn’t easy, but it can be done and we’ve covered closing down a Facebook profile on the Netsmarts website.

The December Nightlife spot looked at a lot of social media issues and answered other listener’s questions about some of the challenges online. Some of those questions are listed on the page and the program

December’s spot was the last for 2011 and next scheduled Nightlife spot will be on February 9 however we will probably have some segments over the Christmas period and we’ll let newsletter subscribers know as we find out.