Why Facebook is not in decline
The news of Facebook’s apparent decline in user numbers as reported by a marketing blog has prompted all kinds of speculation about the future of what web trafficking service Alexa has called the world’s biggest social network. According to Inside Facebook, the website is experiencing its first decline in users in what could be deemed its core markets of the US, Canada and UK.
Some commentators have seized on this news as an indicator of any number of negatives: networks reaching saturation point; the novelty of attracting large networks of weak ties losing its appeal; Facebook’s laissez-faire attitude to privacy finally catching up with it; or Twitter proving a more engaging alternative.
Any of these could be considered reasonable analyses – after all if you have 687 million user accounts you won’t be able to please everyone – but before any conclusions can be reached, a cursory examination of the methodology casts doubt over its accuracy in identifying any kind of trend.
Down/Up
Inside Facebook’s report started the firestorm of publicity with claims that the month of May saw a noticeable decline in traffic (down 5% to 149.4 million users). Similar declines were reported in Canada (down 1.2% to 16.6 million) and the UK (down 3% to 29.5 million users).
Media outlets were quick to seize on the story and use it as a springboard to picture the decline as some kind of karma for Facebook’s taking one too many liberties thanks to the introduction of automated ‘face tagging’ of photos posted to the website. This makes for great copy, and lends credence to the view that the great social media bubble could be about to burst before Facebook’s inevitable IPO next year. But let’s drill down into the figures to see what else we can learn.
According to Inside Facebook’s own figures, the user base is continuing to grow on last year in all territories. The US is up 45.2% in the past year, Canada up 7.4%, and the UK up 11.1% on the same period last year. Emerging markets continue to thrive, according to Inside Facebook. China is up 300.3%, India 152.4%, Thailand 132.9% and Peru 131.5% to name but a few of the countries experiencing triple-digit growth.
These figures are only going to improve through a combination of increased populations and migration from the likes of the ailing MySpace and Bebo, although networks with strong local footprints like Google’s Orkut in Brazil and dedicated Polish network Nasza-klasa.pl should be unmoved.
Even then, migration may not be a massive issue. Keeping multiple profiles according to need is the new norm. It is not unusual for someone to have LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter accounts, not to mention aliases within networks to tap different groups of people.
The most damning criticism of Inside Facebook’s figures comes from within Facebook itself, and has nothing to do with the predictable refutation via press release.
Measured response
Inside Facebook claimed its report was based on statistics coming from Facebook’s internal advertising metrics tool – a measure which Facebook itself has admitted to being buggy and under constant development – and not on account deletions. So, first off, there is a recognition that the right tool for the job is either still in a refinement phase, or might not even exist yet.
Less sophisticated are the distortions that can occur through seasonal factors like college exams and holidays. In short, people just have more important/fun things to do during the summer months – as teachers, office managers and anyone who follows the Live Register can attest to.
The final indictment of Inside Facebook’s data, beyond the inability to identify a seasonal trend, is a lack of retrospective information. Established in April 2010, Inside Facebook (a commercial entity that charges $295 a month for access to premium content) lacks the ability to plot the overall trend in either user base or traffic or have its data independently verified and audited.
There are innumerable factors that will affect Facebook’s traffic: the use of mobile devices; daily traffic (65% of users are estimated to log in at least once a day); account deletions (as opposed to making them dormant); user mortality (a big problem in waiting); alias accounts as political tools; the use of proxy servers to indicate users being in different countries to where they actually are; and the proliferation of mobile devices, specifically tablets and PCs. None of these are predictable or quantifiable trends and that, in turn, feeds into the mystique of what social networks should actually be worth.
The scramble for statistics and trends is a flawed endeavour at the best of times. To make grand statements in the absence of robust research, technological and social context seriously undermines the relevance of any analysis.
If social media sceptics and the digerati want to write Facebook obituaries they might be better served to wait to see what the market thinks of it. If you want to choose a metric, that’s about as good as it gets.
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers