I've been pondering our venture's pricing strategy lately, and it's sparked all kinds of thoughts about the free web 2.0 world. At a time when companies that serve free web apps, like Facebook, are having trouble monetizing (and having their valuations lowered as a result), one of the questions that they are surely asking themselves is whether they could move to some kind of subscription model to create new revenue streams and increased profitability. Before discounting this idea completely with arguments of Koppelman's 'penny-gap' theory and low switching costs between social networking services, let us consider the fundamental idea behind pricing and ask ourselves what price facebook could charge in exchange for their services, if anything.
Price is a direct reflection of value. The more something adds value to a customer's life, the more he is willing to pay for it. Therefore the first question is what value does Facebook add to my daily life?
The ComScore results in march suggested that on average people spend a total of 20 minutes EACH DAY on the service. It is a tool for organizing our social lives, networking, chatting, organizing photos and, increasingly, a platform for sharing information; a center for all things Web 2.0 that has driven internet use through the roof. Then we should have no doubt that Facebook adds considerable value to our lives. The question then is how does that translate to a price?
Though it may be a gross oversimplification, the price point would be the one we'd be willing to pay just before switching to a rival service. While some might argue that switching costs are negligible, Facebook has a number of competitive advantages that make these costs substantial. These include the network effect, unwillingness to manage multiple profiles, loyalty, inability to transfer all photos and profile, etc. So then let's imagine that Facebook were to implement a policy that either forced us to pay 1 cent per month or to watch an additional advertisement to receive 12 cents in revenue over the course of the year per customer. That means that with 100+ million users, they increase revenue by over a million dollars each month!
Now let's ask ourselves, is that 'charge' that facebook imposes on its customer in exchange for a very useful service likely to drive people away? Probably not. What the ideal price point would be will require a lot of research but it does leave us wondering why they wouldn't consider implementing a comparable policy to boost their revenues and valuation. What amazes me even more is the fact that they haven't created less invasive premium-service based revenue stream, such as bringing SmugMug type functionality to the photo app, which would certainly generate even more substantial revenues than charging subscription fees.
All signs are now pointing to targeted advertisements not being an optimal revenue source for web 2.0 tech. With companies like Facebook issuing equity valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, investors should really be pushing to develop the business in order to maximize shareholder value. Whether they would is another story, but from the logic described above I believe that they could make a strong case to do so.
