MySpace up for sale
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
Not that I can see it happening.
Yes, MySpace is far from ideal, but is there a competing service that checks all of these boxes?
I disagree, and I spent a year working with MySpace in the relative hay-days of 2007-2008.
You could write a book on why Facebook has succeeded and MySpace hasn't... but the two headline thoughts for me are that:
1) MySpace was generational, Facebook is pan-generational. MySpace took everything that was current and popular in the early to mid 2000's and fashioned it into a web-based product that became part of pop culture of that era - thus the massive connection with the bands, the celebrities, etc. That was clever, but it was a time-limited play. Facebook appeals to multiple generations because it doesn't have that pop-culture appeal. Facebook is a utility, MySpace is/was a product.
2) Facebook was built as a data-play from the ground up. All of its value leverages its data and power of the network. MySpace's data model is/was atrocious and was never built with that in mind. Instead it was built as an ever-changing digital based bilboard ad.
MySpace was/is a marketing tool for bands and eventually celebrity (very LA, very limited lifespan).
Facebook was about YOU and YOUR friends. Only once Facebook had fostered a deep connection between you and your friends did they expand into a platform for other types of services.
I don't think facebook was built as a 'data-play' from the ground up, but Zuckerberg worked with what he is comfortable with and was surrounded by, data. MySpace founders Chris and Tom likely worked with what they were comfortable with and surrounded by, celebrity.
Show a boring blue + white Facebook page and a crazy green-pink-orange MySpace page to a 17 year old emo goth in Ohio and they probably will prefer the MySpace page.
Those are the people that click on ads, those are the people that want to friend Burger King. IE, those are the people that generate money.
Didn't they have a $900 million search deal from Google, though? (Granted, my understanding is they didn't hit their numbers so they made slightly less than that, but still I think this makes it likely that News Corp's acquisition of MySpace was profitable and not a collossal blunder.)
Here's an older TechCrunch article talking about how buying MySpace was one of Murdoch's best decisions ever. (I agree that it looks less good now, but overall I don't think it was horribly bad from a financial perspective): http://techcrunch.com/2008/10/15/three-years-later-buying-my...
Before I was assuming that 1) MySpace at least was profitable a few years ago and 2) they also received a bunch of money from Google which could be applied against what News Corp paid for it. But most likely, MySpace was only profitable because they received a huge amount of money from Google, so you can't apply most of that Google money against what News Corp paid for it.
This means that 1) MySpace's overall return for News Corp should be roughly thought of as ((current value of MySpace) - $500 million) + net profit since News Corp bought it. The first term should be significantly negative and the second term was positive for awhile but as the parent's link indicates is quite negative recently.
If you're going to plunk down $500m on a company, you should have a very clear idea of what you want to do with it and how you're going to grow it. MySpace was bought by a big ass dinosaur who thought "being successful on the internet" was as simple as writing a check – or buying a sack of magical beans.
Reddit recently posted their traffic stats, http://blog.reddit.com/2011/02/reddit-billions-served.html which shows they have ~14 million visitors.
Point is, a lot of people still know and use myspace.
I could see it coming back if they set their goals straight and concentrate on being the place for artists/bands in the music industry to promote their stuff.
DST?? How about Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal? He led the group that invested in Citibank and surely MySpace isn't that big a white elephant.