The biggest Idiot on Facebook

[pothead pixie]

Check this dumbass out http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506

[Pogues Mcgogues]

If you're refering to my replies to Phil Adcroft...they are in jest. He makes jokes to me regarding political matters. In any case, I am supportive of that petition and Phil's points.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

oh dear....

[Ed209]

If you're refering to my replies to Phil Adcroft...they are in jest. He makes jokes to me regarding political matters. In any case, I am supportive of that petition and Phil's points.

[Alcatraz]

Fareeeaky

[eFestivals]

surely the biggest idiot on facebook are those buying the new shares?

Each member is valued at about £125.

Doesn't sound too extreme? Well, try it this way then....

eFestivals must be worth £100M.

[eFestivals]

And you just said to me I don't understand economics

I understand it more than well enough to realise that there's no way on earth that efests is worth £100M.

Which gets to prove that Facebook is not worth £100Bn - which those who buy shares will find out soon enough when they lose their shirts.

[eFestivals]

There is loads of factors and the valuation of Facebook has nothing at all to do with the valuation of Efestivals. You mickey mouse economics are letting you down

Facebook and efests have just about the same economic model. Funnily enough, the stats get to prove that efests is the more successful in how that works at the income end of things (not with each sites income, in the value that advertisers get from ads placed on each site).

It's mickey mouse economics that has a passing fad called Facebook valued at that stupid price. But those who have put that price on it know that there's suckers like you who'll believe them on that price so they don't care, as has been proven as their operating method time and again. It's just another opportunity for them to steal money from the stupid (eg: the poor who think life is about getting rich and not living).

[windy_miller]

Which gets to prove that Facebook is not worth £100Bn - which those who buy shares will find out soon enough when they lose their shirts.

[kaosmark2]

Are you saying you sell private information about us to advertisers?

[eFestivals]

Are you saying you sell private information about us to advertisers?

nope, I'm saying that both of our revenue streams are predominantly from advertising.

[kaosmark2]

nope, I'm saying that both of our revenue streams are predominantly from advertising.

[eFestivals]

That's probably why facebook's worth a lot more per user then. At least you know what to do if things ever get too tight

but the fact is it shouldn't be. The advertising at Facebook is far less effective than it is at eFestivals.

Which is why I know that Facebook is hugely over-valued.

[kaosmark2]

I really like Facebook...

I find SPAM really annoying... Target advertising is actually a pretty useful thing though.

Contrary to some of the scaremongering and moaning about them knowing everything about you. I think its useful if they know I am a middle aged man, who likes F1, Football and South African food and they can target advertising which is of interested to me rather than another advert of Viagra

I also don't think for a second anyone could get money out of my bank account knowing this stuff. Mainly because when I phone up I can't get money out of my account due to the security checks

[Paul ™]

@ pogo

[kaosmark2]

but the fact is it shouldn't be. The advertising at Facebook is far less effective than it is at eFestivals.

Which is why I know that Facebook is hugely over-valued.

[kaosmark2]

I use both Google and Facebook... So what's your point ?

[fred quimby]

but the fact is it shouldn't be. The advertising at Facebook is far less effective than it is at eFestivals.

Which is why I know that Facebook is hugely over-valued.

[eFestivals]

Out of interest how do you know that it is far less effective, are figures published or are you talking about the turnover and yeild ratios that they have released yesterday.

having the same business model doesn't really mean much so just wondering what the value you place on facebook as you appear to know it is over valued.

I don't really use facebook so unsure of the ins and outs hence the question

the effectiveness of ads on various websites - the click thru rate - is available via a number of advertising-world reports.

I've not thought about what value facebook should be, only that it's clearly not worth the offering price. We're heading for another dotcom bust, and not only with facebook.

That doesn't mean I think it'll necessarily be soon, or that it might be enough to kill facebook. But there's been some stupidly-priced floats recently (eg: the makers of FarmVille) and facebook is the most recent.

[fred quimby]

Cheers for the reply. I haven't seen what the offer price is yet for the shares just the valuation, revenue and ratios so you may well be right, although I'm unsure of another .com bust, seems people are getting their act together a bit more and investors are probably a little smarter that the last one. still Facebook does have that hype about it that it may not be able to sustain, then again we maybe looking at a giant for the forseeable future (I'm sure I heard similar things said about google and youtube)

[Ed209]

surely the biggest idiot on facebook are those buying the new shares?

Each member is valued at about £125.

Doesn't sound too extreme? Well, try it this way then....

eFestivals must be worth £100M.

[fred quimby]

Ebay... Amazon... Both preceded, survived and grew after the last crash... There a thousands of examples...

[eFestivals]

Ebay... Amazon... Both preceded, survived and grew after the last crash... There a thousands of examples...

yep - solid businesses that sell real things, not the fantasy of making shit loads of money out of mostly nothing.

Facebook has two things... People want to connect and Facebook has "lock in"... As long as the develop, change and grow there is no reason they should be expected to "fail"...

it's already churning users to twitter.

It's an internet fad, just the latest in a long line of them. It'll last longer than many that have come before because it's grown a much bigger reach but it's ultimately destined for the same place.

I was saying just about all the same things about MySpace (and other fads before that) and people were posting back all the same things as you're doing now. There's yet to be a sustained internet fad, and there's nothing about facebook that looks any different to me.

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure I agree with your maths Neil. £3.16billion, with 850million members, works out at about £3.70 per member, doesn't it? You'd need 27million members to be worth £100milion

my maths is wrong because I've used pounds as being as the same value as dollars (as I've just realised).

But the "£3.16billion" you quote is merely the value of the shares that are being offered for sale, not the total valuation that's being put on facebook - that's around $80-100Bn (I've not actually read any news stories of what the valuation actually is since it's been officially announced, but all the pre stories had it in that range).

It's not 'members' that's of importance but unique visitors. In facebook's case just about all visitors are members, while it's different here.

[eFestivals]

I don't really disagree...but aren't the same time its got the potential not to be a fad and be so much more if they play it right...

it's only got that potential if it suddenly finds a real income stream rather than just advertising, as well as something to make the members stick.

So far it's managed neither of those. Until it does I'll be sticking with the view I currently hold.