There are two Facebooks in the world, one is Facebook and the other is Zuckerberg's Facebook.
When almost everyone thought that Facebook had experienced the worst year in the company's history, Zuckerberg gave a completely different summary of his 2018. In his long Facebook post, released last Friday, he said he was proud of Facebook's progress over the past year.
“We have fundamentally changed our DNA. & rdquo; Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg cited the areas where Facebook has achieved success in the past year:
Facebook has made great strides in preventing people from using it to intervene in elections, stop spreading hate speech and misinformation, ensuring that people can take charge of their own information, and ensuring that Facebook's services improve human well-being. “In every aspect of this matter, I am proud of the progress we have made”.
As evidence that the "DNA" has changed, Zuckerberg detailed the changes made by Facebook in these four areas. They basically come from two aspects, one is the deployment of more manpower, and the other is the development and commissioning of related functions.
Zuckerberg said that Facebook “ now has more than 30,000 employees engaged in security work, spending billions of dollars in security throughout the year, and <; developed some of the world's most advanced systems to identify And solve these problems & rdquo;.
These initiatives do prove Facebook's efforts in responding to the crisis, but unfortunately this seems to have nothing to do with “changing the company's DNA”. They are more about the company's redeployment of resources and the response to external pressures. Even among the so-called 30,000 employees engaged in security, more than half are actually content reviewers, and they don't contribute much to Facebook's products themselves. Adjustments and even structural adjustments are not considered.
And on the contrary, from what happened in the past year, whether it is business model, corporate governance, or corporate culture, Facebook's DNA has not only changed, but has been consolidated.
Can't get rid of the dependence on advertising revenue
The first is the business model. Facebook’s financial performance this year has been underperforming due to the impact of various scandals and the cost of the response. In the third-quarter earnings report, Facebook's single-period revenue of $13.73 billion was slightly lower than analysts' expectations, and revenue from advertising still accounted for nearly 99%.
In terms of advertising revenue, on the one hand, the data that can be used for analysis is reduced due to various scandals involving user data, and on the other hand, the Facebook platform is undergoing a transition from information flow mode to “story” mode. Period, advertising revenue may experience a period of pain. Even so, Facebook has not found a way to get rid of its dependence on advertising revenue. Some hardware devices are only trying to make a fuss. The real solution is to accelerate the commercialization of WhatsApp and Instagram.
And in order to support the turbulent transition period of the Facebook platform, the innovative demand for other products in advertising revenue is only likely to be greater. So for the foreseeable future, advertising revenue will still be Facebook's most important source of income, and the DNA imprint of this business model will only become stronger.
Zuckerberg is still in power
Sometimes it's a good idea to change your own DNA by taking in new and new elements to make your corporate governance more diverse. But it is clear that Zuckerberg does not want this.
In the past year, the two major star companies that Facebook acquired, WhatsApp and Instagram, were transformed by Zuckerberg on “Facebook”. Zuckerberg asked the teams of the two products to try their best to commercialize, which conflicted with the original ideas of the founders of the two teams. WhatsApp's founding team is very resistant to introducing advertising features within the app, and the WhatsApp founding team is extremely focused on the user experience, so they are wary of any realized design.
The end result is that after Zuckerberg continued to replace the two team's executives with his own nickname, WhatsApp founder Aiketon resigned from the $19 billion stake in November last year, and the two founders of Instagram also This year, they jointly announced their departure.
Facebook belongs to Zuckerberg alone, from beginning to end. As is known to all, Zuckerberg is very admired for the Roman Empire's monarch Augustus. In the famous feature of the New Yorker in September this year, Zuckerberg said that he established two hundred years through harsh rule. World peace. & rdquo; In the critical period of constant external pressure, Zuckerberg will only control the company more tightly. In this case, I want to change DNA? How can it be.
Deep-rooted "move fast and break things”
This year's continuous scandal has given the outside world a closer look at Facebook's corporate culture. It has been found that even though Zuckerberg publicly stated in 2014 that Facebook will abandon the slogan of “move fast and break things”, this culture of developmentism is actually ingrained.
For example, an in-depth report by the New York Times in November showed that although Facebook said in 2015 that it had stopped an agreement to share user data with third parties, in fact, until 2017, many third-party partners can still Get this data. This also led to the occurrence of the “Cambridge Analysis” event.
Moreover, if you look closely at the changes listed by Zuckerberg in this post, you will also find that all the basic measures are generated in a stress-responsive manner rather than an internal spontaneous change. In the recent discussions with many Facebook employees in Silicon Star, they also felt that their pressure did not come from the discussion in the public opinion that “Facebook should take more responsibility”, “Facebook is killing democracy”, etc. And other topics, but from how to find more commercialized ways of realizing faster.
If you ask them, did you feel that your company’s DNA has changed in the past year? The answer is probably no.
In fact, changing a company's DNA has never been easy, especially if you have a strong founder. Looking back at the company that was closest to completing this transformation in the past year, it might be Uber. And what did they do? They drove off their founders.
In Zuckerberg's post, at least one point is consistent with the outside world's perception: "In 2016, Facebook was already a very different company compared to last year." But the reason behind it is not that Zuckerberg’s Facebook has changed, but that people’s perceptions of it have changed.
Zuckerberg has not changed. He is still the one who lets people rate girls on the Internet. It is still a genius with strong control and confidence. He has not lost, and he can't lose this time. So when everyone says that Facebook is in the worst of times, he needs to stand up and announce his victory. And this post is like calling the world again the words he wrote on the first edition of the business card:
I'm CEO, Bitch