Facebook

How Generous Should Startups Be with Stock Options?

One of the many fascinating aspects of Facebook’s S-1 filing for its $5-billion IPO was how it handed options to employees, freelancers and contractors. This included graffiti artist David Choe, who accepted options rather than a few thousands dollars for painting Facebook’s first office.

It put the spotlight on the question about how generous startups should be with option grants.

On one hand, options are an effective tool to motivate and reward employees and people who have helped a startup and/or provided services.

For employees, it gives them skin in the game, particularly given the hours and effort involved. As much as employees may be compensated well, the benefits of giving people even a small number of options far outweighs the resentment of having founders hang on to as much equity as possible.

Options are also a good way to conserve cash because they’re seen as having no value unless there is a liquidity event.

On the other hand, a startup may not want to grant too many options because they can dilute existing shareholders.

At the end of the day, how often and how many options to grant is a balancing act. They can be a valuable corporate tool to drive and support growth. But like anything, there can be too much of a good thing, including option grants.

Does Everyone Have to be on Facebook?

I was listening to Jesse Hirsh interviewed yesterday on CBC radio about the new features announced last week by Facebook. The host, Matt Galloway, asked Hirsh if there could come a time when everyone would have to be on Facebook.

Hirsh’s reply was surprising but intriguing: he said in the short-term not everyone had to be on Facebook but it would be “absolutely” necessary in the long-run to access new Web services and show companies that you were credit-worthy and trustworthy.

Given my tepid embrace of Facebook – I’m mostly on it for professional reasons – the idea of having to be on Facebook is fascinating and troubling. It speaks to Facebook’s power and the role it plays within the digital landscape. But at the same time, it raises the spectre that Facebook is becoming too powerful and dominant, particularly if everyone will eventually need to be on Facebook. If you worried about Facebook before, Hirsh’s prediction should make you even more concerned.

Personally, the idea of having to be on Facebook is bizarre because it suggests people won’t be able to operate digitally or, at least, they will have a neutered experience. To effectively use the Web shouldn’t be predicated on being a member of a particular service, particularly one such as Facebook, which is in the business of data-collection to drive revenue growth.

If there comes a time when Facebook becomes a necessary evil, you know the Web has wandered into a bad place that will make Net Neutrality look like a walk in the park.

The thing is Facebook is a Web Goliath but it’s not the Web. As much as Facebook is driving to create a one-stop shopping ecosystem (AOL, anyone?), it is not bigger than the Internet and, as a result, it shouldn’t be allowed to attain must-have status.

Some people might counter that Facebook could be akin to e-mail given it is difficult to have a full Web experience without an inbox of some kind. But the difference is there are thousands and thousands of e-mail services so no one is dependent on a single entity to get the benefits of e-mail.

There are a few flaw in Hirsh’s suggestion about Facebook. One is the idea that Web services will not be available to anyone without a Facebook account. I would counter that any Web services that wants to make itself accessible to offer a variety of ways to join – Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and e-mail – rather than go exclusively with Facebook. Second, there will be ways other than Facebook to demonstrate your credit worthiness and trustworthiness.

Bottom line: Facebook is a dominant player but it is doesn’t have that much power despite Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitions to rule the world.

Does Google+ Have Staying Power?

Google+I have a confession: I haven’t used Google+ much since it launched a few weeks ago.

As someone immersed in social media, I should be all over it but I’m not. Why? Perhaps the biggest reason is my social media “plate” is overflowing already with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs. Yes, Google+ has some interesting features but there’s only so much time in the day and only so much social media that can be consumed.

This is a challenge faced by every new social media service that claims to offer something new, different or better than the status quo. Despite Google’s clout, it’s not a social media powerhouse so, in some respects, Google+ is a scrappy start-up battling for attention.

Don’t get me wrong, Google+ has received an enthusiastically wild reception with more than 10 million people registering for it. But as someone succinctly tweeted, Google+ has 10 million “triers” as opposed to “users” – a major difference.

So for all the breathless talk about Google+’s usability and its threat to Facebook, Twitter, et al, it is not going to be easy for Google+ to elbow its way into the social media “party”. For many people, particularly those already into social media, Google+ will need to be so compelling that they will either spend less time with existing social media services or drop one of their tools completely.

In an ideal world, I’d like Google+ to be easier to embrace.

As Fred Wilson mentioned in a recent blog post, one of Google’s most high-profile feature, Circles, should be less work-intensive. Currently, Google+ users have to put all of their contacts into circles they have created. After awhile, this task becomes tiring.

I’ve dabbled with many of Google+’s other features but I can’t say the “wow factor” has been so overwhelming that it has made me want to change my social media habits. Maybe Google+ will grow on me over time but, for now, it sits there in the corner waiting for some love and attention.

Links:
- LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner disses Google+, suggesting there’s no room for it within the social media landscape.
- O’Reilly Media’s Edd Dumbill suggests Google+ is the “beginning of a fundamental change on the Web”.

The High, High Hopes for Google+

So it’s been a little more than a week since Google+ launched, and the enthusiasm has been palpable. Google bubbles there will be 10 million Google+ users by tomorrow, which will no doubt see many cases of Moët and Chandon champagne popped at the GooglePlex.

Some of it has to do with the fact the digitrati loves new and shiny things – and there’s been a dearth of cool and compelling social media services arguably since Twitter launched – apologies to all your Foursquare fansboys/girls.

But I think there is another key factor driving Google+ that have little to do with Google+’s features or functionality.

As much as many people (700 million and counting) have joined Facebook, there is a growing concern about Facebook’s dominance and bold ambitions to inflict its social graph across the entire Web. People use Facebook but they’re afraid of it because of its dominance.

So, in many respects, the optimism about Google+ have everything to do with the high hopes that it can become a big enough player to keep Facebook honest.

This is not to suggest Google’s ambitious are any less aggressive than Facebook’s but there needs to be another social networking player to keep Facebook in check, otherwise Facebook will rule the roost and do what it wants because there would be no other options.

So as Google (and its boosters) trumpet the fact millions of people are joining Google+, keep in mind there are other factors at all that have everything to do with Facebook.

Links:
- Tommy Walker talks about why Google+ doesn’t stand a chance against Facebook.

Google+: Finally, A Rival to Facebook

I’ve been on Google+ for all of three days but my initial impressions are pretty good. Although I’ve only scratched the surface of what Google+ offers and there are lots of cards that Google has yet to show, Google+ has an excellent shot to become the badly-needed rival to Facebook.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting Google+ will be a Facebook-killer but the social networking world desperately needs another player to keep Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook honest. After MySpace imploded within the bosom of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Facebook could do anything they wanted because there’s nowhere else to go. For all the complaints about Facebook’s cavalier attitude to privacy, for example, it didn’t matter because users had no other choices.

I’m excited about Google+’s potential because it not only offers many of the features that social media users want but it has some interesting features that make it different and better than Facebook. Here’s a short list of what’s good about Google+:

1. The ability to create different circles based on your personal and professional interests is great because it lets you splice and dice your digital presence just like you do in real-life. This means you can leverage social media to connect with different groups of people on the same platform rather than throw them all into the same bucket like you do with Facebook.

2. In Google+, you control the data. I’m sure Google will leverage it somehow as part of the deal but the company says that if you leave, your data comes with you. And they’ll make it easy to delete your account. Facebook, on the other hand, believes it owns or, at least, control all data. And leaving Facebook is not an easy process.

3. As Google+ evolves, the integration with other Google services will make Google+ a more valuable and multi-faceted service to share content and provide updates to different circles.

I don’t expect Google+ to cause major damage to Facebook in the short-term but Google+ has the potential to become a strong rival to Facebook within the social networking market, which should be cause for celebration for anyone who has misgivings about Mark Zuckerberg’s hubris or bold ambitions.

At the very least, Google+ should keep Facebook on its toes and force it to change how it operates, which is the great thing about real competition.

Links:
- Robert Scoble who believes Google+ will become the social network for geeks, early adopters and social media gurus.
- All Facebook on the one Google+ feature that Facebook should fear – the integration with other Google services.
- Nine Reasons to Switch to Google+ (PC World)
- Fred Wilson on the fact he’s rooting for Google+ to expand the social media landscape and provide more choices

Can You Escape or Avoid Facebook?

FacebookLast week, I got an e-mail from an old university friend who asked if he could include some photos on a new Facebook Page he was creating.

My immediate reaction was “no” because I think there are parts of your life that don’t need exist on the Web. This is particularly the case for a period of time in which I did lots of crazy and stupid things – nothing that terrible but, nevertheless, a part of my life in which I’m glad that happened without the presence of social media in which everything you do is easily published to the world.

After my friend said he had already posted photos that included me within group photos, I made it clear I didn’t not want photos of me on Facebook that would show me in a less than flattering light. While this may seem extreme to many people, it’s my philosophical approach to Facebook and social media.

Given we’re talking about photos taken in the 1980s, it raises the ethical question about whether they are off-bound when it comes to social media. They were taken before social media was around so there rules of engagement were different because there was no thought they would be published in a public forum.

So it begs the question about whether they should be posted without someone’s permission. I’ll give my friend points for at least asking me before he posted photos of me but it still doesn’t make me feel terribly comfortable.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...