Comments on: If you can’t build a community, buy one

By: Hooman Radfar

Hooman Radfar — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:11:34 +0000

I am disappointed with the move. It basically implies that their product is so bad that they have to pay people to use it. That is definitely not going to help their brand image and it bolsters people’s ideas of Netscape as part of the AOL corporate machine. Best of luck to them with the strategy, but I think it is flawed.

By: Mind Booster Noori

Mind Booster Noori — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:24:49 +0000

Well, they appear not only on the site (which I find slightly annoying) but in the RSS feed too (which I find _really_ annoying). Of course you’re free to do whatever you want, but if you want my oppinion, the projects WeBreakStuff should pay your salaries _and_ your coffee, you shouldn’t need ads for that! ;-)

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:34:17 +0000

They show up less than 5% of visits. If that’s still obtrusive to our readers I’ll remove them gladly. But they do help somewhat in smaller costs (you know, like coffee, drinks and code-food). ;-)

By: Mind Booster Noori

Mind Booster Noori — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:06:00 +0000

Man, do you really have to have ads on your blog? Having readers here gives WeBreakStuff exposure, which should pay for itself… :-(

By: Ben Long

Ben Long — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:39:26 +0000

Nice write-up. It makes my skin crawl when I read anything about MySpace. =o) There has certainly been direct impact on MySpace due to Fox ownership.

Some examples: updates to Terms of Use regarding content ownership, censorship of certain materials, and the initial blocking of YouTube content, etc.

This can mean anything, too: A. MySpace users don’t care about the corporate ownership, or B. MySpace users don’t know about the corporate ownership, or C. MySpace users know about corporate ownership and don’t understand or notices changes to the site. I think it’s a combination of B and C.

The part that remains unknown is if MySpace users did know about Fox ownership (and changes to ToS and efforts for censorship) would they care? Honestly, I don’t think the majority will care, as long as they have new comments on their profiles. Only the future will tell. This leads me to think that corporate started social networks may not work, but that social networks owned by corporations can certainly succeed.

If Netscape already has a base of regular users, that can become a social network organically by adding tools for participation. Netscape may not get any TechCruch converts, but that isn’t a barrier to success. Success will be determined by the design of the application.

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:54:16 +0000

Michael: I link to jason’s weblog right on the first paragraph.

By: Michael Buckbee

Michael Buckbee — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:53:10 +0000

Couple things:

1. The number one source for this story would be Jason’s weblog where he lays out his rationale for this.

2. I think he’s got good empirical evidence that this works (what are these top level social bookmarkers if not bloggers using a specialized tool), and Weblogs, Inc. certainly was able to pay bloggers and make a profit.

3. There has been a direct change to MySpace since the Fox acquisition, it’s become much “safer” and less risque and it still remains to be seen whether this is sufficient to blunt their numbers.