Why There Should Be Web Search on Facebook
Microsoft Live Search on Facebook is "a no-brainer [...] the technical investment is minuscule and the potential return is mammoth." That was ReadWriteWeb last October in the wake of a $240 million investment by Microsoft in the world's second biggest social network. At the time, we noted that Facebook was already serving over 600 million searches per month. If Microsoft could convert half of those to web searches, it would take a significant chunk of the search market (where Live does just under a billion searches and Google does just over 4 billion each month). So why hasn't it happened yet?
Early this morning, Robert Scoble wrote a long rambling post laying out a world domination plan for Microsoft that goes something like this: Microsoft buys Yahoo!, Yahoo! Search is popped into Facebook, and Google is locked out of a significant portion of the web. Scoble calls this Microsoft's "buy enough and keep it closed" search strategy.
There are, of course, a few problems with this idea. First, as Nick O'Neill points out, the wall-garden approach to the web that AOL tried in the 90s didn't work then, so why would it work now? Second, as Erick Schonfeld notes, Microsoft has their own search engine already -- Microsoft doesn't need to buy Yahoo! to crawl or put a search engine on Facebook.
Scoble shares an experiment he did recently with Loic Le Meur, of Seemic. Le Meur put an identical event listing on both Facebook and Upcoming.org -- meaning one was available only on Facebook, and the other to the web at large (including Google). After a couple of weeks, the Facebook listing had almost 5 times as many RSVPs as the public event listing on Upcoming.org. To Scoble, this seems to indicate that Facebook is the new web. "This is a fight for the Web. We all just crawled inside a box that locks Google out," he writes.
That's hyperbole -- not unusual for Scoble. Google hasn't crumbled because it can't search Facebook, and it won't if Microsoft gets that opportunity. What the event listing experiment shows is that there are some things that Facebook is very effective at -- namely spreading information quickly and virally. Scoble infers that because Facebook is so good at spreading information socially, people will be increasingly drawn to it at the expense of any search engine that can't crawl that information. That may be half true, though it would seem that the kind of information that Facebook is good spreading -- the transient, prescient, ever-changing kind like event listings -- is probably not the type that search engines are best at finding. (Also, let's not forget that Google has a search deal with MySpace -- which is still the most popular social network.)
There are two ways people find information on the Internet: via search (which Google is great at), and via their friends (which Facebook is great at). The former we also know how to monetize. If Facebook can get good at search, it could stand to make a lot of money for whoever it partners with for that -- the logical choice being Microsoft. But to do that, Facebook needs to do something it is loathe to: let users wander off the site.
It's not so much that Microsoft needs Facebook to let it crawl the social network, it's more that Microsoft needs to convince Facebook to let it try to turn its members into searchers.
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
"If Facebook can get good at search..."
Wait, why would Facebook want to get good at search? If I'm looking for information on the Internet, it's usually quite clear whether I'll turn to my friends or to a search engine. These are two separate activities, and I personally see little benefit in combining them. I'd rather Facebook focus on being the best at connecting with friends than trying to become a hub for any kind of information-finding.
Hey Josh,
Its good to read some well thought out comment not just link bait sky is falling crap
From the RWW Oct 2007 article: "Facebook already fields over 600 million searches per month -- if they can turn those site searches into web searches, that would be a boon for Microsoft."
Web searches are relevant when you search for something that can be sold. Just try "Directional continuity" -> no ads -> no money for Google.
Facebook searches are also not relevant -- in a commercial sense.
Really enjoyed it, I wanted to click out and
you kept pulling me back in! Many thanks
and keep up the great work!
Great article....
All I want to know is this:
Who says it has to make sense? Things happen in the business world all the time that have very little to do with providing benefits to consumers, and much to do with hurting, or perceiving to hurt, competitors. Could MS be going after the Perception that they are "hurting" Google? After all, (warning: buzzphrase coming up) aren't companies what they are "perceived to be"?
@Joey #1: Because search is worth a lot of money. It's an activity that has proven a lot easier to monetize than social networking, because users are more likely to click on an ad that targets their intent (which is what a search shows), than just passive interests (which is what social networks know).
@Wolke #3: Searches on Facebook now -- which are currently for people, groups, etc. -- may not be worth much, but that's not the point I was making. The goal here would be to turn those searches into general web searches, or, in other words: get people using Facebook to start using Facebook as their default search starting point for web searches (which in this case would be powered by Microsoft Live Search).
I really need to learn more about Facebook. Can somebody tell me a good site to learn about Facebook?
Live From Las Vegas
The Masked Millionarie
@ 6: But then the argument is that there are more IE than FF out there, but Google gets way more searches than Live (which is the default in IE). Facebook users understand the difference -- and there still is a huge difference between Google and Live Search at least in 3 areas that I see from here (Germany):
- Long tail searches in English (Google index much larger)
- Search in English from German IP: a 1/3 of Microsoft's results are in German, even if I explicitely click "English only" (and that's for keywords that only exist in English, anyway)
- Not up to date (News, blogs, not even Channel 9 and MSDN).
Portals, Start pages, etc. won't help with that.
Last week somebody wrote that MSFT will buy 120k servers this year and Google 500k. That is reflected in their respective search quality, IMO.
---
However, more interesting is Scoble's observation of the "Le Web 08" announcement via Facebook and Upcoming.org (Facebook reaching 4 times more people). I think this proves the value of reaching "latently" interested people vs. directly interested one (searchers only). And Facebook could become really good for that -- but they don't need MSFT's late implementation of search for that.
@Wolke #8: I think you actually half make my point, though. That Google controls search even though Microsoft controls the browser market indicates that most people don't search via the browser box -- they search via the web.
You very well could be right that users wouldn't switch to Live search simple because Google is better (and I tend to agree that it is, I think really, users are just sold that "Google = search" ... it's a branding thing, the way "xerox = photocopies"). But I wouldn't be so sure of it.
A huge number of searches (approaching half?) are either navigational or they're for the top 10,000 terms -- both things that Live tends to do adequately. If users can start searching without leaving a site that's already sucking up their time and is already the first site the visit (Facebook) and those search results are "good enough" ... then it becomes a convenience thing. If Microsoft can add a couple hundred million web searches per month via Facebook for the price of adding a search bar and sharing ad revenue with Facebook (seriously, it's a minimal technical investment to add web search to Facebook), then why not?
As long as they don't make our search queries social........ ;)
@Josh #6: Thanks for the reply. It's true that search is worth a lot of money. So is developing good alternative energy technologies - should Facebook start building hybrids?
Granted, that's much further afield from Facebook's purpose than search, but I still think adding search to Facebook is too much of a money-making accessory than a strengthening of core business. I realize Facebook hardly has a business at the moment in terms of monetization, but I don't think expanding into a different sector is the only solution.
Not pertaining entirely to the search story mentioned in the article, but there are apps that do search on Facebook (vs. searches done through Facebook's search box on the site).
There's one such new app on Facebook called "Search Share" which does web Search on Facebook.
"Search Share lets you search for all kinds of information online and then share with your friends. Results include video, images, MSN content, web pages, and news"
http://apps.facebook.com/searchshare/
I think Scoble is missing a couple of key points in his analysis...
http://tinyurl.com/3f57ll
Facebook is not where I want to search the web. I hate walled gardens, which is the reason I never used Vodafone Live either. I think Microsoft should stay away from Facebook. No Social network has proved it's lasting value, either service wise or financially. Interesting though about Upcoming.org -v- Facebook
Microsoft should sit and wait to see what happens with facebook. The world of social networks seems like it shifts drastically every 2 years.
I would say facebook has another year before it can be considered a worthy risk to put a lot of time and money into.
Microsoft is like the heavyweight champ who just got hit with a flurry. They aren't knocked out by a longshot, but feeling the pressure from google, etc.