MySpace sale offers tough lessons in social networking
News Corp paid $580m (£361m) for MySpace in 2005
The sale of MySpace is a sobering reminder that even in bubble times, social networking is not always the road to riches.
The site, bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp for an eye watering $580 million in 2005, looked like a bargain a couple of years later as it became the favoured web hangout of what was briefly the MySpace generation. Then they and many millions of new networkers moved to Facebook.
Now after a painful couple of years of decline and disillusionment, which has seen the founders depart and various turnaround plans come to nothing, News Corp has finally offloaded its unwanted baby for just $35 million.
Two lessons are being drawn - success in social networking is an ephemeral business and the owners of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter should get out now while the going is good.
And that the whole MySpace deal was another web disaster for Rupert Murdoch. Both conclusions strike me as wide of the mark.
If you look back through the history of social networking (why not try this radio series by the way?) you will see MySpace as just one chapter in the evolution of the idea - and in retrospect it looks like a diversion.
A business founded by people from the entertainment industry, rather than the geeks who started Facebook or Twitter, ended up struggling to make its technology work as it grew.
Then there was the decision to make it a place where users were anonymous, and could assume any identity they fancied. That worked at first, but when your real friends with their real names started popping up on Facebook, millions decided that was a better way to network.
'Social adventure'After the tumult of the early years, when the likes of Friendster, Friends Reunited and MySpace, thrived then faded, things seem to have settled down.
The world has chosen Facebook, but the likes of LinkedIn and Twitter are offering bespoke services - fast news or business networking - which appeal to smaller communities. What MySpace has become is a platform for musicians and music fans - and strangely, if it had come along now, it might have had a better chance of making it as a niche network.
Someone suggested to me this morning that MySpace's mistake had been to commercialise too much - and that Twitter and Facebook should learn from that.
Well, nobody could accuse either network of striving too hard too early to make money - indeed quite the opposite.
But was MySpace's problem that its owners News Corp were too eager to cash in?
Sure, after their purchase in 2005, very early in MySpace's life, the new owners were quick to see that advertising would be the basis of the business model. Within a year, a $900m deal with Google to place ads on the site had more than covered the cost of the acquisition.
But did the adverts drive MySpace users away? I don't think so - after all the big migration started happening in 2008 and 2009, way after the commercialisation had begun - and by that time even Facebook was moving to monetise its users.
And did Rupert Murdoch get it so badly wrong? He was right to think in 2005 that social networking was the next big thing.
He was right to strike a deal with Google which not only covered his costs but showed the advertising industry where its online future might lie.
But maybe for once he was not ruthless enough - by the time the founders departed, the battle with Facebook was already lost.
And Mr Murdoch can comfort himself by reflecting that if his social adventure ended badly, another media giant fared much worse.
Back in 2008 AOL bought Bebo for $850 million, then sold it a couple of years on for less than $10 million. Now that's how to get it wrong....







Greek MPs in second crisis vote
Terror scribbles
'Corrective rape'
Echoes of the past?
End of an era?
Man versus machine
Click
Order by:
Comment number 1.
Graphis2 Hours ago
MySpace's mistake was to try and copy Facebook. Its initial success was simply that it was MY space: I could post anything there, at any size, like a giant web scrapbook. Comments from friends were relegated to a small column at the side. But they kept changing the format, bringing forward the "social" aspect, and and it eventually became my FRIENDS' space instead. That's why people left.
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
sagat42 Hours ago
The business model was weak. They had plans for getting the numbers (which they did) but after that it all fizzled out. I do agree though that they did try to copy the Facebook model when it was clear that it could become succesfull. Know the new owners have gone back to the drawing board. FB has the members and is stagnant and it is up to someone new with a fresh approach to things to unseat FB.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
Greg Tyler1 Hour ago
People often complain that you can't customise the look of your Facebook profile like you could on MySpace. But, looking back on it, I can't imagine anyone sticking around on Facebook if each profile was covered in badly matched colours and tacky pictures. That customisation ability must have cost them a lot of more serious customers.
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
London Rascal1 Hour ago
My Space felt very ‘Geocities’ where you had an endlessly scrolling page that you could do with what you wished and whenever you give the masses that sort of freedom along comes problems. I did not much like going to a friends page, with flashing yellow text on a blue background trying to find the stop button on the music player and all this to see the comment that had been replied to.
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
Beterthanpokeintheye1 Hour ago
Rory, I think you are way out implying that Newscorp recouped their Myspace purchase costs from Google deal. Google are not stupid, and only had to pay the headline if Myspace numbers hit targets. Publicly available material indicates revenues from the deal for at least one year were at least a third less than forecast: for 2009 $200m instead of $300m. Who knows how far short other years were.
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 9