The Web Is Shrinking. Now What?

We all read the statistics every week documenting the meteoric new growth areas of the Internet, and they are impressive:

Online video is exploding, with annual user growth of more than 45 percent. Mobile-device time spent increased 28 percent last year — with average smartphone time spent doubling. And social networks are now used by 90 percent of U.S. Internet users — for an average of more than four hours a month.

None of this is a newsflash. Every venture capitalist, Web publisher, and digital marketer is hyper-aware of these three trends.

But what’s happening to the rest of the Web?

The Web Is Shrinking. Really.

When you take these three growth areas out of the picture, the size of the hole left behind is staggering: the rest of the Web — the tried and true core that we thought would have limitless growth — is already shrinking.

Here are the facts:

When you exclude just Facebook from the rest of the Web, consumption in terms of minutes of use shrank by nearly nine percent between March 2010 and March 2011, according to data from comScore. And, even when you include Facebook usage, total non-mobile Internet consumption still dropped three percent over the same period.

We’ve known that social is growing lightning fast — notably, Facebook consumption, which grew by 69 percent — but now it’s clear that Facebook is not growing in addition to the Web. Rather, it’s actually taking consumption away from the publishers who compete on the rest of the Web.

And just what is the rest of the Web?

I have been calling it the “document Web,” based on how Google and other Web architectures view its pages as documents, linked together. But increasingly, it might as well be called the “searchable Web” since it’s accessed predominantly as a reference, and navigated primarily via search.

And it’s becoming less relevant.

In the last year, Facebook’s share of users’ time online grew from one out of every 13 minutes of use nationwide, to one out of every eight. In aggregate, that means the document Web was down more than half a billion hours of use (that’s more than 800 lifetimes) this March versus last March. And in financial terms, that represents a lost opportunity of $2.2 billion in advertising inventory that didn’t exist this year.

The Creation of a New, Connected Web

The change in the Web’s direction is a clear indication to me that we aren’t just in the midst of a boom for new interaction modes, but rather in a generational overhaul of the Internet.

What replaces the declining searchable Web is a new and “fully connected” digital life. You may have heard this before. After all, the promise of the Web was to connect pages with hyperlinks. Well, this time, “connected” means much more. It means the Web connects us, as people, to each one of the individuals online; and those connections, ultimately, extend from one of us to all of us.

Just as significantly, this all happens in real time, and at nearly all times.

And here’s what’s different when you connect people, as opposed to pages: Now, the Web knows who we are (identity), is with us at all times wherever we go (mobile), threads our relationships with others (social), and delivers meaningful experiences beyond just text and graphics (video).

The connected, social Web is alive, moving, proactive, and personal, while the document Web is just an artifact — suited as a universal reference, but hardly a personal experience.

The Social Web Versus the Searchable Web

Analytical explanations — increasing smartphone penetration, bandwidth availability, and technology sophistication — fill in some of the gaps as we try to understand this sea change, but they fall short.

Something larger is afoot, and it’s not about science or technology. Rather, as human beings, we have changed how we fit the Internet into our lives.

And the nature of the Web is changing to match. The old searchable Web is crashing; while the new connected, social Web is lifting off.

The implications for publishers are massive.

The last decade has been defined by the rise of Google as the nearly limitless supplier of traffic to digital media properties. And so a generation of digital media publishers developed and followed the same playbook: create lots of content around top keywords, engineer for search engine optimization (SEO) and expand the surface area in search engines to reach more users. The objective was to catch visitors in their net; expand reach — as measured by ComScore — look more impressive to advertisers and capture more demand.

The landscape is changing, and fast.

SEO’s strategic value is quickly fading as Google’s growth slows and its prominence in distribution slides away. In its place, Facebook has become the wiring hub of the connected Web — a new “home base” alternative to Google’s dominance of the last decade. Facebook began receiving as many visits as Google in March 2010, and already garners more than three times as many minutes as Google each month from users, according to comScore. Looking ahead, the best projections of U.S. online reach indicate that Facebook will surpass Google on that metric in less than a year, too.

And with this change, the nature of the relationship between users and publishers is being altered fundamentally — and perhaps forever.

Search offers a utility relationship, connecting users to content for the briefest of transactions; typically, it provokes users to just one pageview so they can find a piece of information, and then they move on.

But social discovery builds a relationship. Leveraging social endorsements and an environment of serendipitous discovery, consumers meet publishers in a meaningful context. As a result, the relationship that forms is stronger — and, more importantly for publishers, it’s branded.

Unlike the ecosystem set up by Google, where the search engine ironically intermediates between users and the objects of their queries (so that users reinforce their loyalty to Google, far more than to the publisher), in the world of social publishing, the Facebook hub enables a direct, if constrained, relationship between users and media brands.

The results — at least for my own company, Wetpaint — are that social media brings more qualified eyeballs and retains them. People who come via social media stay longer on the first visit; and they are more likely to come back sooner and more frequently. Overall, our visitors from social networks have a relationship that’s several times stronger — and several times as valuable when measured in engagement, pageviews, and revenues — than the relationships people form when then arrive through search.

The Human Connection

But it’s not just a change in mechanics. It’s a change in our human relationships.

Lewis D’Vorkin, the Chief Product Officer at Forbes, speaks of it when he and Alex Knapp talk about “live” media, quantum entanglement and mutually rewarding relationships that bind authors and readers on the new connected Web. It’s a sense of the Web moving from static published reference to living digital companion.

But there’s even more, and this vast change foreshadows bigger and better impacts on our lives. The greatest innovators in social media are driving exactly along that edge today. As one friend commented recently on the full potential of connected lives, by being joined more closely together, we can increase empathy and meaning, while decreasing isolation.

Toward a Fully Connected Future

Admittedly, we’re early in the replacement cycle when it comes to the connected Web. Even for strong connected Web performers like Huffington Post, Wetpaint, and others, the sum total of traffic from Facebook, Twitter, video, and mobile may add up to only half the total, or less.

But the trend has tipped, and with that tip has come both the business necessity and the human impact potential of elevating the relationship.

As the document Web of old shrinks, the new connected Web expands and delivers experiences that make our time online more effective, efficient, and enjoyable.

And that changes the role of companies on the Web from mere content publishers or providers to truly connected digital partners for real people.

Ben Elowitz (@elowitz) is co-founder and CEO of web publisher Wetpaint, and author of the Digital Quarters blog about the future of digital media. Prior to Wetpaint, Elowitz co-founded Blue Nile (NILE). He is an angel investor in media and e-commerce companies.


comments so far. Add yours.

  • Liberal Moron

    The author should get a reality check…. Facebook is a pile of worthless garbage postings…

  • Anonymous

    While I’m sure these insights will be of use to Google in their upcoming antitrust-apalooza, I’m not sure they’re as profound as the author thinks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/王鼎文/100001550887660 王鼎文

    Currently, most people just find better ways to get weather info, recipes, etc. than searching them. Later, those, I’d call them “inefficient search”es, which means web-search being not the best way to get the info, will show their backs to current search engine; number of daily-life-searches and hotness of traditional search engines will go down. Google is working on it:)

  • Gordon Mohr

    The useful insight here is marred somewhat by the deceptive infographic. Choosing to normalize starting values at 100 to compare relative growth rates since a reference point is reasonable. But then to also start the Y-axis at 80 hyper-magnifies the rate-comparison, and using bars encourages interpretation as an absolute-value comparison by area-of-ink (when in fact most of the bar ink is clipped by the axis, and these are relative percentages rather than totals anyway). A line chart with a zero-origin would be more fair, the trends are interesting enough without extreme visual spin.

  • Anonymous

    Gosh, didn’t I just read at TechCrunch from Ben how Facebook could put Google out of business? Is there a tour going on? Next stop VentureBeat, with a whistlestop at GigaOm for this search is dying tour?

    So we have a “searchable web” that’s in decline versus a “social web” that’s basically Facebook. Riddle me this, then. Why’s Facebook employ SEOs? You know, that thing with the strategic value that’s quickly fading?

    Why’s Facebook continued to shove so much of its content into that creaking searchable web that no one cares about, you know, like making every Wikipedia into a “Community Page.”

    Facebook’s smart, no? I mean, they’ve got the lock on this whole social web that’s apparently put Google’s prominence into a death slide (that first with 1 billion visitors Google, right). Why’s a company so smart wasting its time on search? Just has that many resources?

    Yeah, search is a utility. Social can be discovery. So when Ben next switches on his lights, I wonder if he’ll have just discovered that happened magically, or if there’s some utility that provides it.

    IE, like I said when Ben posted this stuff at TechCrunch, when that pipe breaks, and you need a plumber, let me know how that social discovering we’re all connected it just magically anticipates my need social web works out. Because I’m betting you did a search to get the thing fixed.

    And are you kidding me? Seriously, kidding me with this whole search is a intermediator but social coonects media more easily to its brands. What Facebook weed are you smoking.

    Facebook gets you to build a page on their site, then get fans on that page, then unilaterally decides when and if to show some of your posts to those fans. In return, you get to have a page that makes it incredibly easy for your competitors to target all your fans with ads.

    If this were search, it would be like someone searches for your brand, and then 3-10% of the time, Google decides whether or not it wants to show it to the searcher.

    Don’t get me wrong. There’s huge value in social. Content sites especially report more and more all the good things that Ben does. But I have yet to see one major publisher report that their search traffic is down at the expense of social.

    Unlike that scary looking chart of time shrinkage across the entire web, Google’s search traffic has continued to go up. Most quality publishers I know find their search traffic also grows. Facebook doesn’t cannibalize that. Facebook is a much welcomed alternative source of traffic which for some publications can send more than Google, even as Google grows.

    But you can’t look at minutes on the web and then try to extrapolate some Google is down Facebook is up thing. That’s because the main goal of the Google search engine is to get you off the site, within seconds. They’re even preloading search results and the most likely page you’ll go to make this happen. The goal for them, with the “searchable web,” is to get you out on it.

    What that picture of time spent really says is that publishers like Ben need to think carefully of what Facebook is potentially doing to their sites. Because that time being spent on Facebook is coming from somewhere. It’s not coming from Google, which aside from things like YouTube isn’t trying much to keep you around.

    It’s coming from other publishers. You know, like Ben. If they’re spending more time on Facebook, that’s less time with publishers themselves. And that means rightly, that publishers had better go to the Facebook Web (which is what it is), if they want to engage.

    But it also means that companies that were already perfectly good “digital partners” on the open web now find they’re having to have a dual nature, a split personality, and one of those personalities gets expressed largely by however Facebook allows.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe Facebook will have the same destiny of twitter. Fast come, fast go. It is more of a fashionable thing.  The next tool is just around the corner. Google on the other side has built a lot of value with tools that everybody are using everyday as a utility that is part of the web. For example,it will be much more difficult to substitute Google Maps, because it is a huge task to organize all that information. One thing that may stop Google, their power is so great that they may have to be regulated by some kind of agency in the near future.

  • Anonymous

    crap article – wrong – opinionated and stupid

  • http://twitter.com/davidchu David Chu

    So let’s get to get to the crux of the matter.  The only thing that matters is whether or not Consumer Behavior is changing.  Are people finding better ways to find products and services than through search.  We can leave display advertising out because it is not very profitable for Google.  

    Let’s also be very clear.  If you only use search as a tool to find info, but you never click the Ads, then Google isn’t making any money.  That’s a problem for Google.

    This data doesn’t prove or disprove that Google is in trouble.  What it does show though is that Facebook MAY be generating more user data than Google and that is a problem for Google.  Their business model is based on mining data to get display more relevant ads.  

    Lastly, just as a reminder for everyone.  When the MacIntosh first came out, critics blasted it as a toy.  When the iPhone came out, people blasted it as a toy.  When the iPad came out, people blasted it as an oversized iPod Touch.  

    “First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they accept you” – Gandhi

  • http://twitter.com/disruptivedean Dean Bubley

    This is a very media-publisher and SEO-centric view of the world. The web has many, many use cases that far transcend the narrow sliver of “social” or “relationships”. Research, commerce, reference & so on. The “utility” pageview model remains highly relevant – but perhaps less-so for purveyors of “content” rather than “information”.

  • http://twitter.com/EdgarZambrana Edgar Zambrana

    Twitter is gone?

  • http://spacetimecruise.blogspot.com Udipta

    Facebook integration on a website is a good thing.. except that Facebook keeps changing its plugins quite often 

  • Blaise Alicki

    If what you see on facebook is worthless garbage postings, that’s more a reflection of your friends than of facebook.

  • http://www.ratdiary.com spragued

    Wikipedia: “Wetpaint is a company that creates both consumer generated and professionally published scalable content networks.” I don’t get it — the guy runs a company that churns out web content farms but argues that the web is becoming less relevant..? Odd.

  • Anonymous

    What ever happened to allowing professional journalists report the news? The saddest thing about the new media is our reliance on those with a vested self-interest to tell us what we should thing.

    I have no bone to pick with Wetpaint or this author – of course they want to tell us about the world in ways that benefit them. Shame on WSJ for being too lazy to research this themselves.

  • Anonymous

    Incorrectly assumed statistics.  Traffic doesn’t equate to web size.  And, the correlation to Facebook is not subject to this concept in any way.  What a poor article.

  • http://twitter.com/moiraeve1 Moira S

    The soaring optimism of this article is appreciated but I don’t entirely buy it. I think we’ve all seen our publishing companies retract publishing resources, and it’s worrisome. Publishing content (documents) requires effort, investment, people capital. Organizations think it’s easy (and cheap) to put up a page on Facebook, and they won’t invest in programming, databases, original sources that inform research, analysis, and value-added content such as graphic design, infographics, and lengthy feature material.

  • http://twitter.com/whiteknuckled whiteknuckled

    Zing!

    I realized the other day that I don’t find interesting things to read nearly as much from even my trusted feeds in Google Reader — there’s often just too much to read there and I don’t have time to plow through it all to find the gems. I tend to end up reading and watching and looking at things passed along via twitter and FB these days. I’ve started counting on my social network to keep me informed and entertained, to some degree, and it wasn’t a conscious decision, really.

  • http://twitter.com/moiraeve1 Moira S

    I find Twitter much more substantive than Facebook.

  • http://twitter.com/whiteknuckled whiteknuckled

    For example, I did not search or find this article via my pre-chosen feeds or news sources. I was referred along by a trusted contact on twitter. That’s becoming the norm. 

    Or maybe this: we’re spending less time searching the web, more time actually using and reading the interesting things. The power of the crowd and the social networks we’re connected with have taken away the 5, 10, 15 whatever percent of time that we used to spend just browsing and searching. We still obviously use the searchable web — we just search less, perhaps.

  • Anonymous

    The web used to be more personal. Now all the personal stuff has moved to FB, Twitter, etc. The web is not becoming irrelevant it’s becoming better,more focused, more substantial.Real, substantial content doesn’t belong on FB.

  • http://twitter.com/iliadraznin Ilia Draznin

    Umm, newsflash, Facebook is part of the web. It doesn’t make sense to look at two as separate. It doesn’t make sense to classify parts of the web as searchable and parts as social since they are interchangeable – you can search the “social” web and you can share the “searchable” web. Basically your whole argument is built on a non sequitur.

  • James Allred

    Sorry Ben, I didn’t read your post after I figured out that your graph is misleading.

    This graph would seem to suggest that in March, internet users spent nearly nine times as much time on facebook as they did on the rest of the web. Quite a claim! But, a closer examination of the data reveals otherwise. First, look at the Y axis. It starts at 80, not zero, so what we’re seeing is a graph of the difference between facebook and the rest of the web, not the entire thing. In March, the facebook index is much higher than the rest-of-web index, but it isn’t even twice as high. The graph with a Y axis starting at zero doesn’t look nearly so dramatic.

    Second, the Y axis isn’t “minutes,” contrary to the suggestion of the title. It’s indexed so that however many minutes were used in March is equal to 100. So, this graph only shows the change in minutes since March 2010, not the absolute minutes being used. In other words, if it were a graph of only my use, and I spent 2,000 minutes on the “rest of the web” and 15 minutes on facebook in March, and then this month I spent 1,800 minutes on the “rest of the web” and 28 minutes on facebook, you’d get a graph that looks exactly like this.

    There are ways to accurately reflect the data that time spent on facebook is rapidly increasing and time spent on the rest of the web is gradually decreasing, but a deceptive graph is not the best choice.

  • http://twitter.com/mike_garvey Mike Garvey

    My God that’s a misleading chart.

  • http://www.fordcastle.com Stephen Johnston

    Interesting article. The graph is rather misleading – indexes will do that. But two fundamental points still resonate: 
    i) Social is ever more important, and Google’s failed here. From Buzz to +1, they’ve got nothing.
    ii) Facebook, and social networks make openness an option, not a requirement. Much of what happens on FB is behind closed doors (thankfully), and that changes the balance of power. It pushes in the opposite direction to Google’s laudatory aim to make information universally accessible. 

    So, I agree with the direction of the article and underlying trends, but am less optimistic than the author. Am concerned about the dumbing down / echo chamber effect and of the emergence of social siloes. For my money, Twitter does the best job currently at optimizing openness and relevance.

  • http://www.twitter.com/daveculbertson Dave Culbertson

    Sigh….this is getting tiresome.

    I
    worked at AOL and have a different perspective on reverse blackhole that Facebook is (we’re doomed, it’s sucking the entire web into it!).Facebook will end up trying to control distribution as AOL once tried. Companies such as Travelocity ended up paying
    millions of $$ to AOL to be “where the people are” before they figured
    out that they could use the web to by-pass the AOL platform and go
    directly where the *most* people are. Many brands jumping on the
    Facebook wagon will eventually realize this – again – and refocus on
    their websites. Do brands want to drive their own cars on the
    information superhighway or be stuck in the back of someone else’s bus?

  • Anonymous

    The graph shows that by 2014, users will spend more than 24 hours a day on facebook.

    Also, by 2017 the internet will no shrink to the size of a floppy disk and only facebook will remain.

  • Anonymous

    Follow the money …. who is behind this Ben and Wetpaint ? Another smear campaign by Facebook against Google to hide their puny revenues despite touting massive users.

  • Sayter

    They’re called Op-Ed or opinion pieces, and they’ve existed in some shape or form since the 1920′s. The modern version of using a non-journalist, such as this article, was started in the 1970′s by the New York Times.

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    I don’t think that’s quite what’s going on.  Interestingly, even with the relative time spent on the searchable web going down, the number of search queries being performed is up – Rand Fishkin says up by 200% or more.  I think search still plays an important utility function; but search just isn’t home base as much any longer.

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Thanks for the feedback!  Do you do freelance infographic design?  Would love to use for the next one. 

    –Ben

  • http://twitter.com/UniqueVisitor Jeff Pester

    Ben, how exactly are you measuring “time spent on Facebook”? Because if the user is simply logged in via Connect and spending time on “affiliated” sites then there’s a major flaw in this analysis and conclusions. 

    Look forward to hearing more about your specific methodology – thx.

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Thanks Danny.  Great to see you here!  What a coincidence that you, like the rest of us, read and write on many websites.

    The last decade has been dominated by search categorically, and Google in particular, as the single overwhelmingly dominant distributor of traffic.  And Google’s search volume is still on the rise – but on a time spent basis, the trend is getting more cemented every month that people are adopting a new, multidimensional, social home base for users. Sorry, search isn’t the only game in town. 

    Google itself is right to be be massively concerned:  it’s no coincidence that the first and only broad-based incentive program the company has ever undertaken is to catch up in social.

    For publishers/media companies, individually we each do little to drive the change; but each of us who responds to the change has a ton to gain for ourselves in staying relevant and building relationships with our audience.  We, like other publishers, see our success in social begetting more success in search, direct, and referral traffic.  It’s a catalyst for growth across the board for us. 

    But publishers who don’t take advantage of the social web will find themselves left behind, missing out on a distribution channel that is gaining fast. 

    –Ben

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Prescient call on the regulation, given today’s news that the FTC is on Google:
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/.....nquiry/?hp

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Thanks David.  That is indeed the point – and we can directly measure where they are spending their time.

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Actually, we invest in all the things that you call out; as do all the industry leaders that I know.  The best media properties invest hugely in content, experiences, and technology to make a product that is important and great for their audiences. A Facebook page is worth very little without an awesome content property, experience, or other attraction behind it. 

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Sorry James, I didn’t read your comment after I read that you didn’t read my post.

  • http://twitter.com/ccarfi christopher carfi

    Ben, the indexed visualization is telling, yes, but I’m wondering what the *absolute* numbers are between the Facebook and “Rest of Web” numbers? (In other words, if the rest of the web is, for example, 100x the size of Facebook, this is still important but not earthshattering.)

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    When a host site integrates Facebook Connect, the time spent by users on that site accrues in comscore’s mediametrix system to the host site itself – NOT to Facebook. 

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Good points.  I consider both Google and Facebook to be pretty closed. Facebook has some API’s, but it’s not like either of them is disclosing what we all really want to know:  how do they rank us (and how can we get ranked higher).  

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Facebook is now 1 in 8 minutes of consumer’s time spent on the searchable web, based on comScore data.  

  • http://twitter.com/UniqueVisitor Jeff Pester

    Thanks for the feedback Ben. I suspect though that a good percentage of FB users leave a tab open in their browser for most of the time they’re online and that “presence” is counted as time spent as well? I’m just having a hard time believing FB users spent nearly 2x as much on FB as they do on the rest of the web combined.

    Would be interesting to see a breakout by age range.

    Thanks again!

  • http://twitter.com/ccarfi christopher carfi

    Thanks, Ben. That puts it more in perspective.

  • http://www.facebook.com/felipe.rosales1 Felipe Rosales

    FB should be refined to eliminate garbage posting

  • http://www.facebook.com/willylim.sg Willy Lim

    The author segments the web into “Social Web” and “Searchable Web”, and argues that the searchable web is shirking, with statistics to support it. This is an interesting article with good points mentioned. However, in my opinion, the math is WRONG.

    Let’s examine the classification of Online Video and Mobile Internet:-

    1) First off, how does one find online videos? Facebook shared links are one way to discover videos, but videos turn up in Google search as well. And of course, we know that Youtube is the technically second largest search engine in the world and Google owns it. So shouldn’t we classify online video time into the “searchable web” time?

    2) Secondly, what’s does one do with an internet-enabled device? Do we just use the Facebook App, and Youtube App on our smartphones? Obviously not! We also use the mobile browser to surf and search the web. So shouldn’t mobile internet also be lumped into the “searchable web”? Using internet on mobile, doesn’t make it “social web”. I can’t see the logic that using internet on different devices (in this case mobile) will result in a different classification of time spent on the internet. After all, it is still the internet we are on regardless of the accessing device isn’t it?

    So if we add “the rest of the web” + online video + mobile internet together, we would obviously have a searchable web time that is much larger than facebook.

    “Statistics are like a drunk with a lampost: used more for support than illumination.”
    - Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 – 1965)

  • http://www.digitalquarters.net Ben Elowitz

    Caveat:  I don’t work for comscore so I’m not authoritative.  That said, from having asked them about their methodology, I understand that they count up to 2 minutes on any given pageview before it expires/maxes out.  So, dormant tabs at most contribute two minutes. 

    Do note that the graph and statistics indicate aggregate time spent, rather than time spent per user.

  • http://twitter.com/coccyTW Cinzia Rinelli

    Ben, other than having media companies increasing their presence on Facebook, I think companies should have a social media policy and filters to prevent employees surfing Facebook pages. Have a look at this analysis: is it just a coincidence when Facebook traffic goes up in the US, the US GDP goes down? http://bit.ly/keNbeB

  • http://twitter.com/jjvoerman Jacob Jan Voerman

    Crap comment. No information about why wrong, why opinonated and why stupid. What is the sense of making a comment if you are not backing it up with idea’s or facts?
    Sorry, just expressing my frustration, reading this egg.
    Love discussion / dialogue. Learn from it. Don’t fil space with useless comments please!

  • Anonymous

    Agree with your comments on FaceBook pages, however for a trusted reference I always prefer getting info from someone I know. A quick question on FB or Twitter will get me much more personalised responses than an algorithm…and it involves a lot more variables that will never be able to be programmed, that’s the beauty of the system. It is dynamic because it relies on human interaction.

  • Kathleen Wolff

    Ben, 

    Some thoughts in addition to the many great insights posted so far:  1.) FB consumers include many young people whose time online is not so meaningful. A 12-year-old may post a funny face, then correspond with 20 people who “like this”. A half hour has passed. No products have been sold, and it can be argued that not much has been accomplished. However, stats for time on FB have been boosted. 2.) Some have argued that FB manipulates and exploits its consumers. If that perception is valid among enough people, FB usage will decline. People ultimately walk away from a product they come to believe is unhealthy for them. FB will have to take care to keep pace with this perception. There are companies who have learned that lesson too late.  3.) Google continues to provide a service that makes it faster and easier for us to find what we need. For that reason, we spend less time on Google. Yet Google is building loyalty with quality. Consumer loyalty is priceless. It would be interesting to see a survey comparing consumer sentiment between the two companies. I suspect Google’s respect and popularity is more consistent.  Finally, what will happen when the youngest FB users join the working world and start their own families? Will the 12-year-old user of today want his/her 12-year-old to spend as much time on FB as he/she did as a child? FB was only launched in 2004. This important, transformative company is still in its infancy. The chart you are showing is just a snapshot. Thanks for the thoughtful article.PS – It is too bad you have detracted from your thought-provoking message by illustrating it with chart that garners such criticism. I would stay on the conservative  side from now on so your readers don’t get distracted. People are smart. 

  • http://www.openviewpartners.com Scott Maxwell

    Great stuff Ben and I really like Danny’s comments as well as the other productive comments. 

    On the basic facts of decreased usage of the non-facebook web, any thoughts on how much of this is because of a better user experience and better ability for people to find what they are looking for, which reduces time a bit?  Also, how much of it is due to website load times being faster?  Finally, how much has gone offline (into things like  e-mail updates from websites that people read before they actually go to the site or via moblile apps)?

    My personal experience is that I have become a great skimmer and find that websites are increasingly fast at displaying information.  I also use Google several times a day and find it really valuable.  I am able to get through a lot relatively quickly.  It doesn’t help ad-based publishers because I don’t even notice the advertisements any more, but it could account for more value in less time, couldn’t it?

    Also, my sense from watching my kids with Facebook is that they are engaging in chats and other communications with their friends rather than consuming a lot of published content.  It seems to me that their is a great purpose for Facebook which is truly different than Google, Twitter, or LinkedIn, and perhaps that purpose, at least at this point, leads to more minutes used but not necessarily more value to the user.

    This data is really interesting and I would love to hear other thoughts that explain it beyond “Google is going away and you need Facebook.”  Just to be clear, this idea makes sense to consider and I am glad you threw it out there to consider, but what are the other ideas that come out from this great analysis or other great analyses?

    Ben, you nailed a great topic and I was also happy to see Danny call you out on some of your conclusions.  I would love to see the two of you put your big brains together and get clarity on where you agree and where you don’t based on these and other facts.  It would be a quite interesting read and would be very valuable to start-ups and VCs as well as to publishers and marketers.

    Scott Maxwell
    OpenView Venture Partners

Must-Reads from other Web sites

Nick Bilton

Facebook vs. Twitter

David Carr

Maturing as Publisher and Platform

Chris McCann

Peter Thiel’s Secrets of Starting Companies

About Voices

Along with original content and posts from across the Dow Jones network, this section of AllThingsD includes Must-Reads From Other Web Sites — pieces we’ve read, discussions we’ve followed, stuff we like. Six posts from external sites are included here each weekday, but we only run the headlines. We link to the original sites for the rest. These posts are explicitly labeled, so it’s clear that the content comes from other Web sites, and for clarity’s sake, all outside posts run against a pink background.

We also solicit original full-length posts and accept some unsolicited submissions.

Voices is edited by Beth Callaghan.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »