I read an interesting article over at CNBC about News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) MySpace asset. It seems that the social-networking site wants to do something about the fact that it won't succeed in booking $1 billion in net sales before the conclusion of the conglomerate's fiscal year. MySpace will undergo an aesthetic overhaul to make the site more appealing. As it is now, many users might find the site too busy and not so friendly in terms of navigation. The changes will take place over time, beginning this week and concluding in the fall.
The question on my mind now is, did News Corp. really need MySpace? Sure, the site has a heck of a lot of registered users, well over 100 million worldwide, but now people are wondering how effectively these users can be exploited in terms of generating economic value. The article mentioned the disappointing results so far from an advertising deal made with Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) back in 2006, one which had a $900 million figure attached to it.
The problem here for News Corp. is that users are fickle and may eventually find another MySpace in the future (obviously, Facebook is an example of how social networking continues to evolve and how any big brand in this arena can be challenged at any time). That wouldn't be good for long-term growth. Another problem cited is the fact that active MySpace users just want to socialize with their friends and/or network; they don't care about the ads. There's a lot of truth to this claim, and it's a huge issue going forward.
I think one thing MySpace should concentrate on as best it can is trailers for entertainment product. Those are the kind of ads that I tend to click on most often. And I think that focusing on movies, TV shows, and video games is in line with what the cool kids on MySpace search for most. I do believe in the idea of a fresh look for the site. Change is always good and it will spark interest in people to check out what's new. It also offers an opportunity to bring back inactive users.
Still, I think MySpace needs to be looked at from different angles, and News Corp. is likely to have a tough time keeping it from being a dragging element in its operations. It's an excellent property to synergize with, since News Corp. runs an entertainment portfolio, but turning the users into compulsive ad-viewing eyeballs will be a difficult task.
Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change at any time.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-18-2008 @ 2:22AM
Laurel Papworth said...
You can tell that these Facebook vs MySpace articles are written by people who don't use them! MySpace is a depth of content site. As such, to walk away from 2 or 3 years of content creation is a tough thing to do. Particularly blog articles - once a readership has been built, thats throwing away a lot of hard work! MySpace really is about user generated content.
Facebook is not. It is not possible to blog on Facebook. Mostly FB is about distribution, not creation, we put up links and check feeds. A few to few community, rather than the broadcast of a Myspace blog, we gate our information but use many viral touch points (the feeds mainly, auto emails and notifications) to distribute external content. blogs such as myspace go hand in hand with distribution sites such as facebook.
Time on site at myspace is much higher because we have to create the content there. Facebook is only 20mins per month because we usually just check content there... newsfeeds become our tabloids, :)
Really quite different sites for different purposes.