I think you're going to see a flood of additional advertising sections posted throughout the site...we're already seeing more ads show up in places like the "Home" page under the user accounts - mixed in with all the updates of your friends/families/groups that are part of your network are sponsor ads.

See how Google is NOT able to manage cultural changes: http://techwatch.reviewk.com/2008/04/google-faces-decline-of-entrepreneu...

I really don't know how any of these social networks expect to make money off traditional advertising. Targeted ads based on personal information sounds good, except that people don't come to Facebook to actively look to be marketed to. This is why we see such low CPMs on sites like Facebook and MySpace. The whole branded page idea is bad too since users have to actively look for these pages and groups in order to find them, and as I mentioned that is just not what people come to social networks to do.

In fact these social networks basically give away their best advertising channel for free, applications. There is a reason why branded pages and groups have comparatively low member numbers when compared to the most popular social network applications, and that reason is because applications offer a unique form of interaction where regardless of whether or not it is branded, if the experience is fun and meaningful people will use it.

Advertising cannot pay for everything, especially if it's being done in a space where people don't want to be advertised to. There have been a number of posts in recent weeks that basically spell it out that users are willing to be marketed in a social setting if it is an experience that they control.

Social networks in China such as QQ are already turning nice revenues by charging for features, which users would be willing to pay reasonable amounts for it they want them bad enough. Social networks such as MySpace and Facebook should really be charging users very small amounts for the applications and features they install, say 10 cents a piece or perhaps allow developers to set the price of their own applications. This would effectively eliminate all of the stupid applications out there that exist merely for the point of existing and by utilizing their large user bases, could move enough volume to generate some respectable revenue. I know I would pay 10 cents for FunWall because it's extremely entertaining and useful. In addition Facebook could charge application developers a similar small premium for a spot on the Home page since that is where users will typically spend most of their time interacting with their friends. Some social networks already give this away for free though such as MySpace. Despite the perception that people will only use what is free, if you charge them a price that is basically considered free users would simply focus on finding and installing the features and applications that best suit their needs instead of just installing everything. Is that really such a bad idea from the perspective of the user who often finds themselves overwhelmed with application overload which deteriorates the user experience?

so wait...why are we changing facebook? isnt it just a tool to keep in touch with ppl and update them on whats going on in our lives? Why are there companies wanting to profit from this? It's not broken, don't fix it.

And again even more on the social networking, the lack of privacy and the business model:

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/N/NOT_SO_PRIVATE?SITE=WIRE&SECTION...

makes me wonder if this can be changed in an evolutionary way at all versus baking the financial model in right from the start (i.e. fast company's article on ning this month)

Facebook, like MYSPACE, are sites that eventually are going to need to expand their range or they will suffer from upcoming competition. Social Networks are important as a whole, but for the individual - these networks are not important at all. unless there are ways for people to capitalize on these sites - these sites will just be the BBS's of yesterYear!

The goal of being profitable is the goal of every company and it's the right thing for Facebook to do. Now culture, I don't believe, has to change because being a successful company was the goal at the beginning and would still be the goal now.

I don't get spammed by Facebook and I've actually clicked on a few ads. The way I would try get profitable would be to see about lowering operating expenses first and streamlining the operations of the backend. Next, I think profitability should become not just the goal of Facebook but they should extend that goal to include the users of Facebook somehow. Lastly, they are on the right course with Pages. Everyone on Facebook is a fan of something or someone and therefore they can leverage their userbase in that regard.

I think when we talk about a CULTURE it is not that easy for a CHANGE and a change doesnt come so fast.

Spam. i've already begun to stop using my facebook account as much. It looks to be going the way of myspace, with personal pages, and pages set up for companies and organizations. All it was to me was a way to keep in touch with college and high school friends, now it's trying to be so much more.