[crazygringo]

> Teens likely see Facebook the same way the Facebook generation sees LinkedIn – like a utilitarian place to manage connections.

I've heard it a billion times that teens aren't using Facebook. But who cares? I just don't see any evidence that this heralds the end of Facebook.

It's not necessarily any more meaningful than "people ages 65-70 don't use Facebook". It's a small percentage of the population. And there's no indication that teens are using something else that will replace Facebook when they're in their 20's and 30's -- you can't organize parties on Instagram or Snapchat. Every indication is that teens get onto Facebook once they stop being teens, correct me if I'm wrong.

Can we stop talking about this ineffable "cool" factor, until there's any kind of evidence that it is actually necessary for Facebook's continued success? I mean, I don't remember Facebook ever being cool. It's always been pretty drab, a pretty bland boring blue, with an interface much like an OS. But it just works better than the alternatives, and keeps working better. Why people are suddenly constantly talking about this "lack of cool" is beyond me.

[freyr]

> And there's no indication that teens are using something else that will replace Facebook when they're in their 20's and 30's -- you can't organize parties on Instagram or Snapchat.

Today's teens do not use Facebook as much as teens did in the past. That's a fact. Will they use it more once they're in their 30s? That's pure speculation on your part, which is completely unsubstantiated, and we'll have to wait one or two decades to find out. I tend not to put a lot of weight in unsubstantiated technology predictions spanning decades.

In any case, if Facebook is transitioning from a site that is used by lots of people for long periods of time (which it was), to a calendar/contacts app that people check into occasionally and briefly (which it has become for me, and apparently others as well), that's a glaring problem for their business model. Even if they remain the absolute best party organizing site on the web for years to come, that's probably not good enough to support their current revenue model.

> Every indication is that teens get onto Facebook once they stop being teens, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're just making up a random fact to support your case, and leaving the burden on the reader to substantiate your claims, correct me if I'm wrong.

> I mean, I don't remember Facebook ever being cool ... Why people are suddenly constantly talking about this "lack of cool" is beyond me.

Facebook was cool. When it began launching in colleges around the country, "cool" kids (particularly fraternity and sorority members) were early adopters. Shortly thereafter, everybody on campus was using it and Myspace became a joke.

> It's always been pretty drab, a pretty bland boring blue, with an interface much like an OS.

If you're looking to the interface to figure out if it was, you're looking in the wrong place. But for the record, Facebook's interface was much, much cooler than the eyesore that was Myspace.

[quack]

> You're just making up a random fact to support your case, and leaving the burden on the reader to substantiate your claims, correct me if I'm wrong.

And the only fact supporting your case is a sentence from Facebook's Q3 report. Total active teen usage was stable while younger teens are dropping off. If you want to claim that Facebook was downplaying the extent of the problem then that's a very bold assertion. Hiding critical information such as that for investors is what get's executives in trouble. It's also why they bothered to share a piece of information that sent the share price tumbling 20% after an 18% jump.

The use case of Facebook is not messaging. It never has been. The use case of Facebook is their social graph. It's your online identity. It's being the lowest barrier of entry to use the internet.

[joaorj]

i shouldn't be comenting just to say so little, but this was brilliant:

"> Every indication is that teens get onto Facebook once they stop being teens, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're just making up a random fact to support your case, and leaving the burden on the reader to substantiate your claims, correct me if I'm wrong."

[owenmarshall]

> It's not necessarily any more meaningful than "people ages 65-70 don't use Facebook".

From an advertising perspective, there's a massive gulf between "teens don't use Facebook" and "senior citizens don't use Facebook".

To put it flippantly: one group is headed into a coveted demographic, the other group buys denture paste.

That's not to say that Facebook wouldn't do fine even if the only people that used it were "uncool and old" like the rest of us, but to an advertiser it's a bit of a worrying sign.

[scarecrowbob]

I don't think that "advertisers" are as homogenous as you portray them here; generally, they have specific products that they are marketing to specific demographics, which sometimes includes denture paste.

[alex_c]

True, but teens and young adults are much harder to reach through "traditional" advertising and much more valuable because advertisers can influence purchasing habits that will last a lifetime. As a group, they are worth a lot more to an advertising supported business than the 65-70 crowd.

[owenmarshall]

Indeed, but it's no secret that most mainstream advertising skews towards a much younger demographic.

It's very possible to have success marketing denture paste and products to older people. But if Facebook does hemorrhage teens, advertisers will take notice. And right now Facebook is advertising. That's going to have an impact.

[cylinder]

I don't care about teenagers, but I do find it very interesting that the "founding members" of Facebook, people who were college students in 2004-2005 who excitedly joined and engaged with Facebook in its early years, are just not very engaged with FB anymore (I'm one of them), unless they maybe just had a baby.

It's almost disturbing that these days a company can be founded, become an overnight success, grow immensely, have a huge IPO, then get disrupted and on the decline in a span of only nine years.

[DougWebb]

That pretty much defines a "fad"-based company, doesn't it? I suspect it's very common in the fashion world for companies to pop up, ride a fashion trend, and disappear when it's over, with the founders moving on to start a new company to ride the next trend. Occasionally one of these companies becomes unexpectedly huge, and then they linger much longer than usual. (See: Be-dazzler.)

Maybe that's Facebook's fate. In the end, they'll be a site full of accounts for dead people who, oddly, are still Liking various products and inviting each other to play Farmville.

[RandallBrown]

I joined facebook in 2005 and I think I'm just as engaged as ever.

I use it for sharing pictures with my friends and family. Hiking, skiing, camping, vacations, whatever. My family loves seeing that crap. My friends do too. The group album feature released a few months ago is AWESOME for that stuff.

Organizing events without facebook is tough. Facebook handles RSVPs. Has polls for things at the event (where should it be, what should we eat, etc.). Lets you post pictures. Lets you discuss everything.

Groups are fantastic also. I have a group where people post if they're going skiing this weekend. I used a group to coordinate 10 people training and participating in a Tough Mudder event. I have another group to coordinate a small semi-startup I'm a part of.

I can't imagine my life without facebook anymore.

[visakanv]

I highly recommend deactivating for a month, just to experience the difference. It's phenomenal. If you choose to reconnect, you'll look at everything differently. It's just amazing, you have to try it.

[parasubvert]

That would be your anecdote. I wouldn't make the assumption that Facebook is being disrupted (by what? Snapchat?)

Been on Facebook since 2005 (after I left college) and I'd say that it's busier than it has ever been. A huge chunk of my social sphere uses it for photo and link sharing; it has completely replaced mailing lists and instant messaging of years past.

[cylinder]

Maybe not disrupted but certainly unbundled. Facebook still serves as a central umbrella or hub for keeping track of all the people you know and meet (basically a contacts list) and an easy way to message acquaintances whose email you do not know. Other than that, it's much less engaging. News Feeds are wastelands with nothing but memes and vines and the only people who seem to share are the annoying ones nobody wants to hear from anymore.

[Segmentation]

I've wondered, when articles write "teens aren't using Facebook" -- are they referring to young college students (17-19) or are they referring to middle/high schoolers?

Facebook was originally college-only, and high schoolers tend to emulate college students more than the other way around (in fact, I doubt any college student follows high school trends), therefore my guess is what Facebook is actually losing is young college students..? If they're losing high school students.. who cares.

[cdcarter]

> you can't organize parties on Instagram or Snapchat

You can.

Beyond that, the interesting part is the sentence you yourself quoted. It's utilitarian, it's contact management, it's messaging, but it's not a primary source of content and engagement within the demo, and that's by it's own virtue interesting.

[basch]

Well facebook owns instagram, so in reality, they are probably perfectly ok with teens using instagram over facebook.

[judk]

Is instagram as monetized ad the FB feed?

[enraged_camel]

>>It's not necessarily any more meaningful than "people ages 65-70 don't use Facebook". It's a small percentage of the population.

Except for the fact that teens are expected to live (and spend money) for many decades, whereas 65-70 year olds are nearing the ends of their lives. So yes, a 16% decline in teen users is of huge importance.