now, they would definitely copy google + rapidly right? lol
sean parker is reflecting on a period in time where there was no clear strategic path to follow for an embryonic giant website that was based on 'just' an idea. ideas alone were worth a ton of money back then because nobody knew how profitable they might become in the future - for instance - youtube had only just been established back then and within 2 years of inception were sold to google for what, $7b / $8b?
dont think its possible for you, me or anybody else on this forum to attempt something like that now because there are too many people that know too much and the minute you take off is the minute you'll have others throwing up directly competing sites. look at fiverr for example.
having said that, LOOK at fiverr, theyve gone and built quite a decent 'little' business in a very short period of time, so that kind of defeats my argument
anyway, parker's own experiences at napster had put him in a unique position and they made him a very unique commodity
at that time. serendipity subsequently brought him and zuckerberg together.
napster had been sued into oblivion but that experience of building a business that went through massive, vertical growth curves gave parker insights that were worth billions to the right company and as we now know, facebook was that company.
there were no business models for facebook to follow. no guru's insights to glean. there was nobody out there who could hand on heart say that they KNEW the best way forward. sure, plenty of people had instinctive insights but few of those people were in positions of significant power when it came to the social network/communities model. sean parker was one of the few. he was a face and a name known by two important communities - vc's and internet entrepreneurs.
he knew about techy stuff as he was a former hacker, he knew about internet marketing, he knew about the value of building a big internent brand and he knew about the gargantuan sums of money that lay on the other side of the internet river. he was able to open zuckerbergs eyes to those possibilities and he was able to introduce facebook to investors.
importantly, he knew about GIVING THE PRODUCT AWAY FOR FREE and thats a business model that scared the shit out of traditional venture capitalists and it sacred the shit out of them because they couldnt see an exit route which would allow them to cash in their investment.
traditonal vc's knew about traditonal business models and internet businesses didnt even come close to fitting into that mould, hence the reason why a giant like BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY (
worlds most succesful investment company) didnt get involved in any kind of internet start-up because according to warren buffet "we wont invest in businesses that we dont understand.."
where was the revenue going to come from with a stoopid little college students website?
at the time, friendsreunited was already quite established in the uk and growing well. it was being run by a husband and wife team in north london out their 3 bed semi. their big mistake? they charged people to connect - you joined free of charge - but if you wanted to send a message, you had to pay a joining fee.
that folks, was traditional business thinking and thats why they sank while facebook has soared.
sean parker was instrumental in facebooks succes for the simple reason that here was man who had gone through the battle hardening fire of all out combat against corporate world plc.
his experiences at and with napster influenced his future thinking and when he saw facebook, he knew better than most what could be done with it as a project and how BIG the thinking around its possibilities and potential could and should be.