I'm a confessed Facebook junky with a rather odd, broad, and well-shaken mix of friends. As such, it is difficult to imagine Facebook being displaced as the world's primary social network any time soon. Too many people have invested too many hours cultivating their Facebook connections, personas, and daily habits for any newcomer to compensate us for the switching costs. On the flip side, yes, it is tough to imagine any decently intended missteps from the Facebook side that would make the bulk of us depart en masse.
To be clear, I'm not going to argue whether or not we *should* all be deeply concerned about how the privacy of our data and posts has been handled. I'm just holding fast to the point that, realistically, too many of us are too invested in Facebook for even serious privacy concerns to legitimately threaten it's social supremacy. I mean, if we refused to stop shelling out serious coin for Microsoft/Intel devices in the face of their repeated failures to shore up security, does anyone seriously think that a broader cross-section of he world's population will now give up Facebook's free services?
So, sure, perhaps Zuckerberg does indeed have a solid fact base to be, at least on the inside, sanguine about how willing his user base is to forgive his mistakes handling our data. Fine. But here is where the story of Zuckerberg shifts from digital wunderkind to morality tale, from a plot focused on what he has achieved...to who he really is.
Zuckerberg finds himself the primary owner of an insanely valuable cache of consumer data gathered through a confluence of perceptions that he has created the world's broadest and most hospitable place to relax, reconnect, and share. On the one hand, the monetary value of his creation leads his investors and partners to demand that this 26-year old prove himself the hard-as-nails businessman worthy of running one of the world's biggest companies with billions in perceived revenue opportunities still left on the table. On the other hand, the 450 million strong members of the online community he built expect that he behave with the graciousness and hospitality expected of the host of the world's largest cocktail party.
The last two weeks have proven that Zuckerberg is no Oprah.
Zuckerberg simply does not have it in him to be *both* Chief Executive and Chief Host. Unlocking the value of Facebook requires Mark to step down from one of these roles.
To be clear, I intend no insult here. Every founder of a successful start-up faces a similar moment where the next phase of growth requires that at least one of the many roles they filled out of necessity be given over to a specialist. The Shakespearean question is whether the ego necessary to get Zuckerberg to this point is an ego capable of recognizing its limitations in getting to what's next.
Unsolicited advice? From a distance, Zuckerberg seems to be driven more by the challenges and rewards of Chief Executive, not Chief Host. Good for him. Really. I repeat...he is the youngest billionaire in the world. Keep at it. But he is not...warm and fuzzy. The largest network of friends the world has ever seen cannot be long and well managed at an emotional distance by a Lord of Strangers.
Perhaps he could take a cue from Bill Gates in the face of staggering blows to Microsoft's reputation for its care of the privacy and security of its end users. Take a week or two off to think. Have the PR engine primed and ready. Come back with well-crafted words and as much sincerity as you can muster. Declare that nothing...NOTHING!!...is more important and valuable to both the Facebook community AND! its investors than the trust of its users. As such, Facebook will be appointing a *new* Chief Community Officer, the new face of Facebook, the new czar of privacy.
And give Oprah a call. Who knows what might come of it...
