Yes; in fact, this statement would have made a lot more sense:

> "The time people spend using our products is a good measure of whether they're delivering value to us."

Now that's a little ominous, but yeah absolutely. It also fits with the "consumer as product" viewpoint.

Isn't the only logical endpoint for Facebook to become a VR world where we all spend 100% of our time? That's what a forever-continuing revenue increase would create, right? And that's exactly how the incentive structures exist right now.

I don't really like that society places such high emphasis on structures that create dystopias.

Interestingly, I think there may be a point beyond which Facebook begins to lose revenue as users spend more time on their site.

Think about it - their revenue comes from turn-over. They don't make money because you spend time on facebook - they make money because you spend time/money elsewhere, and they know enough about you to encourage you to spend more money on other people's products or otherwise sell their knowledge of you to people who can make those sales.

At some point wherein Facebook occupies an exceptional amount of a user's time - when it becomes the only product a user wants - Facebook won't be able to sell you anything. At this point, the company would probably need to find other ways to profit besides advertising. But I don't think we'll ever get anywhere near the point at which an increase in FB use time corresponds to a decrease in advertiser value anyway.

you are neglecting in-app purchases

At some point, time spent on Facebook will start competing against time spent playing candy crush saga.

On the plus side, beyond a certain point Facebook is going to have to start investing heavily in life-extension technology for their users, so as to continue increasing the time that users can use Facebook.

>VR world where we all spend 100% of our time

<sarcasm> Farmville !! I can't wait !! </sarcasm>

<!-- Sarcasm not towards you, towards my thought of VR farmville -->

You mignt as well just ask...Why not VR Zoidberg?

At a "big data" talk Yahoo gave one of the keynotes where they asked which one of the two email samples had the "most engagement" Surprise surprise it was the one with the confusing text on it -- people were clicking on it to see what the heck it meant.

But to the Yahoo guys that meant that email was better as it got more clicks. And I suppose it is better if that's how your bonus is constructed.

No really. Send slightly jacked-up canned emails. Gravitas!

Well, value in sating a compulsive or addictive behavior, but not all values are equal.

Exactly, I agree. That's why I didn't disagree with the statement, just qualified it with more examples to illustrate your point.

That so many exceptions and alternative interpretations are possible makes "value" a meaningless term. Perhaps some day reporters won't go MEGO[1] when hearing it.

1. https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/mego/

Value is just like a variable, it is a place holder for what matters. And the value of the value can vary depending on the person or the situation. It could be a positive or a negative value, a value of high importance or minimal importance. Assigning something a value just basically means you're not entirely disinterested in it.

Thanks. Well said.