Yesterday, following a study that showed declining interest in Facebook from the social network’s developer community, we posted a poll asking if you were fed up with Facebook. The results were a fairly resounding “yes.” In our most active poll ever, only 13% of you said that you are “Not At All” fed up with the social network and are still enjoying it just as much as when you signed up.

Many of the comments spoke to issues that I think are not only being experienced by those of us in the tech community, but Facebook users at-large. Here’s a sampling:

Jared writes:

“Facebook jumped the shark with the infectious applications as well as their rate limiter gone amok. I write a friend Happy Birthday on their wall yesterday and they say I’m spamming, apparently because two weeks before I wrote another friend Happy Birthday. I’m not sure who’s running that ship but they are starting to go off course.”

Aprille writes:

“Facebook makes my head hurt - there’s too much going on on a page,and since I just want to see quick updates, scan for new friends/ emails, and leave - it is way too cluttered. It seems to me that people started having fun, developers went nuts creating something for every personality possible, and now it’s just drowning in too much stuff.”

Ranee writes:

“I wanted to throw up when Facebook opened up to high school students, and when Facebook opened up to everyone, I wanted to stab myself in the eye … P.S. A feature that I really find annoying is “People You Might Know”. There are TONS of people who are friends of my friends who I do NOT want to get in contact with. What makes it worse is that everytime I log into my account, I see their ugly faces on my homepage.”

It should be noted that the original report was only showing application usage – not overall usage of Facebook, which most accounts indicate remains at an all-time high. However, the poll question certainly did provide a sounding board for some of you to voice your displeasure with the direction Facebook is going.

I think Brian Solis summed it up pretty well with his headline a couple weeks ago: “Facebook is the New MySpace.” What was less than a year ago seen as Facebook’s game-changer - the platform - is now being seen by users as its most annoying and least desirable feature.

Yes, the make-up of a Mashable reader is not necessarily the same as that of a typical Facebook user. But the same could be said of MySpace, where those of us that knew of a better, less spammy option (Facebook) quickly left, and over-time, our friends began to follow. Who will step up this time around and offer a better alternative?

SOURCE: Mashable

["This is part of coverage of unfolding events regarding the demise of Jangl. For previous coverage, see the following stories:

Interview with Michael Cerda
Rumors of the Death of Jangl Were Greatly Exaggerated
Jangl Calls the Whole Thing Off; JaJah Reaps the Benefits]

I’ve been particularly well looped in on what is looking like the end of the mobile-social networking convergence company Jangl. My phone has literally been ringing off the hook for the last several days from various folks on all shake-out: disgruntled former employees, company founders, and folks that were in fact employees up until a matter of hours ago.

A lot of the information I’ve received has been off the record, in the form of background, or from sources wishing to remain uncredited and anonymous, which will make this particular account of the tale a bit less credible to some, but given the nature of non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, and the desire to just plain have a job again at some point in the future, it’s the nature of the beast to have a lot of information that can’t be traced directly to it source.

Essentially, what I’m saying is you’ll just have to trust me on a lot of this.

I Can Relate To All of This

As I talked to folks throughout the day, though, a clear picture of exactly how Jangl met its end here, and why the secrecy has been maintained leading up to the official announcements. I’ve been through exactly the same thing.

A few years ago, I was made CFO of a small discount travel startup that was growing exponentially. It wasn’t very long before our small five man operation was on the radar of wealthy investors wanting to get a quick in to the travel broker business, and soon we were in talks with a couple of billionaires that were interested in outrightly acquiring our company (the name isn’t important, but anyone who digs long enough into my past could probably connect the dots and figure out which prominent billionaire it is).

Meanwhile, back at the company, we ran into an unenviable position of expanding our sales far beyond what our purchasing power was, and to sustain the business, we were going to require outside investment to make ends meet. At first we weren’t worried, but eventually, as negotiations dragged on for months (and money we borrowed to make payroll was finally coming due), it was clear that those that we were in talks with for the acquisition were aware of our malady, and were intentionally dragging things out so as to hold us out over a barrel and force us to sell for a fraction of our worth.

Meanwhile, we were growing a list of unsatisfied customers and employees. I’ll spare you the gory details, but it didn’t end well for the organization.

There’s a reason why Jangl isn’t releasing the names of the company it was in acquisition talks with, and while it may have something to do with a confidentiality agreement, there’s also a strong possibility that they don’t want to be seen in the same light as the former employees who were intent on burning the company in public. It looks unprofessional, and the truth will eventually come out - as it is right here. They had Jangl over a barrel, they knew it, and the were trying to acquire the company for a song.

Michael Cerda Thanks One of His Investors

While I was in the midst of writing up some of these details earlier today, Michael Cerda, one of the founders of Jangl, sent me a link to a post on his personal blog outlining a bit more of the pertinent details:

We accomplished more than most companies do on the amount of money we raised and the time we spent on it. And in our opinion it needed another 18-24 months worth of runway to realize its fullest potential; but at the end of the day every venture capitalist has their own coefficient of venture. To that end, we took company forward into an M&A process.

Unfortunately with much bigger things happening in the marketplace it turned out to be the worst time in a few years to be selling. We were just days from closing an M&A transaction which was going to mean good things for all involved. But there are more ways deals can blow up than there are ways for them to stick. So it blew up, and now the company is responding to acquisition interest.

Ben and I resigned Tuesday and put our heads together to figure out how we can keep as many of our great team together, and still pursue our passion for being the web’s phone.

This information follows a lot of what I was able to piece together from the conversations I’ve had with all the players in this game - and unfortunately the bad guys are almost all the ones doling out (or intimating that they’d be doling out) the cash. Of course there’s the unnamed acquirer in question, the ones that our original tipsters said was WhitePages.com, who seemed to be unwilling to close the deal for whatever reason. And then there’s the venture capitalists who were intent on a cashout sooner, rather than later.

What do I mean by that? I personally think it’s significant that in Michael’s blog post on the topic that a great number of folks are thanked by name, and only one of those people thanked is an investor (and only one of the investors, at that) [emphasis mine]:

Tim Johnson for his relentless push of our news; Aaron Burcell for his loyalty, savvy, drinks and programatic prowess; Brian Longest for his noiseless thinking and execution; Azeem Butt for getting us on a dev schedule we should have been on years ago; James Huie for doing 3 jobs in one; Neil Alarcon for holding down the back end; Matt Murillo for the beautiful front end work; Henry Muljono for the smiles and more great front end work; Yuriy & Alex for banging out releases; and finally Chris Hadsell from Cardinal for believing in my franchise every step of the way. I’ll miss you all and will see some of you sooner than later.

The impressions I got from the myriad of folks I talked to was that even though Tim Johnson (Jangl’s corporate communications officer) and Michael put a diplomatic face on things, most of the investors weren’t willing to put in the time and money into the company to grow the revenue in play at Jangl into a profit, and were willing to risk the total of their investment for a fast payout. Perhaps this is a bit of short-sightedness on the investors part, or perhaps this grows from fears of the investors that the market is about to take a turn South. The bottom line is that they collectively put Jangl in the position that they found themselves in.

So How Did This Become A Story?

Much like in the situation I found myself in when I was in the CFO slot at my old startup, I felt the pressure from above, but I also felt the pressure of the employees. Most of them had no particular path to reward, should we be acquired, other than perhaps a bit more job security. When things became particularly dire, morale sank to record lows, and what was once a proud team standing in solidarity then became a team of constant critics, challenging every decision being made.

What makes the situation worse for Jangl is that we live in an age of readily available communication. The leakages of the stories to the press and the easily contactable potential acquirer made the deal a whole lot easier to poison. In my particular situation, my biggest fear was a situation where the workers all rose up pitchforks in hand calling for my head on a pike. Jangl had these fears, plus a number of employees who were survivors of the first tech bust, fueled by Rubel-ian inspired fears of bubbles bursting, calling into question every management decision in broad view of the entire company, and in some cases, the entire Internet.

In short, it’s tougher than ever, due to a large number of factors, to grow to completion a venture-funded business, and while I’d love to see a number of my ideas with a few million behind them, I don’t envy venture backed firms. They’re constantly facing pressure from all sides - competition, their employees, and in some cases their investors.

In this instance, I wouldn’t say that it was the money-men that killed this company, though. They played a part, as did a number of roles. As I intimated yesterday in my much more brief write-up, Jangl has become a cautionary tale, and everyone in the Web 2.0 world should be taking notes right now to avoid going down the same road.”

SOURCE: Mashable

Balancing a game-changing concept and paranoia with getting face time with people holding vast sums of capital to invest has been quite the learning experience.

In case you want to play along at home, here are a few links I’ve found of interest. I’ll keep adding to the list, the Startup category is full of more links.

Venture Hacks - It’s like match.com for investors and entrepreneurs. Here’s the summary from the launch post: The most common question we hear from entrepreneurs is, “Can you introduce me to investors?” Yes we can. We’re going to recommend startups on Venture Hacks. Investors are invited to subscribe to our recommendations. And everyone is welcome to recommend startups here. Request an invite if you want to help test the Recommended feature before we open it up—it’s also open for browsing in the meantime. Check it out.

Term sheet Series Wrap Up - Brad Feld is a tremendous resource when it comes time to look for money. A must-read blog if you’re focused on startup finance. There are many other fantastic blogs, check out Brad’s blogroll for the best of the best.

Pitching to Investors.

“This interactive class provides a clear understanding of how technology companies benefit from the addition of internationalization to their software localization plans,” comments John Watkins, ENLASO’s President and COO.

WebSeminar: “Global-Ready Applications: Programming for the World”
Date: Thursday, June 12th, 2008
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. PDT
Where: Your desktop
Register at: http://www.translate.com or http://www.lingoport.com/internationalization_webseminar
Cost: $149.00 (enter promo code “INVPR” and receive $60 off your registration

Press release at http://www.translate.com/news/050508.html

Spending for the top ten dating services represents 91% of total spending for this industry ($356.5 mln of the $379.6 mln total), according to Nielsen. Match.com led the way, spending $145.5 mln in January - October 2007, almost doubling its budget from the same time period in 2006. On the other hand, the number two advertiser eHarmony.com, cut spending 16 percent, reaching $88.1 mln, and gave up its number one position.

Let’s layer in some Compete data to round out the picture.

eHarmony cut ad spend to almost 1/2 of Match and traffic almost doubled. Match almost doubles it’s ad spend and traffic barely moves.
PlentyofFish isn’t even on the list, good for Markus. When he shows up on it we’ll know the decline has started.

Once a practice as provincial as it was personal, the art of pairing up people for marriage has become an increasingly international and technology-driven business. As young people all over the world move far from home for school and work, even those from traditionbound cultures can no longer rely solely on the resources of crafty aunties to find them suitable mates. Enter the Internet, where marriage and dating sites began to appear a decade ago and have multiplied rapidly over the past several years. In the U.S. alone, there are close to 1,000 such sites, led by Match.com eHarmony and Yahoo! Personals. The industry rang up $649 million in revenues in 2006, according to Jupiter Research, a market-research firm. With growth slowing in the U.S., Web matchmaking giants are eyeing fertile potential markets such as China and India. But an international match presents hurdles in business as in love: differing societal attitudes, wily competition and cultural quirks to bewilder the most sophisticated suitor. Love, it turns out, isn’t the same in every language–not even close.

Love is, however, a lucrative and recession-proof business, and that makes translating it worth the effort. As far back as the Paleolithic era, arranged marriages served to forge networks between family groups, writes Stephanie Coontz in Marriage, a History. Families exchanged daughters and sons for labor, land, goods and status. These matches were so important that, in almost every society, a community member eventually set up shop in setting up unions; in northern India, it was the barber’s wife, the nayan. “Be a matchmaker once,” goes the Chinese saying, “and you can eat for three years.”

In the U.S., matchmaking took off as an industry only in this decade, with the arrival of Internet dating sites. Suspicion and disdain eased into acceptance as more Americans found a partner–or at least a date and not a nut–on the sites. Of the 92 million unmarried Americans 18 and older counted by the Census last year, about 16 million have tried online dating, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2003 online daters increased 77%. With sites charging $35 a month on average, revenues popped accordingly. Growth has ebbed of late to about 10% a year, say analysts, partly because of the competing popularity of social-networking sites. You can flirt on Facebook too–and for free.

If a country with little tradition of matchmaking can embrace a version of it online, then it follows that cultures long used to a third party’s hand in love affairs would do the same. That’s what many Western companies seem to believe anyway, judging by their expansion strategies. Match.com the leading online dating site in the U.S., began exploiting first-mover advantage through international acquisitions in 2002. Now in 35 countries, the Dallas-based company says 30% of its 1.3 million members live outside the U.S., accounting for 30% of its $350 million 2007 revenues (the bulk of its 15 million members just browse for free).

But it has learned along the way that its model does not always translate. On Match, users post personal profiles and photos, attracting and perusing potential mates in what resembles a colossal bar scene. While many Americans like the freedom and convenience, single women in Japan felt threatened by the lack of privacy. Plus, parts of the profiles weren’t culturally appropriate, as Match CEO Thomas Enraght-Moony learned over lunch in a Tokyo restaurant with his country manager. “He pointed to the women there and said, ‘We really don’t need to ask for hair color. We all have the same,’” says Enraght-Moony. In Scandinavia, on the other hand, the 2.2 million Web-savvy singles were long used to dating online. To differentiate itself from local competitors when it launched there in 2003, Match toned down its window-shopping aspect and played up the promise of long-term love. “The dream here is not to marry a millionaire prince,” says Johan Siwers, vice president of Northern Europe. “The dream is to live a good life in the countryside and be happy.” Match now rules the Scandinavian market, with 1.5 million members.

One way U.S. online matchmakers seek to set themselves apart from local competitors is science. Match hired Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher to devise a compatibility test for a spin-off called Chemistry.com As Chemistry prepares to launch abroad, Fisher is confident that the test–56 questions that place users in four temperament categories–is applicable to any culture (see box, left). The societal trends that drive online matchmaking in the U.S. apply in much of the world, after all: women going to work, young people migrating far from home and, perhaps most important, a newly pervasive insistence on love as an essential ingredient of marriage. Fisher cites a study that asked 10,000 people of 36 cultures about their No. 1 criterion for marriage. “Everywhere, the answer was love,” she says.

That bodes well for the international hopes of eHarmony, the leader among compatibility-focused sites in the U.S. Started in 2000 by Neil Clark Warren, the folksy clinical psychologist who starred in the company’s ads, eHarmony poses 436 questions to users in order to find them the best match. It has since accrued 17 million members, 230 employees, $200 million in annual revenues and 30% yearly growth. That’s not to mention marriages at a rate of 90 a day, unions that so far have produced 100,000 children (a disproportionate number of them named Harmony).

But rather than dive quickly into promising markets, eHarmony has remained devoted–some would say slavishly–to its research-based model. In China, that means commissioning researchers at Beijing University to find out whether its model–in which 29 “dimensions” such as humor and spirituality are mined for compatibility–applies to the culture. Kaiping Peng, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, who is assisting eHarmony, is unsure. “What is the best match might not be about matching exactly,” he says. “Maybe it’s complementary–like the yin and the yang.” Americans are drawn to eHarmony’s deeply probing questionnaires because as a culture we seek to know ourselves. “That probably is not necessarily the teachings of Asian philosophies and religions. Buddha used to talk about diminishing self–don’t look at yourself, look at others for information and for guidance.”

Perhaps those cultural differences explain why no Western company has yet won the Chinese single’s hand. And what a hand: 46% of those 35 and younger are unmarried, according to a university study, and that percentage is increasing. Sixty million Internet users are of marrying age, according to Shanghai-based market-research company iResearch, a population that will grow about 20% a year, to 128 million in 2010. In Beijing alone, there are more than 2 million marriage-age singles. Local competition is rife. Chinese matchmaking sites had 14 million registered users in 2006, a number iResearch says will triple by 2010.

China should be a natural haven for online matchmaking. Up until a century ago, marriage-registration forms required the seal of an “introducer.” Young, educated professionals seem open-minded. Even today, the off-line matchmaking business remains robust; there are a reported 20,000 agencies, many run by local governments and bearing such dreamy names as the Beijing Military and Civilian Matchmaking Service and the Tianjin Municipal Trade Union Matchmakers’ Association. The imbalance of genders brought on by the single-child rule (many parents opted to keep only a male baby) has also led to a desperate demand for matchmakers among rural men, opening the door to unscrupulous brokers who con women into unions.

Western online matchmakers, however, do face challenges in gaining a foothold in the Chinese matchmaking market. Of the 14 million Chinese Internet daters, only 500,000 pay subscription fees; thus industry revenues are estimated at just $24 million, according to iResearch. Paying users are expected to rocket to 3 million by 2010, generating sales of at least $160 million. But fees are minimal compared with the $59 per month charged by the likes of eHarmony. “In China, if you charge money, you’ll die fast,” says Gong Haiyan, CEO and founder of the leading Web dating site, Jiayuan (formerly Love21cn). Chinese sites rely instead on online advertising and ticket sales from events such as speed-dating mixers that charge about $13 for admission (parents who tag along have to pay too). Another popular dating site, 915915.com.cn–in Chinese, the numbers sound like “only want me”–set up a “love cruise” in 2006 on the Huangpu River near Shanghai to introduce men worth at least 2 million yuan ($274,000) to attractive women. Edward Chiu, CEO of ChinaLoveLinks, says his free websites steer users to his 30 off-line matchmaking offices, where they can pay fees totaling up to $6,000. Both eHarmony and Match say they have yet to decide how to adjust their subscription-based models to the market.

Like China, India has a long history of and cultural comfort with matchmaking; as many as 90% of weddings are arranged, says Patricia Oberoi, a Delhi-based sociologist. There are 60 million singles ages 20 to 34, and 71% believe arranged marriages are more successful than “love” marriages. But with so many moving to cities or even abroad–up to a third of the population, according to the latest census–the Internet is proving preferable to the services of the village nayan. So-called matrimonial sites first appeared 10 years ago and today make up half the world’s matchmaking sites. Like U.S. sites, they offer free viewing but charge about $40 to subscribe for three months. BharatMatrimony, a leading site, claims 10 million members and, in its 10 years, a million marriages. Another, named Shaadi, boasts 800,000 matches. Industry growth in India could be even more explosive than in China; users have doubled every year. Sales are growing 50% annually and reached $30 million in 2006. “Online matrimony has become a mainstream activity, like checking e-mail,” says Uday Zokarkar, business head of BharatMatrimony.

Partly because India’s matrimonial sites have already succeeded in wooing the nation, Western companies have hesitated at the door. “India is a very different business, and we just haven’t got there yet,” says Match’s Enraght-Moony. For instance, sites there make matches on the basis of factors unfamiliar to outsiders, including caste, language and “character”–a euphemism for chastity. About 15% of profiles are filled in not by the prospective bride or groom but by their parents. And now Indian sites are challenging Western matchmaking companies on their own turf. Shaadi CEO Vibhas Mehta says 30% of its business comes from the U.S., Europe, Australia and the Middle East. Perhaps love needs no translation after all.

According to a report from The Media Audit, adults who are nearing retirement are now one of the fastest growing demographics in the country. 17.9% of all U.S. adults are now retired, a figure that has increased by 6% in the last five years and will rapidly increase as Boomers exit the workforce over the next few decades.

Consumption habits of aging Americans are likely very different from those of their predecessors because they are living longer, achieving higher levels of education, are wealthier, and redefining what it means to be retired.

• 83% of the retired adults in the U.S now own their own home
• Thirty percent of retired adults have cash, stocks and CD’s valued at more than $100,000, the highest figure ever reported
• 13.1% of new automobile purchasers are retired, compared to 11.1% five years ago. 8.3% of adults who have a car loan are retired, compared to 6.4% five years ago, an increase of nearly 30%
• 16% of adults who frequently stay in hotels are retired, compared to 14.7% five years ago, a jump of almost 10%
• Among frequent beer consumers, 13% are retired, compared to 11.3% five years ago
• Adults who are retired are 6% more likely than the average U.S. adult to frequently dine out at a full service restaurant and retirees now make up nearly 20% of all adults who frequently dine out.
• 14.3% adults who plan to take an ocean cruise in the next year are retired.

Nearly one in five adults who plan to have lasik eye surgery are retired, and are 5% more likely than the average adult to be planning a lasik eye surgery procedure.

The report further reveals that adults who are retired today compared to the average U.S. adult:

• Spend nearly 30% more time watching broadcast TV,
• 14% more time watching cable TV
• 25% more time reading a daily newspaper

Retired adults today spend only 89 minutes per day online, a figure that is 26% less than the average U.S. adult who spends 123 minutes per day online. The next generation of retirees, though, is expected to be more computer and internet friendly, since Baby Boomers between the ages of 45 and 64 spend a considerably higher amount of time online - 123 minutes per day.

The most affluent retirees can be found in larger markets such as Washington, D.C., where the average retired adult earns $64,000 in household income.

San Jose, California, Fort Myers- Naples, Florida, San Francisco, California and Long Island, New York, follow behind with household incomes of more than $50,000.

And, currently the top ranking retiree markets are:

• Ocala, Florida with the highest percentage of retired adults (36%)
• Fort Myers- Naples, Florida (34%)
• Daytona Beach, Florida (33%)
• West Palm Beach, Florida (31%)
• Melbourne-Titusville-Cocoa, Florida (29%)

For more information from the MediaAudit, please visit them here.

How is the growth of the social networking industry effecting the online dating industry?

Alex Burmaster: The growth of SNing in has certainly impacted the online dating industry in the UK. Networking with friends, and friends of friends, has certainly stolen some of online dating’s thunder. The sector has pretty much been declining each month over the last year. In the UK it is actually now at a level that it was back at June 2005.

Interestingly, this is not the case in the US. The personals and SNing sectors actually seem to follow the same pattern of fall/growth.

Have the top 3 dating sites extended their lead over the last couple of years?

Alex Burmaster: No, in contrast, the differences between the leading sites in terms of popularity are closer than they were a year ago – both in the EU and the US.

Do you see the market fragmenting, or consolidating?

Alex Burmaster: This is very difficult to predict and one could argue for a case both ways. Volume is the key to the success of online dating so one would think consolidation is the way to go. However, niche’s are on the way back in many sectors – particularly social networking, so perhaps fragmentation will be the name of the game

Who are showing the strongest growth here and in Europe?

Alex Burmaster: Over the last year (Feb 07 – Feb 08) these are the strongest growing personals sites in the US…

(Nielsen Online)

…and in Europe

(Nielsen Online)

The four sites with no growth figure means they didn’t show up amongst the most popular sites in EU in Feb 07 so their growth must have been good!!

How many people visited dating sites in the USA, and the countries that you cover in the EU, last month?

US = 25.8 million
DE = 5.6 million
FR = 4.7 million
UK = 3.6 million
IT = 2.7 million
ES = 2.3 million
(Nielsen Online)

For Social Networking Watch?

How are the major social networks in the USA, growing in the International markets?


(Nielsen Online)

Who are the standouts?


(Nielsen Online)

What social networks are showing the strongest growth potential in the EU and USA?

Alex Burmaster: We think the greatest growth potential will be niche’s around a particular area of interest e.g. business (LinkedIn) music (Imeem) travel (WAYN) etc

Are niche networks undermining the larger networks?

Alex Burmaster: We are seeing a plateauing of the larger networks, which is to be expected as they hit critical mass, and we expect the niche’s to grow, although they aren’t necessarily the cause of the plateauing.

How many people visited social networks in the USA, and the coutries that you cover in the EU, last month?

Member communities category (social networks & blogging)
US = 104 million
UK = 18.9 million
FR = 17.6 million
IT = 15.1 million
DE = 14.6 million
ES = 11.7 million
(Nielsen Online)