LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
The 5 Types of Network Effects and How to Hack Them
The 5 Types of Network Effects and
How to Hack Them
Society is built upon a story. The glue that holds humanity
together is fiction, a creatively invented story for “the greater
Look at money. Why trade our lives for paper? Wars are
waged over this meaningless money. And money my friends
is the one bubble that’s never popped.
Money’s also the source of power for government. Before that
it was royalty, and force. Before rulers were gods, or ordained
by the gods… and on and on. The power of stories defines
For anyone who does not know, a Ponzi scheme is an elaborate scam where you
pay to participate and just need to convince 3 friends to convince 3 friends to
convince 3 friends… and so the money flows. Notice the pyramid-esque nature.
This is a Ponzi scheme, aka a scam. And it is illegal.
(BTW we aren’t talking about ICOs
and cryptocurrencies, which are
definitely a ponzi scheme (plus much
more). For more on ICOs boom, bust
and rebirth, and see this post)
You have probably heard of
Bernie Madoff. He ran the
most infamous Ponzi scheme
ever, stealing a supposed
$65B for “innocent”
But that begs the questions:
where are Bezos and
Zuckerberg on this list?
You could argue today’s social networks look eerily similar to a Ponzi scheme (still
a far cry from ICO scammyness). The dynamics of a connected world create
tangible value for network members and enormous financial rewards for the
creator(s) of the network.
As an investor, I am constantly looking for startups with true network effects.
Companies able to leverage the flywheel of continuously increasing value warrant
From social platforms like: Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp to B2C
marketplaces like Amazon, Airbnb and Uber, successful network effects
result in nearly untouchable monopolies (for more on today’s monopolies
stifling innovation, see this post).
And network effects aren’t only applicable to consumer companies. Look
at Slack and Box.
What do all these companies have in common? Great products with killer
One of the most important responsibilities of any startup founder is acquiring customers.
Without users and cash, the business dies. Network effects and “virality” are two of the
most crucial strategies for organic growth.
And organic growth built the unicorns and tech behemoths of today. Few giants grow
from paid acquisition — the costs are just too high. And as markets saturate, CAC rises.
This is not true with true network effects. Instead
as networks grow, all participants benefit and
CAC remains constant, if not decreasing.
Look at Amazon. Onboarding initial buyers and sellers was hard. It was just a
bookstore. Fast forward to today to the Everything Store. Suddenly Amazon’s
doing $136B/yr and sellers everywhere are scrambling to get onboard. Amazon
doesn’t need to pay a dime.
And customers come too. When Amazon has more options and better prices
than Walmart, and delivers to your door, it isn’t even fair. Amazon’s flywheel fixes
their initial capital challenges, increases margins, decreases CAC and drives
LTV through the roof.
Not all businesses can leverage NFx. And even many that do
have limits (which is why Airbnb’s a 100x better business
The 5 types of network effects
1. Marketplaces — aka Two Sided Networks
2. Channel partners — aka Three Sided Networks
3. Communications networks
4. Content networks
5. Local networks
1. Marketplaces — Two sided networks
The first and most obvious type of network the market. Markets have
existed since the dawn of time and grown exponentially in the internet era.
Markets just make sense. People have needs and wants — from your
stomach to sex to survival, markets pop up around every conceivable
human want and desire. These traditionally consist of buyers and sellers.
Historically, prior to the rise of cities, nomadic traders travelled between
small settlements, continuously peddling their wares and pulling in profit.
Farmers bought tools, craftsmen bought meats and traders traded in
Notice the movement. Traders came to the
people. This has not changed. As buyers
aggregate, sellers somehow find their way.
Because acquiring customers is so much harder than acquiring sellers,
businesses need to spend the bulk of their resources focused on buyers. As the
number and quality of buyers in a market increase, companies can start to focus
more on sellers — specifically quality control.
Look at Amazon and Ebay. What is the primary difference, besides success?
Ebay’s auction platform that encourages negotiation and lowball offers, hurting
sellers and slowing the speed of transactions. This attracts low price, unattractive
Amazon does the exact opposite. They focus on
seller quality, ensuring good customer experiences
which leads to more word of mouth.
Buyers don’t brag about Ebay, sellers either. But
everyone and their mother talks about Amazon.
That is because Amazon is fast, cheap and easy
to use — everything Ebay is not.
Building a two-sided market? NPS is incredibly important (first for buyers, then for
sellers). Onboard customers, make the process fast and seamless and suddenly
you have a sharable marketplace.
Two-Sided Marketplace Examples
Low Tech: shopping centers, farmer’s markets and brothels.
Tech: Airbnb, Uber, Amazon
Strengths of marketplaces
1. Nearly untouchable after critical
2. Monopolistic pricing power to
3. Low maintenance and
operating costs once
established (unless like
Amazon you own distribution)
4. Huge valuation multiples due to
strength of network
Weaknesses of marketplaces
1. Very challenging to acquire
2. Need to balance supply and
3. Cash intensive to get started
4. Revenue lags growth
2. Channel partners — Three sided networks
Not all commerce is conducted via a platform. The reason?
Acquiring customers in a nascent market is hard.
Because the business models and structures of marketplaces
and channel partnerships are so different, most companies
cannot do both well.
A real world example. As an ecommerce/Amazon strategist, I’ve
consulted for numerous public companies on their future and the world
of Amazon. These corporates knew they needed to increase sales
online but they had a problem.
To sell on a marketplace meant alienating existing distributors
(channel partners). If XYZ competes with their distributors, distributors
suffer and thus XYZ suffers. Can you kill the aging golden goose?
Perhaps the best example of the monopolistic power for this type of network is
Microsoft. Microsoft owned the desktop and personal computing space. They built
a vast network of suppliers and channel partners and then squeezed them.
Companies could not afford to exclude Windows and Microsoft Office, users HAD
to have it.
And because legacy systems and software were all built and reliant upon Windows,
switching costs were prohibitively high. So Gates got to charge mafia money — pay
the ransom or watch your business burn…
Most channel partnerships do not go like this. That said, it is usually the
responsibility of the brand to boost awareness — unless you pick your
partners well. Take for instance bookkeeping. Few entrepreneurs know,
like or care about bookkeeping. They just need to get it done. So they find
a bookkeeper who uses and recommends Xero.
Now the owner has two choices: find a new bookkeeper or use Xero.
Inevitably most buy in. That is how Xero became a ~$4.5B business, off
the back of recommendations (aka channel partnerships or affiliate
Channel partnerships do not work for every type of business. It really depends on
the product and end customer. They can be massively lucrative and scalable
when done right.
Channel partnerships require trust and demand generation — both of which can
come from you or your partner. Here the medium and product play a large role.
For instance grocery stores get millions of pitches, they aren’t going to
push your product. It is up to the brand to create demand and move
inventory. If they can’t, shelf space goes to someone who can.
A great counter example would be podcast marketing. Joe Rogan (the
UFC guy with a massive podcast audience) singlehandedly turned the
Fleshlight into a huge hit. The adult product was Joe’s first advertising
partnership and the product hit it off, quickly connecting with Joe’s
audience and outside the box approach — the company didn’t need to
do a thing…
What type of channel partnership can your company leverage?
Weaknesses of channel
1. Long sales cycle for onboarding
2. Demand/trust component
3. Lower margins
4. Less direct contact with end
5. More dependent on partners, thus
Strengths of channel
1. Outsourced acquisition means
lower capital expenditure
2. Ability to scale sales quickly with
3. Low maintenance and operating
costs once established
4. Ability to focus more on core
3. Communication networks
Successful social media companies warrant crazy valuations. Instagram sold for
$1B before making a buck. Snap has yet to prove they can make money and are
valued at ~$17B. And don’t forget the 500k pound gorilla in the room, Facebook’s
Communication is one of the truest forms of network effects. For every new user,
my value goes up. If ½ my friends are on and ½ are off, there are ONLY two
options: onboard everyone or switch to something better.
Imagine if your cell phone could only make calls within your carrier’s
network. Joe’s on Tmobile, mom and dad have AT&T, grandma’s got
Verizon… you would need 3 different phones and 3 different plans.
The same is true for social. Everyone or no one. If you have to switch
between apps and services, you are not going to stick around.
But with communication the viral component is key. Add all your friends. Invite
everyone on LinkedIn. Want to join Whatsapp?
The pressure to grow the network for my own personal reasons does the dirty
work for them. Facebook isn’t spamming my friends, I am. And I and billions like
me built a 2B+ person network worth $531B+.
The key to communications networks is onboarding — as
quickly as possible. Networks that leverage users’ social
proof scale. Networks that pay to acquire customers fail.
It is that simple.
Given these dynamics, it is no surprise that social networks are winner take all.
And that justifies massive valuations and upfront investments.
In winner take all markets, monetizing too soon can be catastrophic. In social, the
outdated VC mantra of “growth at all costs” actually makes sense. Any advertising,
any monetization and you risk reduced NPS scores and lower virality (the two
MOST important aspects of any communication network).
Communication Network Examples:
Low Tech: fax, mail, phone
Tech: Facebook, Whatsapp, Slack
Weaknesses of communication
1. Require lots of capital and runway
to get started
2. Need very strong NPS score to
3. No direct monetization model
4. Some networks get too big to
control the noise
Strengths of communication
1. Viral growth as users onboard their
2. Increasing value as # of users
3. Low maintenance and operating
costs once established
4. Massive switching costs to leave
4. Content networks
Whereas communication networks involve two-sided, near real-time
communication, content networks are much more one-sided. And as they say,
content is king — and it lasts.
Content does for eyeballs and attention what markets do for commerce, it
aggregates it. And content has long been a profitable business. Look at
magazines and newspapers (pre-internet). These publications put out content,
users subscribe (pay) and advertisers add tons of ads. The editors can sell ad
space because readers are hooked and keep coming back for more.
And unlike communication networks, the one-sided nature of
content allows it to scale easier. An article or video can have
100 or 100M views without much increase in base costs.
There are two keys to creating a killer content network: 1) the
content and 2) the hook.
It is one thing to wow readers or viewers, it is another to get them coming back.
But because advertising is such a weak monetization model, it means you need
big volume and better have users coming back for more.
This is where the hook comes in. In television it is the cliffhanger ending that
makes you come back next week (or next episode with Netflix). But blogs do this
too. It is all about subscribing and remarketing again and again and again to drive
Content networks function inversely to marketplaces. Whereas marketplaces
make money by initially aggregating buyers, content companies need creators.
Without the first few landmark pieces, people get bored.
This is why organizations like Youtube or Netflix spend so heavily on content
(empowering creators and creating content respectively). Evergreen content
keeps producing, even after production ends.
And with all great content, people love sharing. How many of your friends
recommended Game of Thrones or House of Cards or that horrible Gangnam
Style video? People want to feel cool and know about things before their
friends — look at any social feed.
Any content network that optimizes for quality and creativity can create a massive
loyal following — as long as it effective remarkets and suggests additional content.
Content Network Examples:
Low Tech: newspaper, TV, radio
Tech: Youtube, Instagram,
Strengths of content networks
1. Evergreen content continually delivers
2. Value (and potential customer base) increases as amount of content grows
3. Creators do much of early marketing for you
4. Large switching costs for creators leave network
5. Low to no cost of content creation
Weaknesses of communication networks
1. Onboarding creators or creating content is expensive/hard
2. Need very strong NPS score to encourage sharing
3. No direct monetization model
4. Some networks get too big to control the noise
5. Local Networks
Last but not least, we have local networks. As technology and the internet have
connected the world, these networks have struggled. That said they are still very
relevant, especially the dynamics behind them.
Local networks will never die, unless VR ends reality. Look at humanity’s basic
needs: food, clothing, shelter, sex/relationships. All of these are physical, tangible
and heavily influence our daily lives.
And evolution bred society into humanity. We are social creatures. We are built to
connect. Whether that is meeting for dinner, going to the game, poker night or a
casual hookup, we tend to aggregate ourselves.
Think about sports? Almost every American has a TV. You could watch any game
at home, whenever you wanted. So why do fans buy tickets? Why are sports pubs
No one likes drinking alone...
These dynamics are what make local networks so strong? Church groups,
sports teams, the neighborhood pool… there are local networks all around us.
The problem with local networks is that they are small. For the most part they
are not VC fundable. But businesses based locally with nationwide scale can
Look at Meetup— local networks of everything under the sun, organized by
location and interest — like the Reddit or real life.
You build massive companies like this one piece at a time. Facebook was a local
network before it was a communication network. The keys to growth: focus on one
target customer in one location at one time.
A leaking ship eventually sinks. Networks that try to scale before perfecting the
model need significantly more capital and still usually fail.
Franchisees are perfect example of this model. McDonalds started small,
perfected the experience and slowly started to scale. Ray Kroc (not
actually the founder), focused on each locale, perfecting the process and
exciting the public. From their the franchise spread as nationwide and
then international demand exploded.
Local Network Examples:
Low Tech: restaurant, sports teams, church group
Tech: Meetup.com, Tinder, Nextdoor
Strengths of local networks
1. Easy to interact with early adopters/customers
2. Brand ambassadors help with much of marketing
3. In-person events drive greater emotional attachments
4. Every new city/expansion increases business defensibility
Weaknesses of communication networks
1. Scaling presents logistical challenges
2. Once it “works”, users may no longer need app (example: Tinder, Match.com
3. Culture fit/demand differences between regions
4. Need to compete with increasingly digital world
Network effects are one of the strongest indicators of business model success.
Organic growth eats paid acquisition for breakfast.
Unfortunately designing network effects isn’t exactly easy. Hopefully the concepts
discussed in this post help you better understand your business model.
For more on how Amazon is killing ecommerce and the implications for retail,
check out this post.
For more on implications of tech monopolies ending innovation, check out this
Interested in startup investing? The
Syndicate podcast interviews top investors
like Gil Penchina, Semil Shah, Zach Coelius
and more for engaged discussions on tech
investing, startups and business trends.
Website | iTunes | Android | Soundcloud
Yes, These Buttons are Clickable/Shareable Links
Sharing is caring...
Like the presentation? Come say Hi!